#palestinian state

Perhaps Anon meant to ask something like:

"Do you believe Palestinians constitute a nation with a legitimate right to sovereignty over territory?"

But it's phrased as a yes-or-no question which itself (1) contains multiple assumptions and (2) collapses several distinct questions into one.

"Palestinians" Not just people who live somewhere, but a collective national subject. The question assumes Palestinians are a unified political nation rather than a population with varied terrotories, identities, histories, and political claims. The Arab peoples of Gaza and the West bank also have two (non-cooperating) governments, several security forces, dysfunctional civic infrastructure due to corruption regardless of how much money the international community pumps into it, and no elections. This isn't to say that Palestinians aren't a nation, but that the question presumes that they are without supporting that presumption. The logical fallacy here is Begging the Question.

"National claim" This question doesn't speak to humanitarian rights, civil rights, or individual property rights. It asks only about a collective, political, sovereignty-level claim...the kind of claim that justifies borders, statehood, and exclusive control. Again, the question presumes an answer without supporting its assumptions.

"Any land" This is the most slippery part. It seems perhaps intentionally vague. It could mean some land (West Bank, Gaza). It could mean Ottoman Palestine or Mandate Palestine. It could mean any land at all, including land currently inside Israel. It could mean all the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean This ambiguity would allow Anon to interpret the solicited yes-or-no answer any way they want.

This question collapses several distinct and complex issues into one, including all of these:

Do Palestinians exist as a people?

Do they have political self-determination rights?

Over which territory?

Based on what historical, legal, or moral framework?

It avoids specifying borders, timeframes, or legal standards.

It treats "national claims" as a moral absolute rather than something historically contingent, negotiated, and often conflicting.

So this question needs to be broken down into at least four questions:

"Do you believe Palestinians (defined as the Arab peoples of Gaza and the West Bank) have a right to an independent state?" If "right" means a universal moral entitlement independent of behavior, history, or political reality, then no. No group has that kind of right. If "right" means eligibility under international norms conditional on meeting certain criteria, then potentially yes, but only contingently. Any further discussion of this one must include the following topics: - What defines a "distinct people"? What differentiates West Bank Arabs from Jordanians, or Gazans from Egyptians, other than their shared rejection of a Jewish state in any borders? - Is the claim of national identity being defined positively, or almost entirely by negation of a neighboring state?

"If so, where?" Certainly not in the whole of British Mandate Palestine for two main reasons: First, ~75% of what was Mandate Palestine is now Jordan (yes, an Arab state was given of 75% of Mandate Palestine). Second, no "claim" that requires the elimination of an existing sovergein state can be called legitimate. In Gaza and West Bank? Theoretically, sure - but Israel has offered that at least five times and Palestinian leadership declined it all five times. Has the international community been given any reason to think that a sixth offer would be received differently? Not really, no. Palestinian leadership, whether Fatah in the West Bank or Hamas in Gaza, has consistently prioritized maximalist claims and the negation of Israel over building viable institutions or accepting a negotiated compromise. This isn't speculation or opinion, it's the historical record. The 2000 Camp David talks. The 2001 Taba talks. The 2008 Olmert proposal. The 2014 Kerry framework. Every time, the answer was no. Not "no, but here’s our counteroffer"....just no. So, in theory...? Yes - but only if/when Palestinians accept coexistence with Israel, renounce attempts to murder it's neighbors, and build the institutions neccessary for statehood. Is any of that happening right now? No.

"Do you support Palestinian self-determination alongside Israeli self-determination?" Yes, if it's reciprocal. Palestinian self-determination is legitimate if it exists alongside, not instead of, Jewish self-determination. The current demand from many quarters (especially on the activist left) is for a single Arab-majority state from the river to the sea. That's not peace, not justice, and not coexistence - it's theocratic ethno-nationalism...something they claim to hate when they falsely accuse Israel of it.

The United States vetoed a widely backed U.N. resolution Thursday that would have paved the way for full United Nations membership for Palestine, a goal the Palestinians have long sought and Israel has worked to prevent.

The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 12 in favor, the United States opposed and two abstentions, from the United Kingdom and Switzerland. U.S. allies France, Japan and South Korea supported the resolution. (source) (source) (source)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Britain and other Western allies of giving Hamas a "prize," saying: "It will not happen. A Palestinian state will not be established west of the Jordan River."

Sept. 21, 2025, 6:20 AM MST / Updated Sept. 21, 2025, 12:37 PM MST

By Freddie Clayton

LONDON — The United Kingdom, Canada and Australia officially recognized Palestine as a state Sunday, a significant shift in foreign policy and a step away from their alignment with the United States, with several other European nations and U.S. allies set to follow suit this week.