YAAKOV

Ponderings and Links on Israel and Jewish Issues and Technology

Articles Posted: 72 Links Seeded: 601

Member Since: 1/2006 Last Seen: 5/15/2012

Is the Palestinian Authority a Sovereign State?

Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:44 PM EDT

world-news, israel, middle-east, palestine, hamas, pa, palestinian-authority

By Yaakov

Advertise | AdChoices

According to the Jerusalem District Court, yes, it is.

In a recent ruling, Judge Boaz Okon ruled that (Haaretz, 4/23/06):

the PA consists of population, territory and government, and, as it accumulates other aspects of a sovereign state, such as elected political authorities, international standing, police force and an independent currency, it will increasingly resemble a political entity.

The judge continued in his verdict:

"One sovereign state does not rule over another sovereign state and does not put it on trial...even if one state does not recognize the other entity as a sovereign state it is not exempt from respecting the rights of that entity by force of international law.

Carl from Israel Matzav points out that this ruling, if ratified by the Israeli Supreme Court and especially if it is adopted by foreign countries, can raise a number of questions:

Verdicts issued in Israel are unenforceable in PA territory (the ruling in this case)
Terror attacks launched from PA land against Israel are not just terror attacks, they are acts of war. Israel will then be allowed (under the international law so often quoted in accusations against Israel) to respond in the same manner as any other country could when attacked
Israel will have a harder time claiming that the Geneva Conventions do not apply in Judea and Samaria (if Judea and Samaria would in fact meet the criteria of being called sovereign PA land. As the current ruling only addresses land in "Area A", it is not clear if Judea and Samaria would meet this criteria any time soon)

I can also think of some other possible repercussions that could stem from this ruling:

The "security fence" suddenly achieves much greater importance, and has much more influence in deciding "final borders"
It is much harder to argue against Israel's right to close its border with Gaza, block passage of workers over the border, cut off electricity, etc. After all, it has no responsibility to have an open border or supply an enemy country
If and when the PA would claim that they are a sovereign state, they lose much of their bargaining power for territory inside of Israel

In short, a whole new ballgame.

Is this a good development for Israel? The Palestinians? Both? Neither?

Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Yaakov's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: Israel

Public Discussion (13)

TopJedi

The Palestinian Authority is as much a state as Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Recognizing the PA as a state could very likely result in many of the repercussions you list.

1 vote

#1 - Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:46 PM EDT

the egyptian

I saw the Haaretz article this morning. It's an interesting case but I'm not sure it's very significant as it is only a district court ruling. I don't know much about the Israeli judicial system but if it is anything like ours I suspect the ruling will be thrown out by the Supreme Court when it goes there (as I am sure it will) on the grounds of something like our political question doctrine.

From wikipedia:

In United States law, a ruling that a matter in controversy is a political question is a statement by a federal court, declining to rule in a case because: 1) the U.S. Constitution has committed decision-making on this subject to another branch of the federal government; 2) there are inadequate standards for the court to apply; or 3) the court feels it is prudent not to interfere.

I will say this: rulings like this one are one of the reasons I like the Israelis so much. I don't think any occupying power in the history of the world has subjected its actions to judicial review.

2 votes

#2 - Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:54 PM EDT

Yaakov

I think that the opposite is often true here. There is no constitution. In the past, the courts here have not been shy about using their power to affect political decisions (which it is not their business to do...but with no constitution governing their powers, there is nothing to stop them).

For more on the subject, see this post (from the same blog author quoted above), specifically focussing on the fifth and sixth paragraphs which explain that the normal standards of "standing" and "justiciability" are not applied in Israel the way that they are in most other places.

1 vote

#2.1 - Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:05 PM EDT

upright ape

I think it is mostly a good development, although wrought with problematic reprecussions. Sovereignty is not a judgement of the quality of an authority only its legitimacy to issue that authority.

it will increasingly resemble a political entity

That the judge recognizes the PA as a political entity is an incremental process is important, I think. The PA is vested with authorities, but it is weak, which is why I don't think you can construe terrorist attacks as acts of war. The election of Hamas, the appointment of a terrorist as security chief, etc, could lead to the PA being in an open state of war with Israel, but I don't think this decision is related to that. This decision is on the sovereigny of the Palestinian people, not what they do with that sovereignty.

1 vote

#3 - Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:57 PM EDT

bramhubbell

Terror attacks launched from PA land against Israel are not just terror attacks, they are acts of war. Israel will then be allowed (under the international law so often quoted in accusations against Israel) to respond in the same manner as any other country could when attacked

I don't think this claim is accurate. In order for the attacks to be called "acts of war," the people committing the attacks would have to be representatives of the Palestinian government or part of the Palestinian military. Attacks by individuals could not be labeled Palestinian acts of war. It would be similar to saying that Saudi Arabia committed an act of war against the US because many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. It doesn't work logically.

2 votes

#4 - Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:34 PM EDT

Yaakov

the people committing the attacks would have to be representatives of the Palestinian government or part of the Palestinian military

Well, what do you think Hamas is?

#4.1 - Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:47 PM EDT

bramhubbell

Well, what do you think Hamas is?

The last attack was committed by a representative of Islamic Jihad. Hamas has not committed any terrorist attacks in over a year.

I'd also be willing to bet that Hamas, or any other Palestinian party that found itself in control of a sovereign Palestinian state, would quickly distance itself from the use of terrorism.

1 vote

#4.2 - Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:10 AM EDT

Yaakov

I'd also be willing to bet that Hamas, or any other Palestinian party that found itself in control of a sovereign Palestinian state, would quickly distance itself from the use of terrorism.

And what do you base this bet on? All indications I have seen so far have been that Hamas, despite the numerous times other countries (including even Russia and France) have asked them to denounce their goals of destroying Israel, have remained steadfast to their mission.

Check out what the new Palestinian head of security, Jamal Abu Samhadana, has to say: 'Jews are our enemy. I will pull the trigger whenever required'. This is the public face of Hamas. They don't look like they are planning on distancing themselves from terrorism any time soon.

1 vote

#4.3 - Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:25 AM EDT

I SPY

They certainly behave as a sovereign state. They would at least be considered a nation state (fourth world)

#4.4 - Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:02 AM EDT

bramhubbell

Yaakov:

And what do you base this bet on? All indications I have seen so far have been that Hamas, despite the numerous times other countries (including even Russia and France) have asked them to denounce their goals of destroying Israel, have remained steadfast to their mission.

I have nothing to base my bet on other than Hamas' willingness to abide by its position to not commit acts of terrorism over the past year.
As for Jamal Abu Samhadana and Hamas' rhetoric, as opposed to Hamas' actions, I would point to President Bush. He says lots of crazy things, but that doesn't mean he's going to do them. If words are a causus belli, there are lots of states that should be ready to go to war with the US.
I will always say that I do not approve of terrorism and violence or threats of either, but I also will not punish a state unless it attacks another. At the moment, Hamas has a shown a willingness to abide by its ceasefire. We should be encouraging that instead of looking for ways to undermine Hamas.

1 vote

#4.5 - Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:09 AM EDT

Yaakov

He says lots of crazy things, but that doesn't mean he's going to do them

Bush may not do the crazy things he says he will (or does he)...but this guy does. He has been one of the people in charge of the Kassam missile attacks against Israel and has no problem with committing violence against civilians.

1 vote

#4.6 - Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:35 AM EDT

TopJedi

While we consider this Israeli court ruling, add to the mix the longstanding Hamas charter to remove Israel from the region. Combine the volatile cocktail with Ahmadinejad's public commitment of Iran's support for his PA brothers against Israel, and a subsequent donation of $50,000,000 to the PA and you have the disturbing potential of very serious repercussions building in the region.

1 vote

#4.7 - Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:36 AM EDT

bramhubbell

Yaakov:

Bush may not do the crazy things he says he will (or does he)...but this guy does. He has been one of the people in charge of the Kassam missile attacks against Israel and has no problem with committing violence against civilians.

I know who Abu Samhadana is and what he has done in the past, but it doesn't change what I've already said. You have to place faith in what the people are doing at the moment and not judge them on past behavior alone. And I think the best example of this approach was Ariel Sharon. He committed numerous acts of violence against civilians at Sabra/Chatila. He was even condemned by the Israeli commission for what he did. But yet he was given the opportunity to redeem himself. The same could be said for Menachim Begin.

1 vote

#4.8 - Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:26 AM EDT

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
Newsvine is a property of

New Users:

Existing Users:

YAAKOV

Is the Palestinian Authority a Sovereign State?

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: