u/ShimonEngineer55

I want to start this off by saying that the fact that there is no such thing as a Palestinian state logically doesn't mean that I support the mistreatment of people in Gaza or Yehuda and Shomron. I also clearly don't support the terrorism that has been inflicted on Israeli's and even foreigners as we saw on October 7th and beyond. I think that both sides should be humanized. However, I think that a good starting point would be coming back down to reality because the false idea that there is a Palestinian state or that they are entitled to statehood is a major sticking point that I think has expanded the conflict.

1. Under international law we use the Montevideo convention of 1933 to determine statehood. This will be the universe of discourse we use to determine statehood since although it originated in the America's, it was used as the baseline for statehood under international law from the 20th century to today. Four criteria must be met for statehood. There needs to be a permanent population, clearly defined borders, a government, and the ability to enter relations with other states. This is an and logic gate, so each of this four criteria must be met. If one fails, it is not a state. Further, under the US Restatement of Law the government must have control over the population, so simply having a permanent population is not enough.
2. First, the Palestinians have no land title over Gaza or Yehuda and Shomron. They rejected the 1947 partition plan openly and the borders therein. They admit this in article 19 of the Palestinian national covenant and don't even view the founding of Israel as legal. We also see that even President Abbas Abbas admits that not accepting UN resolution 181 (the partition) was a grave mistake. They openly admit that they rejected these borders long after Israel declared as a state and that they must purge the Zionist entity [emphasis mine] from Palestine. Even when there were discussions for the declaration of principles (Oslo) the Palestinian representatives admitted that borders were still an issue in article 5 section 3. This is damning because they declared a state 5-years before, but willingly admitted to the public that they were still hashing out what their borders were, meaning they didn't meet the criteria of a state. These were all decades after Israel had already declared a state. A state that Hamas won't even acknowledge exists because they live in a delusion. Therefore, it is clear that they don't meet the criteria for defined borders since they're the ones who rejected them.
3. We then hear the point that they want to return to 1967 borders. This is illogical given the evidence above because they had no borders in 1967 because they rejected them. This is why UN resolution 242 and 338 were later passed. They knew that 181 was a failure. Further Jordan was illegally occupying East Jerusalem and Yehuda and Shomron in 1967, and it was Egypt that was Egypt who illegally controlled Gaza. Going back to 1967 borders would still lead a stateless people with either Israel controlling the land, as it should, or Jordan and Egypt illegally occupying those territories. It wouldn't lead to a Palestinian state that didn't exist, so this point is always nonsensical and it makes my alarms go off when you add this to the fact that even the moderate 2017 Hamas charter doesn't recognize a Palestinian state. 1967 borders is code word for we messed up so please give a state so that we can get weapons to obliterate Israel and don't notice how nonsensical what we are asking for is.
4. There is a concept in international law known as Uti Possidetis Juris. It means that if there is a colonial or mandated entity that controls a territory, the state that declares from it takes all of the territory of that colonial or mandated entity. This was invoked everywhere else pretty much in the 20th century specifically to avoid conflicts like this, including in the ENTIRE LEVANT. This concept effectively means that from the River to the Sea is legally Israeli, not Palestinian territory since, as highlighted above, they didn't declare a state in 48 while Israel actually did. Israel technically has clearly defined borders based on the mandate, similar to how Nigeria, Lebanon, or Iraq have clearly defined borders after they declared when either colonialist, or mandated entities left. I mention Nigeria because the international community mostly backed them when the Igbo wanted to start a state called Biafra, making a similar argument as Palestinians. They claimed that they didn't support the British borders, but it was YEARS AFTER Nigeria had already formed. And it wasn't as absurd as the Palestinian claim that took decades to make, but this was after only 7-years. And guess what? Most of the world told them to sit down, they should've declared, and they had to deal with the reality that they weren't getting a state. Many died, but the world knew that territorial borders had to be protected. I won't speculate as to why Israel is being held to a different standard than everyone else in the 20th century that formed a state.
5. Yet another damning admission is that they never had effective control of the population since either Egypt, Jordan, or Israel has always had de-facto control. They admitted this during Oslo and were looking to eventually transfer control, which never happened. Israel effectively controls these areas and is the only state sovereign. So, this runs counter to the US Restatement of Law that I mentioned before in which the government has to ultimately have control of the population; which they admitted to not having and wanted it transferred over which never really occurred due to Oslo falling apart. When it comes to economics, movement, logistics, and rules, the Palestinians have never acted independent of another state, which rules out the sovereign government that is needed to rule over the population in order to meet the definition of statehood.

I could keep going, but I don't want to make this overly verbose. Notice how I also didn't mention recognition by the way. Even the countries that recognize Palestine as a state interestingly call for it to eventually become a state because they know it doesn't meet the criteria of the Montevideo convention. This again, is something that any logical person would see immediately as a contradiction. "Oh, they're a state, but they don't meet the criteria for statehood and you even admit the goal is for a future state although you symbolically recognize them." So, simply saying, "they are recognized by some countries," is silly. Biafra is recognized by some states, but as highlighted above, it was a moot point and the same logic applies here since the universe of discourse is the Montevideo convention.

Hopefully this realization brings about realistic resolutions. Again, Uti Possidetis Juris exists specifically to avoid these conflicts, and hopefully we can find logical and caring solutions that end the conflict.