For them the real sticking point has to do with borders, which the PA quite obviously intends to set as the Green Line (everything that was not under Israeli control before the Six Day War of 1967).If the SC were to accept "Palestine" as a member state, does this mean it would be sanctioning or endorsing those borders as unilaterally claimed?If the answer is yes, this would mean setting up a conflict with SC Resolution 242, which, basically, says that Israel does not have to withdraw from all territories acquired in 1967, and is entitled to safe and recognized borders that are arrived at via negotiations. And Israel does not have to pull out of any territory until this negotiation occurs. The Green Line is not considered a safe border -- strategic depth is required. (This sets foolish Obama's statement about settlements not bringing security into conflict with this resolution as well.) The concern is that the PA is seeking to overturn or override this resolution.The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs held a conference on 242 a couple of years ago (I was in attendance and learned a great deal). For detailed information from that conference see:http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=84&FID=452&PID=3111True, the Arab has always claimed that UN Resolution requires Israel to withdraw from all of that territory, but there is abundant proof that is not the case--including what the authors of the resolution themselves have written.
"According to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933, there is a basic “definition” of a state, which has been adopted by the international community. In order to qualify as a state, an entity must:
[] have a permanent population
[] have a defined territory
[] be under the control of its own government
[] have the capacity to enter into relations with other states"
