The Independent Commission for Human Rights cautiously due to legal risks, and the PLO’s representation as a national liberation movement should be stressed; this is especially so regarding the concept of its representation, which is much broader and more comprehensive than that of the State under international law. International law and international humanitarian law do not allow for national liberation movements to give up or exchange territory with the occupying power, while states, according to international law, do have the power to exchange territory under their jurisdiction. Another relevant problem which could emerge in the future during negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians is if Israel refuses to engage with Palestine over certain issues and prefers to negotiate with the PLO instead, and according to its own interest or its own intent to divide the negotiations on the pretext of the jurisdictional claims of Palestine or that of the PLO18. On 27 August 2011, BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights dispatched an open letter to the President of the PLO concerning Palestine›s bid to the United Nations. The letter explained how such a step would prejudice and challenge the legal and representative status of the PLO as the sole representative of the people of Palestine with observer status at the UN General Assembly. If upgrading the status of Palestine to observer state would practically end up with entrusting the representation of the Palestinian people to Palestine, which would be recognized with the borders of 1967, the status of the PLO at the General Assembly would be nullified, and primarily because the same people cannot be represented by two parties at the UN. Even if the link to the PLO is maintained orally or the same representatives of Palestine›s missions in their posts are kept, this would not reduce the risk of prejudicing the inclusiveness of the PLO›s representation. Badil Center considers that the new status of Palestine at the United Nations is not likely to change Palestine’s status on the ground, though with the exception of joining some international agencies, which cannot be taken for granted. In addition, and based on its understanding of international custom, international humanitarian law and the relevant international resolutions, the center also believes that the facts which Israel is imposing on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territory are illegitimate regardless of Palestine›s status at the United Nations. Therefore, what is described as a diplomatic achievement at the international level, even in light of Israel and the United States’ opposition to it, will not be of any value compared to the legal, political and representational popular value of the PLO; this is especially since «winds do not blow as the ships wish». The adverse impacts which could ensue from the new status of Palestine at the United Nations are several: prejudicing the inclusive legal, political and popular representation which the PLO enjoys today as a liberation movement representing all the people of Palestine, both inside and outside Palestine; prejudicing the concept of Palestinian national identity embodied by the PLO, and especially the Palestinian identity which could be linked with actual residency of the Palestinian citizen within the recognized borders of the Palestinian state; prejudicing the refugees› right of return to their original homes by restricting this right to the recognized borders of the state of Palestine according to Israeli and Western conceptions, but in contravention to Security Council Resolution 194; causing prejudice to the inclusiveness of the Palestinian people›s right to self-determination 18 See Alawneh, «Palestine and Its Membership...”. 12