Afrasianet - Dr. Mohsen Mohamed Saleh - The New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Palestinian Question and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, as much as it tried to restore the global momentum of the two-state solution and stop the war on the Gaza Strip, raised doubts about the feasibility of practical implementation on the ground, and overcame the obstacles that hindered it over the course of the 32 years of the Oslo Accords.
To the extent that he tried to mobilize the largest international support for the project, he made concessions, which most Palestinians do not see as justified, regarding the right of the resistance and its role in effective partnership in Palestinian decision-making without external templates or dictates.
The international conference, at the level of the United Nations, which was held from July 28-30, 2025, and formed eight working groups to mature ideas and draft resolutions related to the two-state solution politically, economically, security, and financially, issued the New York Declaration with the participation of 17 countries, in addition to the European Union and the League of Arab States.
On the sidelines of the conference, the French Foreign Minister issued an announcement about the intention of 15 European countries to recognize the State of Palestine, and to issue an appeal to those who did not join the recognition. Of these, 9 countries have not yet recognized but have expressed their readiness or interest in recognition.
Positive indicators
The announcement carried a number of positive indicators, most notably:
1. Mobilizing a strong international track to push for a two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the basis of the armistice lines before the June 1967 war. Regardless of the position of this writer on the two-state solution, this international mobilization may contribute to escalating the pressure on the Israeli occupation, which has bypassed this solution, and has been practically preoccupied with erasing the Palestinian file and imposing a "decisive" plan to annex what is left of occupied Palestine and Judaize it.
2. A large bloc of European countries and traditional allies supporting the Israeli occupation joined for the first time to recognize the State of Palestine and enforce the two-state solution, including France, Britain, Germany, Canada, and Australia... This imposes more international isolation and pressure on the Israeli entity.
3. Rejecting the Israeli aggression on Gaza, condemning its aggression against civilians, demanding an end to the war, the entry of aid, rejecting forced displacement, lifting starvation, demanding reconstruction and resumption of services such as electricity, water and fuel, and emphasizing the role of UNRWA, which means thwarting a large part of the Israeli plan in the Strip.
4. Showing some seriousness in implementing the two-state solution through the formation of working committees that deal with the political, economic, security and financial details, and by seeking to set a specific timetable to reach a final Israeli-Palestinian agreement. Not to compromise the status of Jerusalem, affirming the Hashemite Trusteeship, affirming that Gaza is part of the Palestinian state, strengthening the Palestinian economy, and demanding the Israeli occupation to release tax revenues.
The main observation on these positive indicators is that they have not carried anything new in the attitude expressed by most of the countries of the world towards the question of Palestine for decades; they have generally summarized hundreds of resolutions adopted by the United Nations by an overwhelming majority over the past 55 years, although they have tried to restore the spirit of initiative in the face of the fait accompli imposed by the Israelis.
The international system supporting the settlement process has already formed political, economic, security and refugee working groups after the Oslo Accords, but they have not led to a result. A "road map" for the establishment of a Palestinian state was adopted in 2003 within two years, but it ended in failure despite American sponsorship of the plan.
Perhaps a number of countries friendly to Israel wanted to save Israel from themselves, after they saw that the extremist arrogant behavior and practices of the entity government would ignite elements of anger and explosion in the region, and thus would rebound as an existential threat to the survival of the entity itself.
Is it a path designed to fail?
The New York Declaration once again provides us with a "car without wheels"; it avoids dealing directly with the essence of the problem that disrupted the Oslo Accords and the settlement process.
After 32 years, there is a consensus among the countries of the world that the Israeli occupation has disrupted the agreements, treated the settlement process as a cover for further Judaization and settlements, imposing facts on the ground, and made the two-state solution impossible. The entity has also made itself a "state above the law," benefiting from the American cover.
This New York Declaration does not provide any serious mechanisms or guarantees to impose the will and decisions of the international community (which has more than 950 resolutions) on the Israeli entity.
All requests related to the Israeli side fall within the framework of wishes, invitations and wishes. There are no sanctions and no deterrent sanctions are threatened to force it to comply.
The New York declaration would therefore be a remarketing of the sterile Oslo process, a reproduction of failure. This will provide more time for the occupation to follow up on the Judaization programs, while the Palestinian side will be followed up according to precise and specific mechanisms that go into the Israeli pocket and follow up on the functional role of the Ramallah Authority in serving the occupation.
Condemning Hamas and Disarming the Resistance
For the first time, Arab and Muslim countries have condemned the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7 and accused it of targeting civilians, responding to the Israeli narrative denied by Hamas, while the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim majorities see the operation itself as a legitimate act and an unprecedented achievement. This is a dangerous development, as these countries have previously rejected any international condemnation of the operation.
The most dangerous aspect of the issue is Hamas's demand to disarm and hand them over to the Palestinian Authority, which is in essence the achievement of an Israeli goal of the war on Gaza. This is a unilateral measure that provides in practice full freedom for the Israeli occupation to continue and stabilize, and to pursue Judaization and settlement programs without resistance, and consequently to continue to write off the Palestinian file, as is happening in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and in an Arab and international environment that admits that it is completely incapable of obliging the Israeli occupation to do anything.
Thus, instead of helping the Palestinian side to protect itself as a victim under occupation, the occupying aggressor, who has committed thousands of massacres, is rewarded and facilitated by his mission!! There are no clauses on the disarmament of the Israeli occupation or the imposition of an international embargo on it.
Removing Hamas from the Political Scene and Deepening the Divide
The New York Declaration presents a vision that contributes to the deterioration of the internal Palestinian situation, rather than strengthening it, as it requires the holding of Palestinian elections in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be attended only by Palestinians who are committed to the Oslo process and the commitments made by the PLO leadership.
In practice, this means excluding Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the resistance forces that reject the Oslo Accords from the electoral process, and formulating an "artificial Palestinian legitimacy," at a time when all opinion polls indicate that the resistance forces are popularly superior to the forces that support the settlement process. Moreover, all the Palestinian agreements over the past twenty years confirm the full partnership of all Palestinian forces in the elections of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian National Council and the rebuilding of the PLO.
This proposal is in line with the Israeli-American and Quartet's demands, which have proven to be unsuccessful, as well as the theses of Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah leadership, which is known for its inability to compete in any transparent democratic electoral competition with Hamas and the resistance forces.
One of the clauses adds more urgency to the wound by talking about the adoption of specific measures against entities and individuals that act against the principle of a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.
Of course, these measures will not be taken against the Israeli ruling parties that have worked over the past decades to thwart and overthrow this path, but the Palestinian resistance forces that exercise their natural and legitimate right to resist and liberate their land from Israeli occupation will be prosecuted!
A demilitarized Palestinian state
The New York Declaration presents a serious concession in the structure of an independent Palestinian state, and speaks of a state without an army or demilitarized. Instead of providing guarantees for this state to protect itself from Israeli occupation, aggression and colonialism, it provides guarantees and reassurances to the colonial occupying power, which practices massacres and confiscates land and holy sites in a systematic manner, and provides it with the tools of temptation to pursue its incursions, impose its hegemony and reoccupy whenever it wants, and according to any expedient interpretations it deems appropriate.
Integration of the Israeli entity in the region
The New York Declaration seeks to reward the Israeli occupation through a normalization program that leads to its "integration" in the region. It goes beyond talking about holding the occupation accountable for its crimes, its ongoing aggression against Lebanon and Syria, its aggression against Iran, and its attempt to impose its security hegemony over the region.
Finally, the international community must cease its policy of reassuring and providing incentives to the occupying criminal, punishing the victim and demanding more concessions and guarantees.
It must also stop imposing its supernatural vision and will on the specifications of legitimacy and Palestinian leadership, as the Palestinian people have sufficient maturity to choose their own leadership and make their own decisions.
If the international community is serious about supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state on the territory occupied in 1967, the essence of its efforts must be directed to forcing the occupation to withdraw, not to subject the oppressed Palestinian people to the standards of occupation, nor to reward the occupation with more normalization and providing them with elements of stability and prosperity, even before it withdraws.
The New York Declaration remains one of many projects that evade dealing with the essence of the problem, which is to find mechanisms capable of obliging the occupation to withdraw and enforce international resolutions. Thus it will reproduce illusion and failure.