#WTH The Pretend "State of Palestine"

And what recognizing that pretend "state" means

Hamas executes three accused collaborators, September 21.

Yesterday, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia recognized a “State of Palestine.” What are its borders? Unknown. What is its capital? Unknown. Who governs that “state?” Unclear.

Let’s step back and pretend — like Canada, the UK, and Oz — that “Palestine” is real. What do we know about it? We know that the West Bank government is a state sponsor of terrorism, funding “martyr’s payments,” underwriting various “brigades” engaged in terror against Jews and non-compliant Palestinians. We know the Gaza government is Hamas. We know the West Bank is a kleptocracy, with its leaders’ net worth in the billions. We know the same for Hamas. We know both the West Bank and Gaza are wholly reliant on aid from the outside world, producing little, educating less, and providing negligible security for its own people. We don’t know which elected government is truly the “government” of “Palestine.”

But, you counter, there are other countries with disputed borders — India and China! India and Pakistan! And that’s true. Are parts of India, Pakistan, or China governed by rival factions? No. But Libya is, and we recognize only one faction. True, the Montevideo Convention (1933), says a new state should have:

• A defined territory (clear borders, though minor disputes are common).

• A permanent population.

• A government (effective control and administration).

• Capacity to enter into relations with other states (diplomacy, treaties, etc.).

But we can pretend.

To enter the United Nations as a full member, a recommendation from the Security Council and a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly are required. So any veto wielding member can block accession.

So what does recognition from London, Paris, and Canberra mean for “Palestine?” Nothing. If nothing, then why do it? And here we learn what the western game is all about.

If the well being of the Palestinian people, such as they are, was first and foremost in the minds of Starmer, Macron, and Albanese, then surely these leaders would have set in place safeguards for democratic governance for the residents of West Bank and Gaza. Surely, they would have, over the last decades, worked to build institutions, resisted the rise of Islamist extremists, and demanded elections and accountability from the Ramallah government. But there is no evidence of that.

To cut to the sad chase, the truth is that Starmer and company are uninterested in the people they call Palestinians. Rather, they are concerned by their own constituents and the growing radical demands of the western Left. Much as the anti-apartheid movement of the 70s and 80s cared little for who would govern South Africa’s black and brown people — as long as they weren’t white, the “Palestine” party is indifferent to the true plight of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza. What matters is that they not be governed by Jews.

This is the demand of the “decolonize” antisemites. Palestinians are merely the plush toys of today’s leftist vogue.

So what's in it for the Marxist nostalgics (remember how Marx felt about the Jews)? Simple politics. Starmer is struggling, desperate for his increasingly extremist political confederates to save him; Carney is presiding over the collapse of Canada, with, like France, a growing Islamist constituency and a right that supports Israel; and Albanese is just weak, lamely flailing his manhood in the vague direction of his hard left Labour compatriots, slavering over Australia’s 800,000 Muslims. Their motives are embarrassingly clear.

But isn’t this justice? Do not the “Palestinians” deserve self-determination? Can Israel hope to rule over the West Bank and Gaza forever? Is not a two state solution, however reached, the only way forward?

Let’s start at the beginning. There has never been a “Palestine.” The name was chosen to nullify Judea two millennia ago. Islam had not yet been born. The natives of the land were driven forth by the Romans. In the modern era, the territory of “Palestine” lived under Ottoman rule and then British rule. Insofar as there was a “Palestine,” it was the Palestine of Zionism, the Holy Land of the Jews. Yet still, the United Nations partition offered a “Palestine” to the Arabs of that land, which they rejected. And when the war the Arabs waged to ensure there would be no Israel was lost, the Arabs then sovereign over what was “Palestine” were neither pressured nor asked to deliver sovereignty to anyone. Their aim was the eradication of Israel.

Remember, the first Palestine National Charter, before the Six Day War, renounced claims to the West Bank and Gaza. The land they demanded was Israel. That has not changed. The aim of the leadership of the movement for Palestine has one goal, and it is not a state in the West Bank and Gaza. It is the eradication of the Jewish State. This is what Hamas wants, and it is supported by the majority of the Palestinian people. And apparently much of the Western world.

Offered half a loaf, will the leadership of the West Bank and Gaza settle? What do you think?

The history of the Jewish people has been millennia of oppression, and that period is not at an end. Is it any wonder that Israel’s government will not capitulate to demands for its onward annihilation? Is there only one path forward? Acquiescence? Two states?

Far from it. Hamas must go. Fatah must go. A Palestinian government must accept Israel’s right to live in peace and security. It must renounce terrorism. There must be a viable reconstruction plan that benefits the people, not the kleptocracy of “Palestine.” Absent those things, Israel cannot agree to anything.

The people of Israel have survived far greater predations than the weak performative gestures of the antisemites now reigning. But one lesson is clear. There can be only one response to the people who wish you ill. Strength, and victory. All the rest is empty gestures.

PS We talked to Elliott Abrams about this on the pod. You’ll love our conversation. Listen to it here. Highlights below.

PPS Thanks for your patience as I recover from some ick surgery. I’m doing my best to rev up in the coming days and weeks. Dany

TRANSCRIPT

Q. What is behind the spate of recognition for a “Palestinian state?”

EA: First, none of these people are doing anything that will help Palestinians. It isn't meant to help the Palestinians. It's meant, really, to deal with internal political problems that each of them have. They have leftists, and they have, in most cases, very large Muslim populations that are attacking Israel. The only effect of "recognizing Palestine" is to strike out at Israel. Again, it doesn't help Palestinians in any way, and it's very striking that it's not just the timing after October 7th, but it's the lack of conditionality. To be fair to the Belgians, for example, they said, "Well, we're not going to do this until there's a ceasefire and every hostage has been released." But most of them, and particularly the larger countries, England, France, Australia, Canada, have really put no conditionality on whatsoever. They haven't said anything about hostages. What they've said, which is particularly ludicrous, is, "We're doing this because we have promises from Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and on the basis of those promises, we can now go forward and recognize the Palestinian state."

Q: Is there any substance behind the declarations?

EA: It's all theater. And look at Macron, for example, announces it. Now, why didn't he say, "I, today, recognize a Palestinian state," and instead said, "I'm going to do this in late September in New York at the General Assembly,"? No reason. It's all theater. It's all theater. And the impact in the UN system is zero. Palestine is already a non-member observer state. Again, it can't become a member state because we'll veto that. The US will veto that in the security council. We can discuss the political impact, the impact on reputation, but the international legal impact is zero.

Q: Can’t this be a step on the path to a two state solution?

EA: My answer is no. The reason is that, well, basically, it won't work, and it won't satisfy Palestinian nationalism. That is, people say, "Well, you see, Palestinians demand a state, and they have a right to a state." Go back to that too. "And once they have a state, there will be peace." I don't believe that.

All these countries that we're talking about are democracies. And you said the market speaks, the political market in Belgium or Australia or France speaks, which bodes ill for those Jewish communities. That's for sure. Israel is also a democracy. You have a coalition government, and some people in it are pretty moderate, and some people are Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. And they do, I think, enormous harm to Israel and are people who, in my view, should never be in any government. And particularly Ben-Gvir is hopelessly irresponsible. He's a provocateur, and it damages Israel.

They've been faced with a series of very bad choices since October 7th. There's no obvious great choice to take such that not taking it is a huge error.

Q: Isn't a prerequisite of a Palestinian state to have a de-Hamasification of Palestine, a banning of the symbols of Hamas, a banning of the party, a banning of ... And really forcing the Palestinian people to confront their complicity in October 7th and their complicity in the crimes of Hamas?

EA: One-word answer would be yes. This is the problem that's throughout the Arab world with the Muslim Brotherhood. You see it in Jordan. You see it in Egypt. You see it in Morocco. Let me just give you a couple of numbers from my article. May 2025 poll. 64% of Gazans oppose disarming Hamas. Majority oppose exiling Hamas military leaders. If legislative elections were held with all the parties that ran in the last election, 2006, voters in Gaza would go 49% for Hamas. 30% for Fatah. 46% of all Palestinians told pollsters they support a return to confrontations and armed into Fatah.

Q: Is there a Jordanian option?

EA: Well, if the two-state solution is not going to happen, as I believe, and the one-state solution is not going to happen, that is, one big state of all of the West Bank, Gaza, Israel, people like Tony Blinken and, for that matter, Macron, the president of France recently ... There is no alternative to this two-state solution. There is. There are several. One of them is status quo. Hey, it's been there since 1967. People treat it as if it started yesterday, so it's going to change. That's a long time for a status quo to exist.

I used to say it's like Austria-Hungary. You had the King, Emperor, two prime ministers, two parliaments. Other people have said, no, it's like Kurdistan. There is a country, Iraq, but Kurdistan within Iraq has a substantial amount of autonomy. Doesn't have its own membership in the UN, but it's got a lot of autonomy. That's an option. Now, today, the Jordanians say they're against it. They're violently against it. And, in fact, I don't imagine I'll ever get a visa to Jordan again. And this can't happen now, but it could happen 10 years from now, maybe.

Q: What is the next step?

EA: The war has to end. I think that's the first thing. You're not going to end this kind of paroxysm of hatred of Israel and anti-Israel activity while the war is on because Al Jazeera and Muslim populations around the world and politicians in democratic countries respond actually to one thing. They respond to Israelis committing acts of violence, that is to say war, against Arabs. Against Palestinians. That excites opposition. The war has to end.

Q: How does the war end?

EA: It ends in one of two ways. It ends with a deal, or it ends with an Israeli conquest. It looked like a deal. There were moments this year last year where it looked like a deal was going to bring it to an end. But Hamas doesn't seem to want to do that. I've spoken about this with Brett McGurk, who was the negotiator in the Biden administration. He said to me, "There was never one occasion where the Israelis rejected a deal that Hamas had agreed to." Those are false statements. The Israelis accepted the deals, and Hamas turned them down.

Q: Do you still think the trusteeship solution is feasible?

EA: Yes. I think let's distinguish two things. Call it administration and security. The administration part is not so hard. I think there will be some kind of international commission for the reconstruction of Gaza, and it'll include the United States and EU and Jordan and Egypt and the Gulf Arabs who will provide the money. And they'll appoint somebody like Salam Fayyad or some other Palestinian. And all this will be legitimized by the Palestinian authorities saying, "Yes, this is good." And will they be able to open schools and hospitals and repave roads and build housing? Yes, they will. That's the easy part, I think.

Q: Who can lead?

EA: What's going to happen, I think, is fighting. Arafat had three hats, Palestinian authority, PLO, and Fatah Party. So does Abbas. And I think what's likely after Abbas gets sick or dies is there's a lot of Palestinians who think, "Dany, I'm the guy," and they're going to fight it out. And a likely circumstance is they divide those hats up. "You get Fatah, but I get PLO." And then, of course, if I've now gotten one of those hats, what is my job? It's not to make peace with Israel. It's to get rid of you so that I can once again have the three hats.

In the post-Abbas period, they're going to be fighting each other, which means how popular is it going to be to make compromises with Israel? Not at all. The idea that, in the post-Abbas period, that's a wonderful moment to have a peace negotiation ... No. It's a very bad moment. And I think what you're going to see is an enormous amount of inter-nisine warfare. And the only question is whether it's peaceful or violent.

Full transcript here.

SHOWNOTES

Israel prepares for wider Gaza City battle with reservist call-up (FDD, Seth Frantzman, September 2, 2025)

Belgium to recognize Palestinian state at UN General Assembly, impose sanctions on Israel (Times of Israel, September 2, 2025)

PM weighing applying sovereignty over parts of West Bank in response to international recognition of Palestinian state(TOI, Lazar Berman, September 2, 2025)

Rift between Netanyahu and Israel’s military deepens over assault on Gaza City (Tal Shalev and Dana Karni, CNN, September 2, 2025)

Recognition of Palestinian state would spur sprint towards two-state solution, envoy says (Kate Holton and Ben Makori, Reuters, September 2, 2025)

There Never Will Be a Palestinian State. So What’s Next? (Elliot Abrams, Pressure Points, September 2, 2025)

A Lesson from Iraq About Genocide Accusations (Elliot Abrams, Pressure Points, August 24, 2025)

Why Israel—And Trump—Should Support Palestinian Statehood (Time Magazine, Ami Ayalon, Gilead Sher, and Orni Petruschka, August 18, 2025)

The numbers just don’t support the UN-backed Gaza famine report (Mark Zlochin, The Jewish Chronicle, August 26, 2024)