A State Is Not Born from Recognition: Between Image and Governing Capacity

Moshe Elad responds to Prof. Daniel Friedman's article claiming that a Palestinian state already exists in practice. Elad distinguishes between international recognition and effective sovereignty, arguing that the Palestinian Authority fails the tests of statehood: it lacks a monopoly on force, suffers an internal legitimacy crisis, has weak institutions, and is split between Gaza and the West Bank. He stresses that recognition is no substitute for state-building and asks whether, after recognition, it will be a state capable of governing.

Moshe Elad, an Arab affairs expert and former governor of Jenin and Bethlehem, responds to Prof. Daniel Friedman's article claiming that a Palestinian state already exists in practice. Elad distinguishes between international legitimacy and effective sovereignty, arguing that recognition does not create a state. He details five tests the Palestinians fail: lack of a monopoly on force, internal legitimacy crisis, weak institutions, the split between Gaza and the West Bank, and the transition from a liberation movement to a state. He mentions Hamas as a 'state within a state' in Gaza, and Abu Mazen's nickname 'mayor of Ramallah'. Elad emphasizes the lesson of October 7: an entity with territory and population is not necessarily a responsible state. He rejects the comparison to Europe, where peace was achieved after building democratic institutions and historical reconciliation. In conclusion, he asks whether after recognition it will be a state capable of governing or just a new name for an old problem.