The United Nations General Assembly this week hosted a two-day gathering aimed at addressing the long-standing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Referred to variably as a conference, summit, or informal diplomatic meeting, the event took place on 28–29 July in New York. Its stated purpose was to revive the debate over the two-state solution — the creation of an independent State of Palestine alongside Israel — as a pathway to lasting peace.
The event was organised jointly by France and Saudi Arabia, and saw participation from over 40 foreign ministers, including delegations from EU member states, Turkey, and several Arab countries. However, its effectiveness was immediately called into question due to the absence of two critical actors: Israel and the United States. The US Department of State deemed the initiative “counterproductive”, while Israeli officials dismissed it as detached from the present realities of the conflict.
The meeting took place across multiple UN venues — at times in the General Assembly Hall, at times in side rooms — giving the impression of a disjointed process. Despite months of organisational effort since early 2025, logistical coherence appeared lacking. More importantly, the strategic rift between organisers and key regional actors was plain. The initiative spearheaded by Paris and Riyadh ran headlong into the opposition of Washington and Jerusalem, exposing deep fault lines in the international approach to the conflict.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called the event “a transformative moment”, while his Saudi counterpart, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, described it as “historic” — a potential inflection point toward not only ending the war in Gaza but also re-establishing the foundations of regional stability. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, opening the meeting, repeated the longstanding position of the United Nations: that the creation of two independent states, living side by side within secure and internationally recognised borders, remains the only viable framework for a sustainable resolution. He emphasised that this vision — rooted in the UN’s 1947 partition plan — continues to enjoy the backing of international law and the overwhelming majority of UN member states.
Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa used the platform to call on other nations to follow France’s lead and formally recognise the State of Palestine. Ahmad Majdalani, a senior official from the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), identified three immediate objectives: the launch of a renewed international political process toward statehood, formal recognition by key powers such as the US and UK, and substantial financial and economic assistance. Notably, his statements did not include any direct reference to the principle of “two states”, further fuelling Israeli concerns that Palestinian leadership may ultimately reject Israel’s permanent existence.
Israel, for its part, strongly opposes what it sees as the premature institutionalisation of a Palestinian state. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz argued that such a move, under present conditions, would risk placing Hamas in power — the same organisation responsible for the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israeli territory. The comparison made by Israeli officials to the historical example of Czechoslovakia — a state created only to disintegrate — reflects a deep mistrust of diplomatic initiatives not grounded in security guarantees. Israel maintains that the first condition for any substantive political process must be the complete dismantling of Hamas and other terrorist entities operating in the region.
The Israeli argument draws not only on recent events but on a long historical view. Following the adoption of UN Resolution 181 in 1947, Israel moved to establish itself in accordance with the proposed partition, only to face immediate armed resistance from neighbouring Arab states. By 1949, Jordan controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt administered Gaza — neither under Palestinian control. The idea of a Palestinian state was, for decades, absent from regional diplomacy. Only from the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly with the rise of Yasser Arafat, did international momentum begin to coalesce around a two-state outcome.
The absence of both the US and Israel from this week’s UN event reinforced a perception of unilateralism. As the Israeli delegation stayed away, the event inevitably took on a one-sided character, regardless of the organisers’ intentions. Yet it is precisely this imbalance that may have undermined the effort. Questions were raised as to why such a forum was convened at all in the absence of Israel — a key party to the conflict and an indispensable actor in any future settlement. From a procedural standpoint, it also remained unclear how proposed conclusions could be implemented without Israeli or American involvement.
Behind Israel’s intransigence lies a fundamental security calculus. Officials in Jerusalem argue that terrorist groups — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis — all serve as proxies for Iran, with material and logistical backing from Tehran. Moreover, there is increasing evidence of Russian involvement, particularly since October 2023. The Hamas offensive against Israel, according to some assessments, was encouraged — if not coordinated — by Moscow, which sees value in destabilising US-allied democracies across the Middle East. Russia’s role in other regional conflicts, notably between Armenia and Azerbaijan, supports this reading. Where Russia is present, the prospect of a political resolution diminishes.
This nexus between terrorism and foreign state sponsorship complicates any notion of a clean diplomatic process. In practical terms, Israel sees the dismantling of Hamas as a prerequisite to further engagement. The Israeli Defence Minister has already stated that the Israel Defence Forces will maintain a permanent presence in Gaza, at least until Hamas is decisively eliminated. Without this security guarantee, Israel argues, any political framework risks enabling a resurgence of violent extremism.
At the same time, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has become acute. The Hamas-run Ministry of Health reports more than 60,000 casualties, but British analysts suggest that an additional 10,000 people remain buried under rubble. Entire urban areas lie in ruins, and parts of northern Gaza have entered famine conditions since spring 2025. The destruction has drawn international condemnation, with some Palestinian voices accusing Israel of genocide and apartheid. Yet others, including Mary Robinson, former Irish president and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, have acknowledged the complexities: that while Israel resists the two-state framework, it also cannot be expected to negotiate with organisations committed to its destruction.
The strategic deadlock has produced conflicting interpretations. The Netanyahu government views the two-state solution as a political construct out of step with current security realities. Palestinian representatives, meanwhile, focus primarily on diplomatic recognition and economic support. Nowhere in their messaging was there an explicit endorsement of coexistence or mutual statehood.
For French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi officials, the event was intended to strike a balance — recognising Israel’s right to self-defence while reopening dialogue on Palestinian sovereignty. Macron specifically sought to reframe the conversation away from intractable politics and toward humanitarian imperatives, particularly in Gaza. His approach, however, has yet to translate into diplomatic traction.
In conclusion, the UN gathering this week demonstrated that while the idea of a two-state solution remains nominally alive, its implementation is more distant than ever. Geopolitical dynamics have changed fundamentally since 1947. Iran now plays a central operational role. Russia acts as a destabilising force. Western unity is fraying, and the domestic politics of Israel — under a right-wing coalition — render diplomatic flexibility unlikely. Humanitarian conditions are worsening. And while many nations have formally recognised Palestine — over 147 at present — the lack of consensus on how to proceed renders recognition a symbolic act more than a mechanism of change.
As Secretary-General Guterres warned in his closing remarks, the world cannot afford to allow this meeting to become “another rhetorical exercise”. Yet in the absence of practical frameworks, security guarantees, and the neutralisation of terrorist groups, rhetoric may be all that remains. The road to peace — if one still exists — begins not in declarations, but in addressing the armed groups and state actors that continue to profit from perpetual conflict. Until that is done, neither Israel nor Palestine can be expected to move forward.
