Recognizing the State of Palestine based on the June 4, 1967 Lines

Recognizing the State of Palestine based on the June 4, 1967 Lines:

A Legal, Political, and Moral Imperative for Full UN Membership

Negotiations Affairs Department

Negotiations Support Unit

July 2025

I.  Introduction

Recognizing the State of Palestine on the June 4, 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital and admitting it as a full member of the United Nations is not only a long-overdue step, it is a legal obligation, a political necessity, and a moral imperative. It is rooted in decades of international consensus on the two-state solution and supported by a robust body of international law.  However, despite widespread political support, the Palestinian people remain denied full recognition and sovereign equality. This paper aims to establish the imperative for recognition by examining its legal foundations, analyzing the current political impasse, and articulating the moral and strategic value of acting now.

II. Statehood by Right:  The Legal Foundation for Palestine at the UN

Under the UN Charter, Article 4 stipulates that membership is open to any peace-loving state willing and able to carry out the obligations of the Charter. The State of Palestine, declared in 1988 by the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and recognized by 149 UN Member States, has demonstrated its commitment to international norms by acceding to over 100 international treaties and conventions. The World Bank, the IMF, and the European Union have consistently assessed the public institutions of the State of Palestine as capable of operating the functions of a sovereign state. Palestine has maintained these institutional achievements despite the systematic and far-reaching restrictions imposed by Israel’s ongoing military occupation.

International law has long affirmed the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force. UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) emphasized this principle and called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories. This was further reinforced by Resolution 2334 (2016), which explicitly condemned the establishment of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, as having “no legal validity.” Furthermore, the Resolution explicitly identified all Israeli measures and practices in the occupied Palestinian Territory as illegal under international law. The International Court of Justice, in its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Annexation Wall and again in its 2024 opinion on the illegality of Israel’s prolonged occupation, confirmed that Israel’s actions in the occupied territory violate international law and that all states are under an obligation not to recognize as lawful any situation resulting from the breach of these norms.

The legitimacy of Palestinian statehood is also grounded in the international legal, as reflected in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which recommended the partition of Mandatory Palestine into two states, was the legal basis and condition upon which Israel was admitted as a UN member. Recognition of Palestine on the June 4, 1967 lines would fulfill this unfinished mandate and ensure the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter is applied consistently.

Opponents of recognizing Palestine as a full member of the United Nations often cite Article XXXI(7) of the 1995 Oslo Interim Agreement, which prohibits either party from taking unilateral steps to alter the status of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, before the conclusion of permanent status negotiations. However, this provision has been systematically violated, not by Palestine, but by Israel, the occupying power. Through its extensive settlement enterprise, the annexation of East Jerusalem, the de facto annexation policies across the West Bank, the entrenchment of military control in the West Bank, and siege over the Gaza Strip, Israel has unilaterally altered the legal and geographic landscape of the occupied Palestinian Territory in direct contravention of its obligations.

These actions do not merely violate bilateral agreements; they represent the incremental and unlawful preparation for the extension of Israeli sovereignty over territory that does not belong to the occupying power. Such measures fundamentally undermine the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution and dismantle the very framework within which permanent status talks were initially conceived. In this context, the State of Palestine calls on the permanent members of the UN Security Council to affirm that any unilateral extension of sovereignty by Israel over any part of the occupied Palestinian Territory will be met with corresponding measures by these states, serving as a legal and diplomatic counterweight and reasserting the foundational principle that sovereignty cannot be acquired by force.

Recognition of Palestine on the June 4, 1967 lines is not a unilateral political choice, it is an act of compliance with international law. It is firmly rooted in the principles of the UN Charter.

III.      No Peace Without Justice:  Why Recognition is a Political Necessity?

The political rationale for recognizing Palestine today is both urgent and compelling. Three decades after the Oslo Accords, the diplomatic process has failed to achieve a negotiated two-state solution. While the Palestinian leadership has upheld its commitments under these agreements, Israel has systematically and unilaterally altered the facts on the ground. Settler populations have increased from 236,000 in 1993 to over 740,000 in 2024, fragmenting the territorial contiguity of the West Bank. In addition, the Israeli government has moved aggressively toward de facto annexation of large parts of the West Bank, including by enacting legal measures that extend its domestic jurisdiction over occupied territory, although such practices are in flagrant violation of international law. Just recently on July 23^rd, Israeli Knesset members voted (71-13) in favor of a draft law supporting the annexation of the occupied West Bank. East Jerusalem, the capital of the future Palestinian state, has been also unilaterally annexed and subjected to policies of demographic engineering, displacement, and denial of Palestinian presence.

The Gaza Strip, already besieged for over 17 years, now lies in ruins after a devastating military campaign that began in October 2023. More than 59,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 143,000 injured[1]. Civilians have withstood the worst of indiscriminate attacks and collective punishment, while humanitarian access remains blocked. These realities demonstrate that the status quo is not static; it is deteriorating. Continued delays in recognizing Palestine only empower the occupying power, entrench an apartheid system, and erode the possibility of true peace.

Recognition of the State of Palestine is therefore not a substitute for negotiations, but a precondition for their success. It restores balance to a one-sided process by placing both parties on an equal legal and diplomatic footing. It also affirms the two-state solution as the agreed-upon framework for peace and draws a clear line against further territorial acquisition and population transfer. The 2024 General Assembly resolution, which calls on the Security Council to reconsider Palestine’s application for full membership, supported by 143 states, illustrates the depth of international consensus behind this position.

Furthermore, recognizing the State of Palestine on the June 4, 1967 lines would establish an explicit and legitimate baseline for any future land swaps, as envisioned during talks that took place between Palestinians and Israelis after the Oslo Accords and endorsed in subsequent peace proposals, by affirming these lines as the starting point for sovereignty. It would serve as a foundation for achieving lasting peace and prosperity in the region, while safeguarding Palestinian territorial contiguity in the West Bank and preserving the political unity between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It would also provide a legal and diplomatic framework for resolving long-standing disputes over natural resources, many of which have been unilaterally exploited or reallocated by Israel in direct violation of international law and bilateral agreements.

IV.       The Moral Imperative:  Affirming Rights, Ending Hypocrisy

Beyond legal and political considerations, the case for recognition rests on a profound moral imperative. The Palestinian people have endured 77 years of dispossession, 58 years of military occupation, and over 18 years of blockade in Gaza. They have been denied the fundamental rights that the international system was created to protect, self-determination, equality, dignity, and freedom. Recognition of the Palestinian people’s independent and sovereign statehood affirms their humanity and confirms that international law applies universally, not selectively.

Palestinians have consistently pursued their rights through non-violent and diplomatic channels. They have engaged in peace processes, built institutions, and accepted painful compromises in pursuit of statehood. The moral failure does not lie with the Palestinian side, but with the international community’s inability to enforce its resolutions and hold violators accountable. Continued non-recognition rewards impunity and undermines the credibility of the rules-based global order. In an era of heightened geopolitical tensions, when such an order is urgently needed, restoring its legitimacy must begin with adherence to international law, starting with the recognition of Palestine.

Following the devastation of the Gaza war, recognition takes on renewed urgency. It signals to Palestinians that the world has not abandoned them, and it affirms that rights are not subject to negotiation but must be upheld through legal and diplomatic means. It also sends a powerful message to other actors in the region that peaceful engagement with international norms will be respected rather than ignored. Recognition, at this critical moral juncture, would help isolate extremists and violent actors on both sides and prevent further radicalization that threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East.

V.        Recognition as a Strategic Act:  Enabling Peace, Accountability, and Statehood

Recognizing Palestine and admitting it to the UN as a whole member state is not merely symbolic. It has tangible legal, diplomatic, and strategic consequences. It allows Palestine to participate fully in the international system, to access international courts and dispute resolution mechanisms, and to claim the protections and responsibilities afforded to sovereign states. It strengthens enforcement of resolutions such as UNSC 2334 by allowing Palestine to pursue accountability for violations of international law. It also helps create the legal infrastructure for future negotiations, including treaty-making capacity and third-party oversight.

Moreover, recognition facilitates the restructuring of Palestinian governance toward sovereignty. It enables the reorientation of donor support from short-term humanitarian and fiscal relief to long-term state-building, focusing on revenue administration, border management, judicial independence, and public service delivery. These reforms are essential for building resilience and reducing dependency on Israel’s control of Palestinian fiscal, trade, and civil affairs.

VI.       Recognition:  A Necessary Step toward Peace

Recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital, is an act of legal compliance, political necessity, and moral clarity. It is not an end in itself, but the beginning of a just path toward equal rights and a durable peace. The international community has affirmed the vision of two states for decades; now it must act decisively to make it real. By recognizing Palestine and granting it full UN membership, the world affirms that sovereignty derives from law, not power, and that no people should be denied the right to freedom and self-determination. The cost of delay is not measured only in political terms, but in human lives, lost opportunities, and the steady erosion of the very norms the UN was created to uphold. In short, the recognition of the independent State of Palestine draws a line between the national right and military might.