Explainer: Under Danish law, a political proposal can be brought to a vote in the parliament if it receives 50,000 signatures from Danish citizens who are at least 18 years old and eligible to vote in the general election.
See proposal and sign here: https://borgerforslag.dk/se-og-stoet-forslag/?Id=FT-20667
CITIZENS’ PROPOSAL of 3rd July 2025.
The Danish government must withdraw Denmark’s UN recognition of Israel as a legitimate country under international law.
ID: FT-20667
Proposal
Denmark has committed itself to international law and must therefore withdraw the unlawful UN recognition of Israel as a legitimate country, referring to the UN’s legal framework and international law.
Denmark is among the 163 out of 193 UN member states that have illegally recognized the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Denmark is obligated to revoke this recognition and thereby comply with and strengthen the implementation of international law.
Remarks on the Proposal
Overview:
The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the recognition of territories acquired through violence and illegal annexation.
UNSCOP’s own investigation from 1946 documented that Arabs controlled 85% of the land and Jews only 7%.
The subsequent violent annexation of Palestinian land is in direct violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against territorial integrity.
UN Resolution 181 of 1947, which “recommended” a partition of Palestine, allocating 55% of the land to the invading Israelis, is according to the UN’s own legal framework illegitimate, as the illegal violent annexation of Palestine had already begun decades before Resolution 181 was adopted.
This means that the UN was fully aware of the Israelis’ killings, expulsions, and terror prior to Resolution 181, carried out by, among others, the three terrorist organizations Irgun, Haganah, and Stern. Therefore, the UN adopted a recommendation in direct contradiction to its own legal framework (see above points 1, 2, 3).
The UN’s Obligation to Act Against Violations of International Law:
According to Article 1(1) of the UN Charter, the organization must “prevent and remove threats to peace.” Nevertheless, the UN failed to implement Chapter VII measures against Zionist violence, even after massacres such as Deir Yassin (April 1948). This passivity undermined the UN’s own mandate and gave de facto green light to ethnic cleansing.
When it is illegal for the UN to recognize territories annexed by murder, violence, and expulsion, it naturally cannot recommend an Israeli state in advance of the subsequent illegitimate recognition. This is clearly contrary to all legal, historical, and moral logic.
Key Point – Made Simple:
If the UN is not allowed to recognize states (Israel) that have arisen through violence, murder, and expulsion, it must not recommend solutions that are based on those illegitimate actions. This contradicts both logic and the UN’s own legal framework.
The UN’s Rules Prohibit:
- The use of force to seize land (UN Charter Article 2(4))
- Denial of the right to self-determination
- Expulsion of people from their homes due to ethnicity or religion (property rights and non-discrimination)
The UN already knew in 1947 that violence and expulsion of the Palestinian population were ongoing when it proposed the division of the land (Resolution 181). Therefore, recommending the division was a violation of the UN’s own laws.
Resolution 181 must therefore be considered invalid, even if adopted according to procedure. What matters is the content — and the content violates fundamental principles of international law. This is equivalent to Danish courts knowingly issuing judgments that are both illegal and unjust, for political reasons.
Resolution 181 was not merely a procedural error, but a material overreach that collided with the UN’s own legal framework. By recommending the establishment of a state based on demographic injustice and anticipated violence, the UN acted contrary to its fundamental purpose: to maintain peace through respect for international law. Recent rulings by the ICJ emphasize that such actions cannot legitimize ongoing occupation or apartheid.
When most of the international community chooses to accept the illegitimate UN Resolution 181 and the preceding Israeli war crimes as one of the first legal benchmarks in the post-WWII international legal order, it should now be clear that we must consistently confront the lawlessness these decisions have generated with respect to a necessary, secure, and credible international legal order.
What Does This Mean for Israel?
This follows logically and legally strictly. The UN’s own standards not only prohibit recognition afterward but must also be understood as proactive restrictions: The UN must not propose or encourage solutions that necessarily involve violations of:
a) Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (prohibition of force)
b) The right to self-determination
c) International law’s protections of property and non-discrimination
It is therefore logical and consistent with international law to state that Israel has never had a legitimate right to exist as a state.
The illegitimate recognitions of 163 UN member states cannot override international law —
Just as 163 UN countries cannot legalize a war crime through collective support, they cannot legitimize an illegal state formation.
Moral and Historical Reality Supports This:
Looking at the full picture — not just the law, but also actual actions and their human consequences — the conclusion becomes even clearer:
Israel is not, and has never been, a legitimate country. Its founding and continued existence are built on illegality and ongoing abuses, not only against the Palestinians but against the entire international legal order.
Why This Matters:
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recently (e.g., in 2024) made it clear that formal approval does not make something lawful if it in practice violates human rights and international law.
The ICJ also attributes to the Namibia/South Africa judgment of 1971 that UN member states had a legal obligation not to recognize South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia and to refrain from any action that could be interpreted as support for or recognition of South Africa’s administration of Namibia.
This judgment can therefore be applied to this legal situation, where UN member states are obligated to withdraw all support for Israel, as it lacks, and has lacked, legal, historical, or moral justification for existence.
One must therefore understand that the insistence by UN member states on a two-state solution is likewise unlawful and an attempt at de facto legitimization of previous violations (Resolution 181 and the illegal recognition by 163 UN countries of the Israeli occupation). This proposal is therefore also in direct violation of international law.
The Demand for International Law Is Not Extreme — It Is Civilizational:
Support for strict international law is to the global order what criminal law is to a functioning society: the foundation of trust, stability, and justice.
Failure to enforce international law in the case of Palestine is a textbook example of destructive undermining of the institutions meant to protect world peace.
Future Demand: Dismantling and Reparation
The only legally, historically, and morally valid solution is the dismantling of the illegal Israeli state project.
Reparations and restoration of the original territory are necessary.
Final Appeal
International law must apply to everyone — even the great powers.
Without law, no peace. Without consequences, no order.
A just world order requires that international law stands above politics.
Politically selective interpretation of international law undermines confidence in national legislation.
KEY POINTS ON THE UN’S LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY:
Article 1, Paragraph 1 – The UN’s Purpose
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace…”
Meaning:
The UN is not only obliged to react after a war begins — but also to prevent, avert, and limit situations that pose a threat to peace.
Article 2, Paragraph 4 – Prohibition of the Use of Force
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…”
Meaning:
The UN and its members must neither use violence nor support those who attempt to seize territories by force — as occurred with Zionist militia attacks in Palestine.
Article 34 – Investigation of Threats to Peace
“The Security Council may investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a threat to international peace…”
Meaning:
The UN Security Council not only had the opportunity but the duty to investigate the situation in Palestine in 1947–48 and call for action to prevent war.
Article 39 – The Security Council’s Assessment and Duty to Act
“The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall… decide what measures shall be taken…”
Meaning:
When the UN knew that ethnic violence and expulsions were taking place (Deir Yassin, Haifa, etc.), it should have:
- Classified it as a threat to peace
- Implemented sanctions or coercive measures
- Suspended resolutions that contributed to the conflict
- Activated Article 42
Articles 41 and 42 – Means Available to the UN
Article 41: Non-military sanctions: suspension of trade relations, diplomacy, etc.
Article 42: Use of armed force if necessary to restore peace.
Meaning:
The UN had the tools available — but chose not to use them. It is therefore not a question of capacity, but of will and responsibility.
Att--50.000 signatures will force the Danish parliament to vote on the proposal