World leaders last week gathered in New York to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN, many for the first time, in what they claimed was a moral stand for peace. Yet the timing — nearly two years into a devastating war in Gaza that has killed more than 66,000 people — raises more questions than applause.
If it was a humanitarian gesture, it was belated. If it was a political statement, it was selective and self-serving.
From the beginning of the war, Western governments have pressured Israel to halt its offensive, but where was the pressure on Hamas to release the hostages — an act that ignited the conflict in the first place? Had that pressure been equally intense, perhaps the war would not have reached the scale that it did.
Instead, leaders treated the crisis as if only one party held agency. They now express grief over the suffering in Gaza, but remain stubbornly blind to Hamas’ tactics: embedding its operations within civilian infrastructure, using human shields and leveraging every image of destruction to erode Israel’s legitimacy in the global arena.
If these leaders were truly motivated by humanitarian urgency, they might have taken real humanitarian action. They might have sent troops to establish aid corridors, flown in medical teams or protected civilians by establishing neutral zones. They did none of those. Instead, they waited until the destruction was complete and then declared themselves on the side of justice, basking in applause as if the moral high ground was finally high enough.
They have finally recognized Palestine, but what does that actually mean? What would they do to relieve Palestinian suffering today? What institutions would they help build? How do they plan to support the creation of a state while bypassing the question of governance — particularly the role of Hamas, still recognized internationally as a terrorist organization. Are these leaders envisioning a government that includes Hamas or one that excludes it? If the latter, are they prepared to support the Palestinian Authority with more than words?
More troubling is the timing. Recognition might be justified in principle, but doing so mid-conflict — without a unified Palestinian leadership, without a peace process in place and without resolving the hostage crisis — risks rewarding violence rather than diplomacy. A better move would be one in which recognition could consolidate peace, empower moderates and help lay the foundations of a viable state.
Last week’s wave of recognition feels like a symbolic gesture offered too late to prevent war and too early to enable peace. It risks becoming yet another moral performance with little practical impact.
Then there is the deeper hypocrisy.
If statehood recognition is truly grounded in legal and moral principle, why is Taiwan still denied it? Taiwan meets every traditional condition of statehood: It has a defined territory, a permanent population, a stable and democratic government and active, if unofficial, relations with the global community. Its success is undeniable, its governance is responsible and its people have expressed a clear desire to remain free and self-governing.
Yet, most of the countries rushing to recognize Palestine continue to withhold recognition from Taiwan — not because it lacks merit, but because recognizing Taiwan would offend Beijing.
This is not diplomacy guided by principle, but diplomacy shaped by fear, driven by self-interest and steeped in hypocrisy.
Taiwan’s paradox is not that it is invisible. It is that it is seen clearly and still ignored. Because it is peaceful and prosperous, it is easy to set aside. It has no refugee crisis, no smoldering ruins, no pleas from rubble — and so it is told to wait.
Recognition delayed is not only recognition denied — it is peace denied. Once war erupts, it is always too late to speak of peace. Do not repeat the blunder of mistaking eulogy for justice. May more leaders lead with courage and conscience, not calculation and hypocrisy.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong living in Taiwan.
President William Lai (賴清德) has been handed a trifecta of setbacks in recent months. Taiwan’s trade negotiations with the United States proved inconclusive. Lai was not permitted to transit New York City as part of a broader trip. And the Democratic Progressive Party failed in its attempts to recall Kuomintang legislators. On top of this, there is concern in Taiwan that a meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping (習近平) this fall could generate disadvantageous outcomes for Taiwan, such as revisions to America’s longstanding cross-Strait policies to more closely align with Beijing’s preferred framing of issues. These are challenging times for
Before the break of dawn, the streets are full of countless teens rushing to class with backpacks in hand — a scene that has long been part of Taiwan’s educational landscape. Recently, a citizen-initiated petition signed by more than 10,000 people calling for delaying junior-high and high-school class starting times to 10am and ending at 4pm has once again drawn society’s attention to students’ health and daily routines, triggering debate over topics from sleep and biological clocks to the pressures of the academic system. Supporters and opponents of the petition have their own perspectives, but what is truly worth reflecting on
The Mataian River (馬太鞍溪) barrier lake burst into Hualien County’s Guangfu Township (光復) on Tuesday, causing floodwaters to pour onto Dunhou Road, Fozu Street and other areas of the town, resulting in a major tragedy. Before the disaster struck, the central government had issued several alerts for Hualien County — four “red” landslide alerts, 102 “yellow” landslide alerts and four “yellow” alerts for large-scale collapses — through the Forestry and Nature Conservation Agency, the Central Weather Administration and the Water Resources Agency. Data from the Central Emergency Operations Center showed an abnormal rise in water levels at the Mataian River barrier
When Cti TV News hosted the televised Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chair election debate on Sept. 21, former KMT legislator and host Alex Tsai (蔡正元) pressed candidates on the issue of Taiwan-China relations. Tsai’s line of questioning ended with Legislator and candidate Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) throwing out the statement: “I am Taiwanese, I am Chinese, and my China is the Republic of China [ROC].” Apparently making a stab at reconciling a deep-seated cultural-historical contradiction, the reality of Lo’s political context meant that he instead appeared trapped within the outdated framework of equating the ROC with China. Such ideas are, ultimately,
RSS