Expert debunks peers' bid to stop UK recognising Palestine as a state
The Convention, signed by 17 signatories in the Americas, set out four key criteria for statehood. The UK was not a signatory.
Richard McNeil-Willson, who lectures in the Islamic and Middle Eastern studies department at Edinburgh University, said that the interpretation was 'not only ludicrous' by a 'cynical' interpretation of the treaty.
READ MORE: Ipso defends chair for publicly opposing recognition of Palestine
And, Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said it was 'deplorable' that peers were trying to use legal technicalities while a genocide is underway.
The criteria under the Montevideo Convention sets out that a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other states.
But, McNeil-Willson explained there are several issues with that argument, adding that it was a 'spoiler attempt' to stop Palestinians from having 'basic rights'.
'It's very bizarre that this has been focused on by the 43 peers and signatories who essentially put forward these arguments that Palestine doesn't meet any of the four criteria," he said.
'You can look at this from a technical point of view, the letter of the law, and you can say, well clearly Palestine has a permanent population.
'It also has borders, and it has borders that are internationally recognised, and they are recognised under the International Court of Justice.'
(Image: Supplied) McNeil-Willson noted the claims that this applies as there isn't a functioning government in Palestine, there have been no elections for decades, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation, falls short.
'The [Montevideo Convention] doesn't care what kind of government is in place, if it's a democratic organisation, they wouldn't care if it's non-democratic authoritarian – that doesn't stop it from being recognised as a state,' he added.
'Equally, the idea that it's a terrorist organisation – if you look at contemporary international relations, the recognition of the Taliban as a government in Afghanistan, despite it being previously seen by the US and lots of Europe as a terrorist organisation.
'Then there's the HTS [Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham] in Syria which is now being recognised as the legitimate government of Syria, that doesn't change Syria's righteousness as a state. None of these ideas make any sense.'
McNeil-Willson added that under the interpretation put forward by the peers in the letter, the 147 states that have already recognised Palestine, including Mexico, Brazil, and Chile, who also signed the Montevideo Convention, are already in violation of international law.
READ MORE: 'Keir' name goes extinct after Starmer comes to power
'The arguments they're putting forward – that the population isn't permanent, the borders aren't recognised – are a direct result of Israel's genocide, of its bombing and its invasion,' he added.
'It's not only ludicrous, it's a very cynical view of the conflict that in no way takes Israel's role into account.'
He added: 'To Israel, the existence of Palestine is a threat. To Palestinians, it's simply a way of proclaiming basic human rights that should be granted to them.'
Scottish Greens co-leader Harvie said that recognition of Palestine as a state is 'long overdue'.
'It must be just the first step of many toward achieving peace, security and justice for the Palestinian people,' he added.
'To seek legal technicalities to block progress is deplorable. We should completely reject the idea that Palestine should be denied statehood because of factors which are entirely the result of Israel's occupation and illegal settlements over many years.
'The current genocide must end, the occupation must end, and the international community must finally take action against the state of Israel for its dehumanisation of Palestinians and hold war criminals accountable.'
We previously told how Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the UK Government would follow France's lead and officially recognise Palestinian statehood in September if Israel and Hamas do not agree to a ceasefire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
If Britain recognises a Palestinian state, it will be a gesture. That doesn't mean it is pointless
The idea that if you really, really believe something you can make it happen seems to be the best explanation for Britain and France's recent statements that they will recognise a Palestinianstate. No matter how fervent Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are, their fervour will not make an impossible thing happen. There is no Palestinian state, and there certainly won't be one by September. For mostly domestic political reasons, they have decided to set aside that fact. Recognition is an understandable gesture, but it will do nothing to solve the current famine, and is doomed in the short term because there is no real state to recognise. But there's also a clear reason why some sort of action – even if it's purely symbolic – is needed. The situation in Gaza is appalling. If Starmer and Macron proceed with recognition, how can we manage the short-term disappointment of recognising a state that does not exist, while moving towards a two-state solution in the long term? In 1933, the Montevideo convention, a treaty signed in the Uruguayan capital by 19 states, all from the Americas, set out criteria that had to be fulfilled when recognising a new state. The criteria were agreed at the international conference of American states but are applied by the whole international community. Although not formal legal requirements, they provide a useful framework when considering whether or not to recognise a state. The three most important are 'people', 'territory' and 'governance'. Is there a permanent population? Does that population occupy a defined territory whose borders it controls? And does it have a single recognised government? The international community has recognised the distinctiveness of the Palestinian people since the 1970s. That's the main reason why 78 countries recognised the state of Palestine within months of the Palestine National Council's declaration of independence in November 1988. But the Palestinians have never controlled their territory. The Oslo accords in 1993 gave full security control to the Palestinians in 18% of the West Bank. Over time, that area was supposed to enlarge. That never happened. And in 2007, Hamas took control of Gaza. The Palestinian Authority (PA), under the control of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), remained in charge in the West Bank, while Hamas controlled Gaza. Two rival Palestinian administrations remain in place. Widespread international recognition of Palestine has made no difference to the lives of ordinary Palestinians. So far, 147 UN member states have recognised Palestine, including China and Russia. When Ireland, Norway and Spain recognised Palestinian statehood last year, all four governments claimed that recognition sent a signal that couldn't be ignored. But it hasn't helped the Palestinian people one jot. Israel (and the US) barely noticed, beyond saying disobliging things about rewarding a 'death cult'. They didn't change their policy. UK and French action will probably be treated with the same contempt in Jerusalem and Washington. But, despite Israeli denigration of their action, London and Paris won't be able to agree effective measures to penalise Israel, such as sanctions. Both governments still believe in Israel and its right to defend itself. Both still abhor what happened on 7 October 2023, and still see manifest shortcomings in the way the PA is run. Both the UK and France as part of the EU proscribe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. In fact, British and French recognition may make matters worse. Hamas may see advantages in sweeping away the corrupt gerontocracy in Ramallah; it is more popular than the PA in the West Bank these days. Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn't subscribe to a two-state solution, may step up operations in both Gaza and the West Bank to underline who's in charge, and send a rather more effective message to Britain and France than they send to him. A two-state solution remains the only way to achieve long-term peace, but right now conditions for one could not be more hostile. For that reason, Britain and France recognising Palestine is an empty gesture. But the recognition boat seems to have sailed. Both Britain and France have made forward-leaning statements; governments find it hard to ignore incessant public demands. And public opinion is responding to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Collective punishment is unlawful. What Israel is doing to the population of Gaza because Hamas refuses to hand over 50 hostages (about 20 living and 30 dead) and dismantle its leadership amounts to collective punishment. Israel is not doing nearly enough to prevent starvation. By September, Israel won't have fulfilled the conditions that Starmer has set out to avert recognition. And Israel (and its supporters) will say that's no fault of Israel's. The British government will still have freedom of manoeuvre either to recognise the state of Palestine or postpone recognition. But at that point failing to recognise would look just as weak as I believe recognising looks right now. What to do? The government could recognise Palestine while acknowledging the weakness of doing so. Ministers should go easy on rhetoric claiming it's a historic moment, and focus instead on basic principles and the future. The only way for two peoples to live side by side in peace is for each to have its own state. Israel did not fulfil the criteria for statehood when it was first created. But Israel's friends overlooked its shortcomings, while its foes (such as Stalin) argued that the Jews were not even a people. The unique complexity of Israel/Palestine's history and geography will mean that the state of Palestine, when it's real, is likely to look different from any of the other 193 members of the UN. It might not have an army. It might not have exclusive control over its borders. But it will still be worth it. The Palestinian people deserve better than the fate they have suffered for decades, a fate which has deteriorated horribly since the ceasefire broke down in March this year. We must not forget them. Perhaps the best option in September would be for Britain to embrace the fact that it's making a gesture, and not pretend that gesture had immediate, far-reaching consequences. It would make the gesture recognising that time, hard work and imagination were still needed to reach the ultimate goal of a two-state solution, but that, at this desperate time, such a gesture was the last best hope to keep that solution alive. In diplomacy, it is vital not to mistake activity for effective action. But sometimes activity is all we have to offer. Lord McDonald of Salford was the British ambassador to Israel from 2003 to 2006, and permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020. He is now a crossbench peer
The Herald Scotland
8 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Smithsonian responds after Trump removed from impeachment exhibit
Smithsonian: Display restored to 2008 appearance The "impeachment" display is housed within the larger, permanent gallery called "The American Presidency," which opened in 2000, according to an emailed statement from the Smithsonian. It features information and artifacts about Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, according to the display's companion website. Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached. In September 2021, a "temporary label on content concerning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump" was added, according to the Smithsonian's statement. "It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025." The display has since been returned to how it appeared nearly 20 years ago, according to the Smithsonian statement and the Washington Post's report, which also noted that the exhibit now says, "only three presidents have seriously faced removal," omitting Trump. "In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibition needed to be addressed," the museum's statement said. "Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the 'Impeachment' case back to its 2008 appearance." Website highlights other impeached president s The companion website for the display does not include a dedicated section for the Trump impeachments but notes in an introductory sentence, "The House of Representatives impeached Andrew Johnson in 1868, William J. Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and again in 2021. In all four cases the Senate voted to acquit." It includes sections about Johnson's impeachment, including tickets and newspaper clips from the time; Nixon's Senate hearing and resignation, including testimony papers and photos from the proceedings; and Clinton's trial, with tickets and Senate question cards. 'All impeachments' coming in the future "A future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments," the Smithsonian statement said, noting that updating and renewing permanent galleries"requires a significant amount of time and funding." The Smithsonian declined to answer further questions about the change and the timeline for an updated exhibit. The controversy around the Smithsonian's change to the display comes after the White House in May pushed for the removal of art director Kim Sajet from her role as director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, citing her "strong support" of "DEI." In March, Trump also signed an executive order demanding the removal of "anti-American ideology" from the Smithsonian and other cultural institutions.
The Herald Scotland
8 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
More missiles: Senators want to renew stockpiles after Houthi strikes
"Recent operations in the Middle East illustrate how quickly modern warfare can exhaust our arsenal of critical munitions," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, the committee's chairman, said on July 31. "The administration's request did not fully maximize production capacity for certain critical munitions." Sen. Chris Coons, the defense subcommittee's top Democrat, told reporters it was one of the main areas that lawmakers want to fund far beyond what the Trump administration requested. "Recent experiences like the counter-Houthi campaign in the Red Sea, for example, demonstrates how quickly we're going through advanced munitions," Coons said. "Keeping pace with resupply to Ukraine has been a challenge," he added. Concerns about U.S. weapons stocks arose in July after the Pentagon paused deliveries to Ukraine for weeks during a "capability review" to ensure it had enough weapons for U.S. needs. Some lawmakers have said worries over U.S. stockpiles running low don't justify cutting off Ukraine's weapons. The Pentagon keeps its inventory of munitions classified. Its initial budget request included $2.5 billion to expand missiles and munitions production, and another $1.3 billion for "supply chain improvements," the Defense Department said. The Department "has robust air defense capabilities to protect American personnel and interests around the globe," it said in a statement. "We will not go into our inventory due to operational security, however I can tell you that the DOD [Defense Department] remains postured to respond to any threat." Houthi attacks burned through munitions President Donald Trump's bombing campaign against Houthi militants in Yemen - dubbed Operation Rough Rider - put a dent in U.S. stockpiles. In less than two months, the Pentagon spent at least $500 million on weapons on the operation, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Add in the cost of operations and the loss of several aircraft, and the bill tops $1 billion. It also attacked Houthi targets with some of the U.S. military's most sophisticated weapons, said the official who was not authorized to speak publicly. A Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity also said the operation had burned through hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons. The Defense Department has not informed Congress of how much the operation expended, the aide said. Over the course of the operation, two F/A-18E planes, valued at around $60 million apiece, accidentally slipped off aircraft carriers and sank into the Red Sea. The Houthis also downed nine MQ-9 Reaper drones, according to reports. Those cost $270 million in total. Trump abruptly cut off the operation on May 6, claiming that the Houthis "say they will not be blowing up ships anymore." That isn't how the conflict played out. The Houthis attacked and sank a Greek cargo ship in the past week and claimed responsibility for a missile launched towards the Israeli city of Jaffa. The Iran-backed group reiterated on July 27 its vow to attack any commercial ships destined for Israeli ports, no matter their country of origin, to pressure Israel to lift its blockade and siege of Gaza. Senators zero in on air defense Out of the $7.3 billion funding increase, the Senate Appropriations Committee wants $5.2 billion to buy more of those weapons. The remaining $2.1 billion would cover the cost of boosting production lines for advanced air defense, chief among them coveted air defense interceptors, including Patriot and THAAD missile systems, which can take out ballistic missiles. Patriots play an increasingly important role for Ukraine as Russia's missile and drone attacks have increased in recent months to their highest intensity in three-plus years of war. Trump said on July 13 he would send Ukraine "Patriots, which they desperately need." European allies have also offered to finance the weapons systems for Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on July 25 that Germany would pay for two systems, and Norway for one. Israel has used THAAD batteries provided by the United States to defend against volleys of Iranian missiles, including during the 12-day aerial war between the two countries in June.
