[image: https://jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Palestine-in-its-entirety-is-ours-300×174.jpeg]
John Spencer has just written an article on the legal requirements for any political entity to legitimately be considered for statehood, and how the Palestinians fail to meet every one of those requirements. His analysis can be found here: “Why Palestine Cannot and Should Not Be Recognized as a State,” by John Spencer, X <x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1921609407718437164>, May 11, 2025:
With renewed reports that the United States may consider recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a potential normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, the question of Palestinian statehood has returned to the diplomatic forefront. While such recognition remains unlikely in the near term, the fact that it is even under discussion reveals how detached the conversation has become from legal reality. The question of Palestinian statehood is not just political or moral—it is legal. Under international law, recognition of a state is contingent on specific criteria. As articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must meet four basic qualifications: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. At present, the various Palestinian political entities fail to meet several of these criteria
*Why ‘Palestine’ Cannot Be Recognized As A State*
May 16, 2025 2:00 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald <jihadwatch.org/author/laszlo>7 Comments <jihadwatch.org/2025/05/why-palestine-cannot-be-recognized-as-a-state#comments>
John Spencer has just written an article on the legal requirements for any political entity to legitimately be considered for statehood, and how the Palestinians fail to meet every one of those requirements. His analysis can be found here: “Why Palestine Cannot and Should Not Be Recognized as a State,” by John Spencer, X <x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1921609407718437164>, May 11, 2025:
With renewed reports that the United States may consider recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a potential normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, the question of Palestinian statehood has returned to the diplomatic forefront. While such recognition remains unlikely in the near term, the fact that it is even under discussion reveals how detached the conversation has become from legal reality. The question of Palestinian statehood is not just political or moral—it is legal. Under international law, recognition of a state is contingent on specific criteria. As articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must meet four basic qualifications: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. At present, the various Palestinian political entities fail to meet several of these criteria….
[image: https://jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Palestine-in-its-entirety-is-ours-300×174.jpeg] <jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Palestine-in-its-entirety-is-ours.jpeg>
To summarize:
1) There are no defined borders of a future state of Palestine. Those borders some Arabs propose — those who pretend to accept the existence of a Jewish state — are the 1949 armistice lines. Were Israel to be squeezed back within those lines (not borders, but armistice lines), it would have a nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. It would lose control of the Judean Valley that is essential to its defense, and would be wide open to an invasion force from the east. As UN Security Resolution 242 recognized, Israel has a right to hold onto any territory it won in the Six-Day War that it needs for its defense, as the author of Resolution 242, Lord Caradon, repeatedly noted.
2) There is no single governing authority for the Palestinians. Hamas runs Gaza, while the Palestinian Authority rules the Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria. They have been at daggers drawn, literally, since 2007, when Hamas, killed hundreds of members of Fatah, the military faction of the Palestinian authority, drove others out of the Strip, and assumed total control. In the Palestinian-populated areas of Judea and Samaria, the Palestinian Authority has, similarly, suppressed its political rival Hamas, by killing its operatives. The two rivals are not any closer to establishing a single governing authority today; Hamas wants to keep control of Gaza, and the PA is hoping it can convince the world to let it replace Hamas in the Strip.
3) Neither side rejects terrorism or the use of violence. Hamas has always been, unapologetically, a terror group, and has been designated as such not just by the Western powers but by Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well. Hamas is merely the Gazan outpost of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a threat to all the Arab rulers in the region.
As for the Palestinian Authority, it presents itself as the acceptable “moderate” face of Palestinian revanchism. The PA does not itself use terrorism directly against Israel, but its “Pay-For-Slay” program provides generous monthly stipends to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and thus it both rewards past, and incentivizes future, terrorism. Until the PA ends “Pay-For-Slay,” and stops glorifying Palestinian terrorists in its media and in its schoolbooks, but instead denounces them, loudly and steadily, it cannot be considered a candidate for statehood.
4) Statehood is not a right but must come only after certain criteria have been met. As John Spencer writes, the Palestinians — both in Hamas and the PA — have refused to renounce terrorism, dismantle terrorists, or “engage in sustained negotiations without preconditions….Recognition without reform would reward intransigence and undermine the integrity of international legal standards.”
None of those requirements have been met. But even if they were, there is still no reason to pressure Israel to give up one dunam of its claim to Judea and Samaria, a claim based on 3500 years of history and the Mandate for Palestine. The Arabs have 22 states; they do not need a 23rd Arab state, that would exist only to serve as a launching-pad for the next pan-Arab, or possibly pan-Muslim, attempt to destroy Israel and its people.
John Spencer has just written an article on the legal requirements for any political entity to legitimately be considered for statehood, and how the Palestinians fail to meet every one of those requirements. His analysis can be found here: “Why Palestine Cannot and Should Not Be Recognized as a State,” by John Spencer, X <x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1921609407718437164>, May 11, 2025:
With renewed reports that the United States may consider recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a potential normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, the question of Palestinian statehood has returned to the diplomatic forefront. While such recognition remains unlikely in the near term, the fact that it is even under discussion reveals how detached the conversation has become from legal reality. The question of Palestinian statehood is not just political or moral—it is legal. Under international law, recognition of a state is contingent on specific criteria. As articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must meet four basic qualifications: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. At present, the various Palestinian political entities fail to meet several of these criteria
*Why ‘Palestine’ Cannot Be Recognized As A State*
May 16, 2025 2:00 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald <jihadwatch.org/author/laszlo>7 Comments <jihadwatch.org/2025/05/why-palestine-cannot-be-recognized-as-a-state#comments>
John Spencer has just written an article on the legal requirements for any political entity to legitimately be considered for statehood, and how the Palestinians fail to meet every one of those requirements. His analysis can be found here: “Why Palestine Cannot and Should Not Be Recognized as a State,” by John Spencer, X <x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1921609407718437164>, May 11, 2025:
With renewed reports that the United States may consider recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a potential normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, the question of Palestinian statehood has returned to the diplomatic forefront. While such recognition remains unlikely in the near term, the fact that it is even under discussion reveals how detached the conversation has become from legal reality. The question of Palestinian statehood is not just political or moral—it is legal. Under international law, recognition of a state is contingent on specific criteria. As articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must meet four basic qualifications: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. At present, the various Palestinian political entities fail to meet several of these criteria….
[image: https://jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Palestine-in-its-entirety-is-ours-300×174.jpeg] <jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Palestine-in-its-entirety-is-ours.jpeg>
To summarize:
1) There are no defined borders of a future state of Palestine. Those borders some Arabs propose — those who pretend to accept the existence of a Jewish state — are the 1949 armistice lines. Were Israel to be squeezed back within those lines (not borders, but armistice lines), it would have a nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. It would lose control of the Judean Valley that is essential to its defense, and would be wide open to an invasion force from the east. As UN Security Resolution 242 recognized, Israel has a right to hold onto any territory it won in the Six-Day War that it needs for its defense, as the author of Resolution 242, Lord Caradon, repeatedly noted.
2) There is no single governing authority for the Palestinians. Hamas runs Gaza, while the Palestinian Authority rules the Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria. They have been at daggers drawn, literally, since 2007, when Hamas, killed hundreds of members of Fatah, the military faction of the Palestinian authority, drove others out of the Strip, and assumed total control. In the Palestinian-populated areas of Judea and Samaria, the Palestinian Authority has, similarly, suppressed its political rival Hamas, by killing its operatives. The two rivals are not any closer to establishing a single governing authority today; Hamas wants to keep control of Gaza, and the PA is hoping it can convince the world to let it replace Hamas in the Strip.
3) Neither side rejects terrorism or the use of violence. Hamas has always been, unapologetically, a terror group, and has been designated as such not just by the Western powers but by Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well. Hamas is merely the Gazan outpost of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a threat to all the Arab rulers in the region.
As for the Palestinian Authority, it presents itself as the acceptable “moderate” face of Palestinian revanchism. The PA does not itself use terrorism directly against Israel, but its “Pay-For-Slay” program provides generous monthly stipends to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and thus it both rewards past, and incentivizes future, terrorism. Until the PA ends “Pay-For-Slay,” and stops glorifying Palestinian terrorists in its media and in its schoolbooks, but instead denounces them, loudly and steadily, it cannot be considered a candidate for statehood.
4) Statehood is not a right but must come only after certain criteria have been met. As John Spencer writes, the Palestinians — both in Hamas and the PA — have refused to renounce terrorism, dismantle terrorists, or “engage in sustained negotiations without preconditions….Recognition without reform would reward intransigence and undermine the integrity of international legal standards.”
None of those requirements have been met. But even if they were, there is still no reason to pressure Israel to give up one dunam of its claim to Judea and Samaria, a claim based on 3500 years of history and the Mandate for Palestine. The Arabs have 22 states; they do not need a 23rd Arab state, that would exist only to serve as a launching-pad for the next pan-Arab, or possibly pan-Muslim, attempt to destroy Israel and its people.
jihadwatch.org/2025/05/why-palestine-cannot-be-recognized-as-a-state