No Palestinian State

The Biblical and Legal Case against a Palestinian State in Canaan

The top map shows the borders of Canaan – “Israel’s inheritance”, as specified in Numbers 34 and in Ezekiel 47 (Image: Emmanuelm. Enlarge). The book of Numbers specifies the borders of Canaan as given to Moses, and the book of Ezekiel gives Israel’s borders in the Millennium. The similarity of the two boundary specifications is remarkable (in reality, the tribes of Israel spread beyond these borders under David’s and Solomon’s rule, link). Note that the borders in Numbers and Ezekiel includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Lebanon and parts of present-day Syria.

Also shown is the 1922 League of Nations sub-division of Palestine (Image: Eli E. Hertz, Enlarge). It is the 1922 sub-division that concerns the nations today. Put simply, they do not accept it and want to divide ancient Canaan, Israel’s inheritance, as an essential part of a “2-state solution” to the Palestinian problem.

As of 2024 there is only a Jewish State and no legal Palestinian State in the mandated land, despite what the media claims.

The Biblical Case Against a Palestinian State in Canaan

A Warning to the Nations

Whilst the world tries to justify a Palestinian State from a legal point of view (see later), the biblical case against a Palestinian State is very clear. The Bible clearly states that there should be no Palestinian State in the land covenanted to Abraham’s descendants, Israel: the land is NOT to be divided. Consider some key Old Testament references:

Modern-day Israel (ancient Canaan) is God’s land

The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine . . . (Leviticus 25:23)

God got angry when Old Testament nations stole the land:

Surely I have spoken in My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave My land to themselves as a possession . . . (Ezekiel 36:5)

and God threatened to uproot Israel if they followed other gods:

. . . then I will uproot them from My land which I have given them . . . (2 Chronicles 7:20)

At the end of this age, just before Christ returns, armies from the north will invade Israel. God says to the invaders:

It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land . . . (Ezekiel 38:16)

Now, if Canaan is God’s land, it follows that Jerusalem must also be the Lord’s:

For the Lord has chosen Zion [a hill of ancient Jerusalem]; He has desired it as His dwelling place. (Psalm 132:13)

Mount Zion is like the high mountains of the north;  it is the city of the Great King (Psalm 48:2)

As Land Owner, God can give it to whoever He wills

God made a covenant with Abraham:

To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates (Genesis 15:18)

Despite Israel’s future disobedience, this promise was unconditional in that the land was to be theirs forever; no strings attached:

I will give to you and to your descendants … all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:8)

This includes Jerusalem, from which Christ rules the nations upon His return to earth. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul summarises what happened to Abraham’s descendants as they entered Canaan:

When He [‘the God of Israel’] had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land as an inheritance . . . (Acts 13:19)

Here, as owner of the land, God used His legal right to make modern-day Palestine (ancient Canaan) Israel’s inheritance. So clearly, according to the Bible, present-day Israel is not occupying Palestinian land and there is no illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Israel cannot occupy what was never legally owned by another people. This crucial point is also underscored in Article 80 of the UN Charter (see later).

So God becomes angry when the nations seek to divide this relatively small piece of land – Israel’s inheritance. Here is the warning: the nations (UN take note) will be judged at the end of this age:

I will enter into judgement with the nations . . . (because) they have divided up My land (Joel 3:2)

But what about the Palestinians today?

Biblically there should be only one state in mandated Palestine – a Jewish State. So what about today’s Palestinians? The Bible instructs the people of Israel how they should treat foreigners (non-Jews). Old Testament Israel was commanded to love foreigners and to let them live normal lives amongst them (Deuteronomy 10:19):

When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall do him no wrong … (he) shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself (Leviticus 19:33-34)

This instruction is timeless and applies to future Israel. During the Millennium, as Christ reigns from Jerusalem, the land is divided up amongst the tribes of Israel, link, and the stranger amongst them is also ‘allotted an inheritance’:

And they (strangers) shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel (Ezekiel 47:22)

During an interview in 1989, Ariel Sharon was asked: “Do you think of Arabs as your friends, neighbours, your enemies?” He replied:

From my childhood, I have believed Jews and Arabs can live together, and I believe now they should live together. All the rights to this country, to the land of Israel – especially Judea and Samaria – are Jewish … but everyone who lives in the country should have all the rights of the country.” (Ariel Sharon, TIME, April 1989)

Legalities of Palestinian Statehood and the Two-State Solution

Attempted 2-State Solutions within Ancient Canaan

In 1947 a UN Special Commission on Palestine recommended that Palestine be divided equally, with open borders, into an Arab state and a Jewish state (note that the plan referred to an “Arab state“, rather than to a Palestinian state since there was no indigenous Palestinian people). The UN General Assembly adopted this plan in 1947 (UN Resolution GA 181). The Jews accepted the UN resolution but the Arabs rejected it. 

The Oslo Accords (1993) was another attempt at a 2-state solution. The Accords were supposed to bring about Palestinian self-determination, in the form of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But after a series of negotiations and suspensions over some 5 years, the Oslo Accords process ended after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000.

Legal Definitions of Palestinian Statehood

Clearly, legal Palestinian Statehood is fundamental to any 2-state solution. But in international law there is no specific definition of what constitutes a ‘state’ and the legal definition is disputed among scholars, diplomats and individual nations. Currently there are two theories of statehood: The declarative theory and the constitutive theory, link, link.

The Declarative Theory

A state can be considered as such if it meets the definition of statehood declared in the 1933 Montevideo Convention:

1: a Permanent Population/People

2: a defined territory

3: a government

4: a capacity to conduct international relations

According to the declaratory school of thought, the standards specified under the Montevideo Convention suffice to fulfil the criteria of statehood under international law, link. Importantly, the Montevideo Convention explains that the political existence of a state “is independent of recognition by the other states“. Put another way, on this legal definition, the on-going desire of nations to recognise a Palestinian State seems irrelevant.

The Constitutive Theory

Unlike the Montevideo Convention, this theory says that a state can only be considered a state if other states in the world recognize it as such. In contrast to the Montevideo theory, the Constitutive Theory maintains that it is the act of recognition by other states that creates a new state. This theory is not codified in law: rather, it considers modern statehood a matter of both international law and diplomacy. As of 2024, the majority of the 193 UN member states (145) recognized the Palestinian territories as a state, but the Palestinian territories were not recognized by the US, France or the UK as a state.

The constitutive theory has a number of drawbacks in practice. Firstly, the question of which States’ recognition, if any, must be obtained is ambiguous. Secondly, constitutive theory falls short on finding a solution for a situation where several countries recognize an entity as a State while other States do not, link. It also raises the question of how many recognitions are necessary in order for an entity to become a State.

The Legal Stalemate

Given drawbacks of the Constitutive Theory, recent cases in international law have demonstrated that the Declaratory Theory of recognition is more commonly accepted than the Constitutive Theory. The criteria of the Montevideo Convention are for the most part good law, link. That said, there are significant problems with the Declaratory Theory, namely:

1. Even if the existence of a Palestinian people is now widely accepted (they did not exist as such in the early 20th century), the problem of how to define Palestine’s “defined territory” remains, see Israel’s Legal Borders. “Under international law, neither Jordan nor the Palestinian Arab ‘people’ of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have a substantial claim to the sovereign possession of the occupied territories. The West Bank should be considered ‘unallocated territory’” [ Professor Eugene Rostow ].
2. Is there an internationally recognised authority to control and administer the State? Currently Palestine has no effective control and therefore cannot, even with external recognition, be a new State, link. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) represents Palestine in a diplomatic capacity, but has no authority over local governance. In contrast, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has “municipal authority” over the Palestinian territories and could be what is required.
3. There is a debate taking place in the international legal world over whether or not satisfying the Montevideo criteria alone is enough to be a State or if external recognition is also necessary.
4. How would a Palestinian State handle the status of Jerusalem?

---