Chairman Ehsassi, vice-chairmen Chong and Bergeron and honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important subject.

I'm a professor of international law and have extensively written scholarship on the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The focus of today's discussion is on proposals that Canada imminently recognize Palestine as a sovereign state. Such a decision would lack any basis in international law and would add Canada to the lamentable trend of nations subordinating legal norms on state recognition to political considerations.

Recognizing a Palestinian state would undermine Canada's commitment to the integrity of a rules-based international order. That is because the existence or non-existence of sovereign states is a matter governed by international law, and the suggested recognition would not comport with the relevant rules.

The legal criteria for statehood are set out in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. They are fourfold: The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control. The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises that control. The entity must have the capacity to freely engage in foreign relations and the entity must have effective control over a permanent population.

The Palestinian entity does not meet several of these criteria. To give just a few examples—and you can refer to my written brief for more details—the Palestinian Authority, which is the government, was created by bilateral agreements with Israel and possesses only those powers specifically transferred to it. Those include control of only parts of the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority controls no part of Gaza, having been evicted by a different government, Hamas, in 2006.

In short, there currently does not exist a Palestinian state under the objective criteria of international law. Canada knows this to be true, having officially declared on September 14, 2024, that it supports the creation of a Palestinian state. This demonstrates that the Government of Canada knows that no Palestinian state existed a month ago; otherwise, it would not need to be created. Nothing since then has changed. Palestine did not qualify as a state a month ago; it does not now.

International law does not regard recognition as creating statehood; rather, statehood must already exist on the ground. That is why Canada does not recognize the statehood of numerous national independence movements, many of which have suffered massive oppression and have worthy historical claims.

Recognition is not related to the justness of Palestinian national aspirations or the extent of their suffering. Surely this committee would not be prepared to minimize or downplay the suffering of the Kurdish people, the Sikh people or the Uyghur people, but that does not mean that there exists under international law a sovereign state of Kurdistan, Khalistan or East Turkmenistan.

Some might argue that other countries have recognized a Palestinian state, claiming that it would advance the peace process, but that was just a smoke screen. Have any of these actions brought peace closer? Have they reduced Palestinian support for Hamas, which is at over 70% in the West Bank, according to Palestinian opinion polls? Has it moderated the Fatah party, whose president, Mahmoud Abbas, publicly mourned the demise of mass murderer Sinwar and has himself not held an election in 15 years? Has it ended the Palestinian Authority's “pay for slay” policy or helped free a single hostage?

If anything, Palestinian stances have hardened, because they see their international recognition strategy as an outside path to getting their demands without changing their behaviour. Can strengthening Hamas, an Iranian puppet, be consistent with Canada's goal of achieving an independent and democratic Palestinian state?

Recognition in the current climate sends a message to Hamas that all of its goals, including the eventual elimination of Israel, can be achieved through vicious attacks followed by the extensive and illegal use of its own people as human shields.

Why do the people of Taiwan and Somaliland, who have peaceful, functioning governments, fail to get recognition while the Fatah- and Hamas-ruled Palestinians achieve it?

What message does this send to, say, Sikh nationalists, or any other kind of ethnic separatists? Is it that their failure to achieve their diplomatic goals comes solely from a lack of violence? How can one look them in the eye after this?

Considerations of international law and the promotion of Canada's stated—