This week, at the UN General Assembly, there was a recognition of the Palestinian state. This move, gaining momentum after the terrorist attacks on October 7th, sees countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, and France involved. However, if a Palestinian state were to exist, indications suggest it would resemble the corrupt regimes found in China, Russia, and Iraq—threatening global stability.
In stark contrast, Taiwan represents a true liberal democracy, yet it remains unrecognized by many globally. Comparing these two situations reveals a moral contradiction, showcasing how political decisions can cater to domestic support rather than address international realities.
Max Weber described a state as an organization that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In the West Bank, Palestinian authorities govern some minor administrative issues, but they fall short of having control over force. In Gaza? Absolutely no control.
Palestinian entities don’t fit the legal definition of a state as set out by the Montevideo Convention, which requires a permanent population, defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity for international relations. The UN’s classification undermines claims of a permanent population, as many in the West Bank and Gaza are classified as refugees. Moreover, “Palestine” lacks both defined territory and a legitimate government.
The Oslo Accords deliberately didn’t outline the borders of “Palestine,” leaving contentious issues like East Jerusalem to be negotiated later, essentially restricting Palestinian governance to segments of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel currently maintains significant security oversight in the West Bank, including tax collections for Palestinian authorities and immigration management through checkpoints. The dire situation in Gaza is a cautionary tale; not long ago, Hamas ousted the Palestinian authorities in a brief civil conflict. Inconsistent control over territory and ongoing diplomatic criticism of Israel’s presence challenge the notion of Palestinian governance.
Recognizing the Palestinian state won’t alter these core truths. In fact, it might mistakenly imply that Palestinian authorities can meaningfully engage with other nations. After all, foreign diplomats can only operate in Ramallah with Israel’s tacit approval, as Israel fully controls borders and the sole airport in the region.
On the other hand, Taiwan aligns with both Weber’s and international legal definitions of a state. The Republic of China, operating since 1912, despite lacking formal recognition, has consistently governed under the same constitution since 1947, firmly holding a monopoly on violence.
Though initially a government founded in China, its authority is now entrenched in Taiwan and neighboring islands with a stable population. Following decades of single-party rule, Taiwan has peacefully transitioned to a democracy since the 1990s and can establish international relations—albeit many countries hesitate to acknowledge it.
The fact that Taiwan has evolved democratically challenges the moral arguments often made in favor of Palestinian claims.
Mahmoud Abbas, leading the Palestinian authorities, has overstayed his welcome; his four-year term turned into two decades since he assumed leadership after Yasser Arafat in 2005. Abbas’s administration has been linked to terror support and ineffective governance. Hamas, which claims dominance in Gaza, has shown its inclination towards violence, underpinned by its support from nations like Iran, Turkey, and Qatar—often seen as antagonistic to the regional order.
Contrastingly, Taiwan thrives as a vibrant democracy, achieving notable human rights milestones, including being the first in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. It’s also pursuing an ambitious green energy agenda and actively supports Ukraine in the international arena. Taiwan’s commitment to these values resonates with democratic nations like Britain, Canada, Australia, and France.
Palestine currently lacks a united democratic voice, while China exerts its influence to deter engagement with Taiwan. Some democratic leaders appear willing to engage with authoritarian Palestinian leaders, raising questions about their commitment to liberal values.
Both situations, however, share a fundamental challenge. The perception of a Palestinian state arises amidst the aftermath of the October 7th attack, while fears of retribution from China cloud Taiwan’s diplomatic efforts. In both cases, democracy is overshadowed by threats from authoritarian regimes.
Ultimately, Palestinian groups don’t meet the requirements of statehood, whereas Taiwan is a recognized free nation. This doesn’t mean that advocating for Taiwan’s independence is straightforward or advisable in the current landscape. Yet, it does suggest that democratic leaders should be brave enough to engage with Taiwan’s representatives before getting embroiled in lofty ambitions for peace in the Middle East.
