Hamas Leader Killed

[Shusha]

It should be but the REALITY is it isn’t and never has been a requirement for recognition.

It is. The State must make a declaration to abide by the obligations of the UN. The UN Security Council has to sign off before a new State is presented for vote into the UN at the GA. (Nine affirmative votes and no veto from the permanent members).

Is there a country which was actively belligerent towards another State which was admitted to the UN anyway?

It was also not required of Israel.

It was. Israel was not accepted into the UN until after she signed Armistice Agreements with Egypt and Jordan.

There have been multiple instances where Palestinians have agreed in principle with a two state solution without dismantling Israel and the remaining arguments are territorial or “right of return”. Likewise there are many recognized states at war with their neighbors who remain recognized. I think holding recognition based on this requirement is a device to draw out the process until logistically, it becomes impossible. Give them a state, something they can build or lose, hold them to the same requirements of any other state. Currently, this requirement is a double standard.

The remaining arguments must be solved before Palestine can be a State.

 

[Shusha]

Numerous states exist with contested territories, so mutual recognition dependent on complete peace is a not consistent requirement for statehood.

I do not believe this to be true, neither on a factual nor legal basis. But recognize I might be wrong, as I am not an expert on every country in the world. Can you give an example of a State which came into existence without having a defined territory? (Leaving aside Israel and Palestine for the moment).

 

[Shusha]

Gaza seperate from the West Bank then?

Yes. That is a current "facts on the ground" reality. The two populations share certain ideologies, but their realities and their politics are vastly different. Why not a four-state solution? (Israel, Jordan, Gaza, Palestine). And if, in the future, Gaza and Palestine want to form some sort of united alliance or merge into one country, whose to stop them?

Relating to Gaza, it is clearly not working.

It is very clearly not working to achieve Gaza's independence and statehood. So why are they continuing to perpetrate violence on Israel?

States can form out of separatist movements but they can also form out irreconcilable conflict and violence (examples that come to mind are North and South Sudan, Serbia/Bosnia). In none of those cases did they have to achieve that standard first, but they should be HELD to that standard once they have a state.

I'm not sure that is true. Sudan and South Sudan had a civil war, then a peace treaty with autonomy, then a referendum for secession, then independence and Statehood.

Gaza and Palestine should be at step 3 of that 4-step process. The civil war should be over. Move on to the peace process. Continued violence is not going to settle the questions of territory and return.