In a landmark decision on Friday, September 12, 2025, the United Nations General Assembly voted decisively in favor of a resolution aimed at reinvigorating the long-stalled two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The resolution, titled the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, garnered support from 142 of the 193 member states, with 10 voting against, including Israel and the United States, and 12 abstaining. The resolution explicitly condemns the Palestinian militant group Hamas, demands the immediate release of hostages held by the group, and calls for Hamas to disarm and relinquish its control over Gaza. This move marks a significant moment in international diplomacy, as the global community seeks to chart a path toward peace in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.
The Resolution: Key Provisions and Objectives
Drafted collaboratively by France and Saudi Arabia, the New York Declaration outlines a clear framework for advancing the two-state solution, a concept that envisions the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. The resolution underscores the international community’s commitment to ending the ongoing war in Gaza, fostering negotiations, and achieving a “just, peaceful, and lasting settlement” rooted in the principles of international law and prior UN resolutions.
Central to the resolution is its unequivocal stance on Hamas, a Palestinian group designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Israel. The text demands that Hamas “free all hostages” taken during its October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which sparked the current war in Gaza. It further insists that Hamas “end its rule in Gaza” and surrender its weapons, transferring governance authority to the Palestinian Authority (PA), the internationally recognized governing body of the Palestinian territories. The resolution envisions international support to bolster the PA’s capacity to govern Gaza effectively, potentially through a UN-led stabilization mission to provide humanitarian and security assistance to civilians.
The resolution also calls for collective international action to halt the violence in Gaza, where Israel’s military campaign has resulted in significant loss of life and widespread destruction. According to reports from the Gaza Health Ministry, over 40,000 Palestinians have been killed since the onset of the conflict, with much of Gaza’s infrastructure reduced to rubble. The UN resolution emphasizes the urgent need to address the humanitarian crisis in the region, protect civilian lives, and create conditions conducive to renewed peace negotiations.
International Reactions: Support and Opposition
The passage of the resolution was met with enthusiastic support from Palestinian officials, who hailed it as a critical step toward achieving their long-standing goal of statehood. Hussein al-Sheikh, a senior Palestinian official and secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee, described the vote as “a historic moment” and an “important step toward ending the Israeli occupation and achieving an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.” He emphasized that the resolution reflects growing global consensus on the need for a political solution to the conflict and reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
In contrast, Israeli officials sharply criticized the resolution, viewing it as a biased and unrealistic attempt to impose a solution that undermines Israel’s security concerns. Oren Marmorstein, a spokesman for Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, issued a scathing statement, calling the UN vote “proof that the General Assembly has become a political circus detached from reality.” He argued that the resolution ignores the complexities of the conflict and fails to address Israel’s legitimate concerns about terrorism and border security. Marmorstein further accused the UN of “rewarding terrorism” by focusing on Palestinian statehood without ensuring accountability for groups like Hamas.
The United States, one of the 10 countries to vote against the resolution, echoed Israel’s concerns. The U.S. representative to the UN argued that while the United States supports a two-state solution in principle, the resolution’s approach is premature and fails to account for the need for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The U.S. also expressed reservations about the resolution’s call for a UN-led stabilization mission in Gaza, citing concerns about feasibility and impartiality.
The 12 abstentions included several countries with nuanced positions on the conflict, such as India, Australia, and Canada. These nations emphasized the importance of diplomacy but expressed reservations about specific aspects of the resolution, including its explicit exclusion of Hamas and the lack of clarity on how the proposed stabilization mission would operate.
The Broader Context: A Renewed Push for Peace
The vote comes at a critical juncture in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as violence in Gaza and the West Bank continues to escalate. The war in Gaza, now in its second year, has drawn widespread international condemnation due to its devastating toll on civilians. At the same time, Israel’s ongoing settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank has further eroded prospects for a viable Palestinian state, prompting renewed calls for international intervention.
The New York Declaration is seen as part of a broader diplomatic effort to revive the two-state solution, which has been a cornerstone of international peace efforts since the Oslo Accords of the 1990s. However, progress toward this goal has been stymied by decades of mutual distrust, failed negotiations, and shifting political realities. The resolution’s proponents argue that it provides a renewed framework for advancing peace by addressing key obstacles, including the role of Hamas and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The resolution also sets the stage for an upcoming summit in New York on September 22, 2025, co-chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan. The summit aims to build on the momentum of the UN vote and is expected to see several world leaders formally recognize Palestinian statehood. This move would add to the approximately 140 UN member states—roughly three-quarters of the total—that already recognize Palestine as a sovereign state. However, key powers such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany have yet to extend formal recognition, citing the need for a negotiated agreement with Israel.
Analysts suggest that the resolution serves a dual purpose. First, it provides a diplomatic “shield” for pro-Palestinian states, allowing them to affirm their support for Palestinian statehood while distancing themselves from Hamas, which is widely criticized for its militant activities and governance failures in Gaza. Second, it increases pressure on Israel to reconsider its military campaign in Gaza and engage in meaningful negotiations, particularly as international frustration with Israel’s policies grows.
Challenges to Implementation
Despite the resolution’s strong support, its implementation faces significant hurdles. The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has consistently rejected the idea of a Palestinian state, viewing it as a threat to Israel’s security and territorial integrity. On Thursday, September 11, 2025, Netanyahu reiterated his stance, declaring, “There will be no Palestinian state,” and vowing to maintain full security control over the occupied territories. This position is supported by hardline members of his coalition government, who advocate for further settlement expansion and, in some cases, the annexation of parts of the West Bank.
The resolution’s call for Hamas to disarm and transfer power to the Palestinian Authority is another major challenge. Hamas, which has controlled Gaza since 2007, has shown little willingness to cede authority, and its rivalry with the PA remains a significant obstacle to Palestinian unity. Efforts to reconcile the two factions have repeatedly failed, raising questions about the feasibility of the resolution’s vision for a unified Palestinian governance structure.
Moreover, the proposed UN-led stabilization mission in Gaza is fraught with logistical and political complexities. Previous international missions in conflict zones, such as those in Lebanon and the Balkans, have faced challenges in maintaining neutrality and effectiveness. In Gaza, any UN presence would need to navigate a volatile security environment, coordinate with multiple stakeholders, and secure adequate funding and resources. Critics argue that such a mission risks becoming mired in bureaucratic delays or being perceived as favoring one side in the conflict.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza further complicates the resolution’s goals. The war has displaced over 1.9 million Palestinians, destroyed critical infrastructure, and left the region heavily dependent on international aid. Rebuilding Gaza will require billions of dollars and sustained international commitment, yet donor fatigue and competing global crises could limit the resources available for reconstruction.
Historical Context: The Two-State Solution and Its Evolution
The two-state solution has been the dominant framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 1990s, when the Oslo Accords established a roadmap for peace negotiations. The accords envisioned the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, alongside a secure Israel. However, the process stalled due to disagreements over key issues, including borders, the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and Israeli settlements.
Over the years, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has significantly altered the territorial landscape, with over 700,000 settlers now living in areas that would form the basis of a future Palestinian state. This development has led many analysts to question whether a contiguous and viable Palestinian state remains feasible. Meanwhile, recurring cycles of violence, including wars in Gaza and clashes in the West Bank, have deepened mistrust between the two sides.
The New York Declaration seeks to address these challenges by reaffirming the international community’s commitment to the two-state solution and outlining concrete steps to move the process forward. By explicitly excluding Hamas from any future political role, the resolution aims to address Israel’s security concerns while signaling to the Palestinian leadership that international support is contingent on rejecting militancy.
The Role of France and Saudi Arabia
The collaboration between France and Saudi Arabia in drafting the resolution reflects their growing influence in Middle Eastern diplomacy. France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has long advocated for a proactive international role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Macron has positioned himself as a champion of multilateralism, using France’s diplomatic clout to push for renewed peace efforts. The upcoming summit in New York, co-chaired by Macron, underscores France’s commitment to leading on this issue.
Saudi Arabia’s involvement is equally significant, given its status as a regional powerhouse and a key player in the Arab world. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has signaled a willingness to normalize relations with Israel as part of a broader regional realignment, particularly in response to shared concerns about Iran’s influence. However, the kingdom has consistently tied any normalization to progress on the Palestinian issue, making its support for the UN resolution a strategic move to advance its diplomatic objectives.
Implications for the Future
The passage of the New York Declaration represents a symbolic victory for advocates of the two-state solution, but its success will ultimately depend on the willingness of both Israelis and Palestinians to engage in good-faith negotiations. For Palestinians, the resolution offers hope of renewed international support for their statehood aspirations, but it also places pressure on their leadership to unify and address internal divisions. For Israel, the resolution’s strong international backing could intensify diplomatic isolation, particularly if the upcoming summit leads to further recognitions of Palestinian statehood.
The proposed UN-led stabilization mission in Gaza, if implemented, could play a critical role in addressing the immediate humanitarian crisis and creating space for political progress. However, its success will hinge on the cooperation of all parties, including Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the international community.
As the September 22 summit approaches, the world will be watching closely to see whether this resolution can translate into tangible progress or whether it will join the long list of UN initiatives that have failed to break the cycle of conflict. For now, the New York Declaration stands as a bold statement of intent, signaling that the international community remains committed to a vision of peace, even in the face of daunting challenges.
