The Israeli delegation to the UN organized a reenactment on Tuesday of the historic 1947 vote in which the world body approved the plan to partition Palestine. On Wednesday, the UN General Assembly observed its “international day of solidarity with the Palestinian people”—in which, as Benny Avni puts it, the UN remembers “one of the only consequential decisions [it] ever took by celebrating those who rejected it.” Yet, Avni writes, although recognition from Turtle Bay has become a focus of Palestinian aspirations, it is hardly a sufficient condition for statehood:

Long before partition, the Zionists had competing political parties, active and effective workers’ unions, universities, and scientific research institutes. A free press thrived, a budding legal system developed, and, [despite] early fights among Jewish militias, a united army under civilian control was formed as soon as independence was declared.

It wasn’t at all perfect. Nothing is. But the Zionists weren’t promising to be a stable democracy sometime in the future. They were demonstrating one right then and there. Not so the Palestinians. They’ve been declaring a state forever, but their pursuit of UN recognition has put the cart before the horse. . . .

In Palestinian-controlled West Bank cities and in Hamas-ruled Gaza, political differences are resolved by force. Armed groups violently compete with each other. The powers-that-be control the legal system. Corruption is rampant. Dissent is suffocated. The Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas is nearly a decade past the end of his one elected term, yet he still wields power.

The United Nations, the Arab League, the Saudi plan, President Trump’s new peace deal, BDS, or any other BS—none will create a Palestinian state. Only the Palestinians will, and they’re far behind.

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”