الثلاثاء، قبل الماضي، صدر من نيويورك، التي هي عاصمة النظام الدولي، إعلان يطالب النظام الدولي وأعضاءه (الدول) الاعتراف بالدولة الفلسطينية، مما يعكس توجّهاً أممياً، نحو قيام دولة فلسطينية على أرض فلسطين التاريخية، تقاسماً مع دولة (إسرائيل). هذا الأمر ليس جديداً، بل استحقاق للشعب الفلسطيني بقيام دولته المستقلة، بموجب قرار التقسيم الصادر عن الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة رقم: ١٨١، لسنة ١٩٤٨، تماماً، كما هو حال الدولة العبرية.
جهد أممي محمود، يعكس حباً أصيلاً للسلام، قادته المملكة العربية السعودية وفرنسا، لإحياء قرار أممي، صدر من النظام الدولي، في حق الشعب الفلسطيني، تأخر تطبيقه، لما يقرب من ثمانين عاماً، بسبب رفض إسرائيل، الطرف الآخر، المعني بذلك القرار، الذي هو راجع لاحتلال الدولة العبرية، لكامل أرض فلسطين التاريخية، بعد حرب الأيام الستة (٦-١١ يونيو ١٩٦٧)، حين استولت إسرائيل على كامل أرض فلسطين التاريخية، مع أراضٍ تابعة لثلاث دول عربية أخرى (مصر، سوريا، والأردن)، بالإضافة لمدينة القدس، التي خضعت للوصاية الدولية، بموجب قرار التقسيم.
أحداث السابع من أكتوبر ٢٠٢٣، التي ذكّرت العالم بالتطبيق الكامل لقرار التقسيم، طبعاً: مع الفارق في مواصفات الدولتين، من حيث السيادة الكاملة والهوية الدولية للدولة الفلسطينية، التي يراد قيامها، جنباً إلى جنب لدولة إسرائيل، تقاسماً، لأرض فلسطين التاريخية، بتواطؤ أممي، بداية بزوغ نظام الأمم المتحدة، عقب الحرب العالمية الثانية (١٩٣٩-١٩٤٥). إذن، بدايةً: مشروع إقامة دولة فلسطينية، على أرض فلسطين التاريخية، يؤسّس له بشرعية أممية، بموجب قرار أممي، تماماً: مثل إسرائيل. فالدولة الفلسطينية، من ناحية القانون الدولي، هي دولة معترفٌ بها، في نفس اليوم، الذي أُعلن فيه قيام إسرائيل، بموجب قرار التقسيم.
عموماً: من الناحية السياسية والقانونية: هناك ثلاثة عناصر أساسية (مادية) لقيام الدول، إذا ما توفرت هذه العناصر الثلاثة وهي: الشعب.. والإقليم، والحكومة الوطنية تنشأ الدولة القومية الحديثة. هذه العناصر الثلاثة متلازمة بعضها ببعض، في تكامل عضوي سياسي وقانوني وتاريخي. الدولة باختصار هي: إرادة شعب في ممارسة حقه بتقرير مصيره بقيام دولته المستقلة، ذات السيادة، على إقليمه، تحكمه حكومة وطنية، تفرض واقع سيادة إرادة الشعب (الحرة)، على كلٍ من الحكومة والأرض.
متى توفرت هذه الشروط الثلاثة، تقوم الدولة. ومن حق الدولة ممارسة حقها السيادي، في إقامة علاقات دبلوماسية مع دول أخرى أو قطعها.. ومن حقها السيادي أيضاً الانضمام للمؤسسات الدولية القائمة، أو اختيار العزلة الدولية.. ومن حقها السيادي،: عقد المعاهدات الدولية والاتفاقات الدولية والدخول في الأحلاف والتنظيمات الأممية، من عدمه.
باختصار، «الاعتراف الأممي» ما لم تتوفر عناصر الدولة (المادية) الثلاثة الأساسية، أولاً: ممكّن وأن يشكّل (عواراً) سياسياً وقانونياً، يطعن في شرعية الدولة، وليس بالضرورة، يدعم شرعية وجودها محلياً ودولياً. هذا ينطبق بصورة خاصة، على إسرائيل (القائمة) ودولة فلسطين المزمع قيامها، لما يعنيه ذلك نشأتهما بقرار أممي، وليس بإرادة شعبهما الحرة. الفرق بين الحالتين: أن إسرائيل من اليوم الأول وقبل قيامها عملت على بناء عناصرها المادية الأساسية، ولو اغتصاباً، بينما دولة فلسطين، من البداية حيل بينها وبين إكمال تأسيس عناصر الدولة (المادية) اللازمة لقيام الدولة الفلسطينية، بفعل حالة الاحتلال الإسرائيلي للأرض والقمع الوحشي للشعب، والأهم: عدم السماح بقيام حكومة فلسطينية، وليس مجرد «سلطة» تمارس السيادة الكاملة، على «نصيب» الدولة الفلسطينية، من أرض فلسطين التاريخية، هذا إذا ما سلمنا أن وجود إسرائيل نفسها على أي شبر من أرض فلسطين التاريخية، مشرع أصلاً.
فعدم زوال الاحتلال، الذي يحول دون توفر العناصر الأساسية (المادية) اللازمة لقيام الدولة الفلسطينية، إنما يشبه من يضع العربة قبل الحصان، فلا تستطيع العربة جر الحصان، ولا يستطيع الحصان دفع العربة. من هنا جاءت مشروعية مقاومة الاحتلال، التي يقرها القانون الدولي، الذي يتفوق، قانونياً وأخلاقياً، على التزام الدول السيادي، بالدفاع عن نفسها، بالجدل حول حصانتها الدولية، إذا ما تجاوزت ذلك، لحرمان الشعوب من حقها المشروع في تقرير مصيرها، بقيام دولتها القومية.
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
On Tuesday, the week before last, a declaration was issued from New York, which is the capital of the international system, calling for the international system and its members (the states) to recognize the State of Palestine. This reflects a global trend towards the establishment of a Palestinian state on the historical land of Palestine, shared with the State of Israel. This matter is not new; it is a right for the Palestinian people to establish their independent state, in accordance with the partition resolution issued by the United Nations General Assembly No. 181 of 1948, just as is the case with the Hebrew state.
A commendable international effort, reflecting a genuine love for peace, was led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and France to revive an international resolution issued by the international system regarding the Palestinian people, the implementation of which has been delayed for nearly eighty years due to Israel's refusal, the other party concerned with that resolution, which is due to the occupation by the Hebrew state of all the historical land of Palestine after the Six-Day War (June 6-11, 1967), when Israel seized all the historical land of Palestine, along with territories belonging to three other Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan), in addition to the city of Jerusalem, which was placed under international trusteeship, according to the partition resolution.
The events of October 7, 2023, reminded the world of the full implementation of the partition resolution, of course, with the difference in the specifications of the two states in terms of full sovereignty and the international identity of the Palestinian state that is intended to be established alongside the State of Israel, sharing the land of historical Palestine, with international complicity, beginning with the emergence of the United Nations system after World War II (1939-1945). Therefore, initially, the project to establish a Palestinian state on the historical land of Palestine is founded on international legitimacy, according to an international resolution, just like Israel. The Palestinian state, from the perspective of international law, is a recognized state, on the same day that the establishment of Israel was announced, according to the partition resolution.
In general, from a political and legal standpoint, there are three essential (material) elements for the establishment of states. If these three elements are available, namely: the people, the territory, and the national government, a modern nation-state is established. These three elements are interlinked in an organic political, legal, and historical integration. In short, the state is: the will of a people to exercise their right to self-determination by establishing their independent, sovereign state on their territory, governed by a national government that imposes the reality of the people's (free) will over both the government and the land.
When these three conditions are met, the state is established. The state has the right to exercise its sovereign right to establish diplomatic relations with other states or sever them. It also has the sovereign right to join existing international institutions or choose international isolation. Furthermore, it has the sovereign right to enter into international treaties and agreements and to join or refrain from international alliances and organizations.
In short, "international recognition," unless the three essential (material) elements of the state are available, can potentially constitute a political and legal flaw that challenges the legitimacy of the state and does not necessarily support its legitimacy locally and internationally. This particularly applies to Israel (the existing state) and the State of Palestine that is intended to be established, as it means their emergence by an international resolution, not by the free will of their peoples. The difference between the two cases is that Israel, from day one and before its establishment, worked on building its essential material elements, albeit through usurpation, while the State of Palestine has been hindered from completing the establishment of the necessary (material) elements for the establishment of the Palestinian state due to the Israeli occupation of the land and the brutal oppression of the people, and most importantly: the failure to allow the establishment of a Palestinian government, not just a "authority" that exercises full sovereignty over the "share" of the Palestinian state of the historical land of Palestine, assuming we accept that the existence of Israel itself on any inch of the historical land of Palestine is legitimate in the first place.
The failure to end the occupation, which prevents the availability of the essential (material) elements necessary for the establishment of the Palestinian state, resembles someone who puts the cart before the horse; the cart cannot pull the horse, nor can the horse push the cart. Hence, the legitimacy of resisting the occupation arises, which is recognized by international law, which legally and morally supersedes the sovereign obligation of states to defend themselves, in the debate over their international immunity, if they exceed that to deprive peoples of their legitimate right to self-determination by establishing their national state.
A commendable international effort, reflecting a genuine love for peace, was led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and France to revive an international resolution issued by the international system regarding the Palestinian people, the implementation of which has been delayed for nearly eighty years due to Israel's refusal, the other party concerned with that resolution, which is due to the occupation by the Hebrew state of all the historical land of Palestine after the Six-Day War (June 6-11, 1967), when Israel seized all the historical land of Palestine, along with territories belonging to three other Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan), in addition to the city of Jerusalem, which was placed under international trusteeship, according to the partition resolution.
The events of October 7, 2023, reminded the world of the full implementation of the partition resolution, of course, with the difference in the specifications of the two states in terms of full sovereignty and the international identity of the Palestinian state that is intended to be established alongside the State of Israel, sharing the land of historical Palestine, with international complicity, beginning with the emergence of the United Nations system after World War II (1939-1945). Therefore, initially, the project to establish a Palestinian state on the historical land of Palestine is founded on international legitimacy, according to an international resolution, just like Israel. The Palestinian state, from the perspective of international law, is a recognized state, on the same day that the establishment of Israel was announced, according to the partition resolution.
In general, from a political and legal standpoint, there are three essential (material) elements for the establishment of states. If these three elements are available, namely: the people, the territory, and the national government, a modern nation-state is established. These three elements are interlinked in an organic political, legal, and historical integration. In short, the state is: the will of a people to exercise their right to self-determination by establishing their independent, sovereign state on their territory, governed by a national government that imposes the reality of the people's (free) will over both the government and the land.
When these three conditions are met, the state is established. The state has the right to exercise its sovereign right to establish diplomatic relations with other states or sever them. It also has the sovereign right to join existing international institutions or choose international isolation. Furthermore, it has the sovereign right to enter into international treaties and agreements and to join or refrain from international alliances and organizations.
In short, "international recognition," unless the three essential (material) elements of the state are available, can potentially constitute a political and legal flaw that challenges the legitimacy of the state and does not necessarily support its legitimacy locally and internationally. This particularly applies to Israel (the existing state) and the State of Palestine that is intended to be established, as it means their emergence by an international resolution, not by the free will of their peoples. The difference between the two cases is that Israel, from day one and before its establishment, worked on building its essential material elements, albeit through usurpation, while the State of Palestine has been hindered from completing the establishment of the necessary (material) elements for the establishment of the Palestinian state due to the Israeli occupation of the land and the brutal oppression of the people, and most importantly: the failure to allow the establishment of a Palestinian government, not just a "authority" that exercises full sovereignty over the "share" of the Palestinian state of the historical land of Palestine, assuming we accept that the existence of Israel itself on any inch of the historical land of Palestine is legitimate in the first place.
The failure to end the occupation, which prevents the availability of the essential (material) elements necessary for the establishment of the Palestinian state, resembles someone who puts the cart before the horse; the cart cannot pull the horse, nor can the horse push the cart. Hence, the legitimacy of resisting the occupation arises, which is recognized by international law, which legally and morally supersedes the sovereign obligation of states to defend themselves, in the debate over their international immunity, if they exceed that to deprive peoples of their legitimate right to self-determination by establishing their national state.


