In a powerful address to the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sunday, September 28, 2025, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) took a firm stand against Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, condemning the targeting of civilians, forced displacements, and territorial ambitions. State Minister for Foreign Affairs Lana Nusseibeh articulated the UAE’s unwavering commitment to a two-state solution as the cornerstone for achieving lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She also addressed the long-standing territorial dispute with Iran over three strategic islands in the Persian Gulf, urging a resolution through diplomacy or international arbitration. This speech underscored the UAE’s growing role as a diplomatic heavyweight in the Middle East, balancing its regional influence with calls for justice, sovereignty, and stability.
Condemning Israel’s Actions in Gaza and the West Bank
The UAE’s condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank was unequivocal. Minister Nusseibeh described the military operations as indefensible, particularly the targeting of tens of thousands of civilians, the imposition of sieges, and the deliberate starvation and displacement of populations. “Nothing can justify targeting tens of thousands of civilians, besieging them, starving them, and forcibly displacing them,” she declared, her words resonating with the gravity of the humanitarian crisis in the region. She further criticized Israel’s “unacceptable expansionist ambitions,” specifically pointing to the threat of annexing the West Bank, which she argued undermines the prospects for peace and violates international law.
The Gaza Strip has been a focal point of global concern due to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian groups, particularly Hamas. Since the escalation of violence in October 2023, Gaza has faced relentless military operations, resulting in significant civilian casualties, widespread destruction of infrastructure, and a deepening humanitarian crisis. According to reports from international organizations, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed or injured, with entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble. The blockade of Gaza has restricted access to food, water, medical supplies, and other essentials, exacerbating the suffering of the population.
In the West Bank, the situation is equally volatile. Israel’s military raids, settlement expansions, and restrictions on Palestinian movement have fueled tensions and drawn condemnation from much of the international community. The threat of annexation, particularly in areas like the Jordan Valley, has been a recurring concern, as it would further diminish the territorial contiguity of a future Palestinian state. The UAE’s outspoken criticism reflects a broader regional frustration with Israel’s policies, which many Arab states view as obstacles to peace.
Nusseibeh’s speech was not merely a critique but a call to action. She emphasized the urgency of addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, demanding an “immediate and permanent ceasefire” to halt the violence. She also called for the lifting of the siege, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees, and the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid on a massive scale. These demands align with the UAE’s broader foreign policy, which prioritizes stability and humanitarian relief in conflict zones. The UAE has a track record of providing aid to Gaza, including medical supplies, food, and funding for reconstruction efforts, often channeled through international organizations like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
Advocating for a Two-State Solution
At the heart of the UAE’s position is its steadfast support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nusseibeh described the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital as a “fundamental requirement for achieving a permanent, just, and comprehensive solution.” This stance reaffirms the UAE’s alignment with the international consensus, as outlined in various UN resolutions and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
The two-state solution envisions the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with mutually agreed-upon land swaps and arrangements for Jerusalem, refugees, and security. However, the path to this solution has been fraught with challenges, including ongoing settlement construction, political divisions among Palestinian factions, and a lack of trust between the parties. The UAE’s vocal endorsement of this framework signals its commitment to reviving diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict.
Nusseibeh also welcomed the recent wave of international recognition of Palestinian statehood, noting that several countries have taken steps to formally recognize Palestine as a state. In 2024 alone, nations such as Spain, Ireland, Norway, and others announced their recognition, citing the need to preserve the two-state solution and uphold Palestinian rights. The UAE, which established diplomatic relations with Israel in 2020 under the Abraham Accords, has consistently maintained that its normalization agreement does not negate its support for Palestinian self-determination. Nusseibeh urged other nations to follow suit, arguing that recognizing Palestine is a step toward a “better future” for the region.
The UAE’s position is particularly significant given its role as a mediator and economic powerhouse in the Middle East. Since the Abraham Accords, the UAE has leveraged its diplomatic ties with Israel to advocate for de-escalation and dialogue, while simultaneously pressing for Palestinian rights. This balancing act reflects the UAE’s broader strategy of fostering regional stability through pragmatic diplomacy, economic cooperation, and humanitarian engagement.
The Historical Context of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
To fully appreciate the UAE’s stance, it is essential to understand the historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict traces its roots to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when Zionist immigration to Palestine, then under Ottoman and later British control, sparked tensions with the Arab population. The 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states, was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab states, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the establishment of Israel. The war resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, an event known as the Nakba, or “catastrophe.”
Subsequent wars, including the 1967 Six-Day War, saw Israel occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and other territories. The occupation has shaped the modern conflict, with Palestinians seeking statehood and Israel maintaining security control over the territories. Decades of peace negotiations, including the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, have failed to produce a final agreement, leaving the two-state solution elusive.
The UAE’s call for a two-state solution is rooted in this history but also responds to contemporary realities. The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, now home to over 700,000 settlers, has fragmented Palestinian territory, making the establishment of a contiguous state increasingly difficult. Meanwhile, Gaza’s isolation under blockade has created a humanitarian crisis that demands urgent attention. The UAE’s advocacy for a ceasefire and aid delivery reflects its recognition that immediate action is needed to alleviate suffering and create space for diplomatic progress.
The UAE-Iran Island Dispute: A Historical and Geopolitical Overview
In addition to addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Minister Nusseibeh raised the UAE’s long-standing dispute with Iran over three islands in the Persian Gulf: Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb. She called on Iran to “end its occupation of these islands, which are an integral part of UAE territory,” and proposed resolving the dispute through direct negotiations or referral to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The dispute over the islands dates back to the early 20th century, when they were under British control as part of the Trucial States, a collection of sheikhdoms that included the modern-day UAE. In November 1971, as the UK prepared to withdraw from the Gulf, Iran asserted control over the islands, deploying military forces just days before the UAE’s formation as an independent state. The UAE maintains that the islands were historically part of its territory and that Iran’s actions constitute an illegal occupation. Iran, however, claims that the islands were temporarily under British control and were rightfully returned to Iranian sovereignty in 1971.
The islands are strategically significant due to their location near the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil trade. Abu Musa, the largest of the three, has a small population and limited infrastructure, but its maritime boundaries are contested, impacting fishing rights and potential offshore resources. The Tunb islands, while smaller, are similarly important for their proximity to key shipping lanes.
The UAE has pursued a multifaceted approach to resolving the dispute, combining diplomacy, regional cooperation, and appeals to international law. It has repeatedly called for bilateral talks with Iran, but these efforts have yielded little progress. The UAE has also raised the issue in international forums, including the UN, and has garnered support from Arab states through organizations like the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Arab League. Nusseibeh’s call for ICJ arbitration reflects the UAE’s willingness to explore legal avenues, though Iran has historically rejected third-party mediation.
Geopolitical Implications of the UAE’s Stance
The UAE’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the island dispute with Iran highlight its broader geopolitical strategy. As a small but influential state, the UAE has positioned itself as a leader in the Gulf, leveraging its economic strength, diplomatic agility, and strategic partnerships to shape regional dynamics. Its criticism of Israel, while firm, is carefully calibrated to maintain the benefits of the Abraham Accords, which have fostered trade, technology exchanges, and security cooperation. By advocating for a two-state solution, the UAE seeks to bridge the divide between its normalization with Israel and its traditional support for the Palestinian cause.
The island dispute with Iran, meanwhile, underscores the UAE’s concerns about Iranian influence in the Gulf. Iran’s military presence in the islands, coupled with its broader regional activities—such as support for proxy groups in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon—has heightened tensions with Gulf states. The UAE’s call for negotiations or ICJ arbitration signals its preference for de-escalation, but it also reflects a broader strategy of countering Iran’s assertiveness through diplomatic and legal means.
The UAE’s activism on these issues also reflects its ambition to play a larger role on the global stage. By addressing both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the island dispute in the same UN speech, the UAE is signaling its commitment to sovereignty, justice, and stability—principles that resonate with its domestic audience and its partners in the Arab world. At the same time, its calls for humanitarian aid and diplomatic solutions align with its image as a responsible global actor.
Challenges and Opportunities for the UAE
The UAE faces significant challenges in advancing its agenda. On the Israeli-Palestinian front, the prospects for a two-state solution remain dim, given the entrenched positions of the parties and the lack of a unified Palestinian leadership. The UAE’s normalization with Israel has also drawn criticism from some quarters, who argue that it undermines Palestinian leverage. However, the UAE’s ability to engage both Israel and the Palestinian Authority positions it as a potential mediator, provided it can navigate the complex politics of the region.
The dispute with Iran is equally challenging. Iran’s refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue or accept international arbitration limits the UAE’s options. The broader rivalry between Iran and the Gulf states, fueled by sectarian tensions and competition for regional influence, further complicates the issue. Yet, the UAE’s emphasis on diplomacy and legal mechanisms offers a path toward de-escalation, potentially supported by its allies in the GCC and beyond.
Conclusion
The UAE’s address to the UN General Assembly encapsulates its vision for a stable and just Middle East. By condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank, advocating for a two-state solution, and pressing for a resolution to the island dispute with Iran, the UAE is asserting its role as a principled and proactive player in regional affairs. Minister Nusseibeh’s speech was a clarion call for peace, sovereignty, and humanitarian action, grounded in the UAE’s commitment to international law and diplomacy.
As the UAE continues to navigate the complexities of the Middle East, its ability to balance competing interests—normalization with Israel, support for Palestine, and countering Iran—will be critical. The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but the UAE’s blend of pragmatism, economic clout, and diplomatic finesse positions it well to influence the region’s future. By championing a two-state solution and seeking a peaceful resolution to the island dispute, the UAE is laying the groundwork for a more stable and equitable Middle East, one where dialogue and justice prevail over conflict and occupation.
