2

Here is mentioned that:

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).

The plan was adopted in the General Assembly and from legal point of view, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding.

And this source says:

Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly resolutions as “recommendations”, and the International Court of Justice has stressed the recommendatory nature of General Assembly resolutions repeatedly.

  • What is the legal status of the State of Israel while the resolution was adopted in the General Assembly?
4
  • 3
    Downvoted because (among other reasons) it is explicitly not a political question, but a legal one. Then, as with any such question, you have to ask "by whose laws?" and "who's going to enforce those laws?". – jamesqf Jan 20 at 20:50
  • I myself would have downvoted this question if I could.@jamesqf – user35692 Jan 21 at 22:16
  • 2
    @jamesqf: The existence or non-existence of a country is very much a political issue. Laws and lawyers do not decide (for example) whether or not Taiwan is a country, it's a matter of relative political strength between the PRC and the ROC (and all of the other countries that have intervened). The same is true of Israel, Palestine, and all of the various states with limited recognition throughout the world. – Kevin Jan 21 at 22:28
  • @Kevin: Anyone who thinks Israel is not a country is perfectly welcome to debate the question with the IDF. Indeed, some have, with a notable lack of success :-) Likewise with Taiwan. Which is why I asked "by whose laws?" The Duchy of Grand Fenwick could certainly enact a law stating that the United States is illegal, but they would face certain problems in enforcing that law. – jamesqf Jan 22 at 19:11
4

Israel has sovereignty over a defined border and is thus a country. At an international level that is all that matters, though having other countries agree with your claims is helpful in maintaining that sovereignty.

5
  • 2
    That's too easy. The IS used to havre control over plenty of territory, collected taxes and enforced laws, but that did not make it a country. – o.m. Jan 21 at 5:58
  • @o.m. ... under the recognition model of what is a country, which isn't the only one. – origimbo Jan 21 at 11:40
  • @o.m. IS only held territory in the brief period between defeating local forces and other countries coming to aid those forces. You could argue they were a country for roughly two years. – Ryathal Jan 21 at 13:48
  • @Ryathal, I believe that Israel is a legitimate country and that the IS wasn't, and not just because of the strength of the resprective armies. Might does not make right, even if global politics sometimes looks that way. – o.m. Jan 21 at 15:51
  • 1
    @o.m. "Might makes right" is a statement on morality. Whether or not IS's actions were good or bad is not relevant when asking about the reality of their status as a country. You're basically inverting the classic is-ought problem. – Harabeck Jan 21 at 16:46
2

In all legal systems you have agents. The legal system asserts its right to exercise authority over its agents and to punish rulebreakers. For example, in domestic legal systems, the agents are, among others, people, who can be fined, imprisoned, or even killed in states that still practice the death penalty.

Dogs are not agents, apples are not agents, the Covid-19 virus is not an agent, and so on. Sure, they "exist" but they cannot be found guilty by any (sane) domestic court.

In the international legal system, states are agents in exactly the same way that people are agents in domestic legal systems.

The International Court of Justice has issued an opinion on Israel's construction of a Wall in the West Bank titled Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It's main finding is:

Construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law.

Legal consequences of the violation by Israel of its obligations.

This implies that Israel has obligations under international law which, in turn, implies that it is a state. Because only states (and people, I think) have obligations under international law. So Israel's legal status is that it exists as a state.

You are right though that GA resolutions are non-binding recommendations, but the resolution wasn't what made Israel a state so it is a moot point.