I found this article (link below) dated January 10. 2004.
"Palestinians insist on right to declare state"
"A top Palestinian decision-making body on Saturday voiced its right to unilaterally declare a state in the West Bank and Gaza amid Israeli
threats to take stand-alone measures of its own.
The executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in a Friday meeting, also named Arab East Jerusalem, seized by Israel in 1967
and annexed in a move rejected internationally, as the capital of a Palestinian state.
"The Palestinian leadership, in line with international legitimacy and signed agreements...has the right to declare a independent democratic
Palestine on all the territories that were occupied (by Israel) since 1967," the PLO executive committee said in a statement.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said he would pursue a unilateral plan to quit parts of the West Bank should a U.S.-backed "road map" to
peace collapse. The plan would leave Palestinians with much less territory for a state than they would get through negotiations, he said.
Responding to Sharon's threats, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie on Thursday raised the possibility of opting for one state with equal rights
for Palestinians and Israelis.
Qurie's proposal and the PLO Executive Committee statement underscored Palestinian concerns over Sharon's unilateral plan.
Zalman Shoval, Sharon's foreign policy adviser, on Saturday rejected both Palestinian moves, saying any declaration of a state without an accord
"would be in clear violation not only of international law, but also of the road map, which the Palestinians have supposedly accepted."
"Any unilateral declaration of this sort would not be recognized by the international community and would also necessitate appropriate counter steps
by Israel," he told Reuters.
PLO executive committee member Qais Abu Layla said that the Palestinians statement intended to show support for a two-state solution and did not
necessarily mean Palestinians would exercise their right to declare a state."
With the above mentioned restraints and constraints, why wouldn't the Palestinian's not just go ahead and declare themselves an independent state?
In hindsight, this worked for Israel when they 'crossed' the diplomatic road and decalered their independence in 1948. In doing so though, they had
to fight all their neighbors and then some, to make the state a reality, but nonetheless, its feasible that it could also work in the case of the
Palestinian's, could it not?
They would obviously be supported by some to many Arab nations, thus protecting their national sovereignty.
What would this entail, fully?
Since Israel only incorporates roughly 30% of the area known collectively as "Palestine," TransJordan, all of which, is covered or included in the
British Mandate, wouldn't it be prudent and just that those Arab countries (Egypt, Jordon, Syria) that also control or have parts of "Palestine"
give those lands to the Palestinian's to be added to their existing 'state'?
In declaring their Palestinian state, wouldn't it be also prudent that ALL terrorist(s) organizations be made to disarm or be dismantled/eliminated
completely and permanently by the Palestinian's?
If not, then in declaring their state, they would be agreeing or allowing themselves to be held accountable for the terrorist activities that
originate within their respective border(s)....correct?
Would Israel possibly allow this?
Here are two maps I found, one covering the Sykes-Picot Agreement of/in 1916:
And one covering the Palestine Mandate at the San Remo Conference of/in 1920-1922: