Subscribe
The so-called “New York Declaration,” drafted during the international conference at the United Nations in July and supported by a broad spectrum of international actors – including the European Union, the Arab League, the United Kingdom and Canada – could represent a major diplomatic turning point in the long and troubled Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What distinguishes this document from previous mediation attempts is its bilateral nature of condemnation: on the one hand, it expresses strong criticism of the October 7 attacks by Hamas; on the other, it openly denounces Israel’s military response, which it considers disproportionate and the cause of a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. At the heart of the document is a comprehensive plan for the disarmament of Hamas, the administrative transition to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and the revitalization of the two-state solution, supported by an international mission under the auspices of the UN. The content of the declaration certainly deserves analysis and consideration, especially in an attempt to predict its political consequences and the future implications of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
THE CONTEXT OF THE DECLARATION
The “New York Declaration,” made public at the end of the UN conference co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, represents a significant step in multilateral diplomacy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After months of devastation in Gaza and rising international tensions, the international community recognized the urgency of moving beyond rhetoric and promoting a shared platform with the ultimate goal of restarting the peace process. The declaration received the support of 22 Arab League countries, the European Union, and 17 other nations, including Italy. It not only condemns the crimes perpetrated by Hamas during the attack of October 7th, but introduces an explicit and unambiguous condemnation of Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip, responsible for tens of thousands of civilian casualties and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis.
THE DOUBLE CONDEMNATION: TOWARDS A DIPLOMATIC BALANCE
The first point of interest concerns the dual condemnation contained in the New York Declaration. On the one hand, the document clearly states: “We condemn the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians on October 7.” This is a significant position, especially considering that for the first time, the Arab League has also spoken out unreservedly against Hamas, breaking a silence that had often fueled ambiguity in the past. On the other hand, the document openly criticizes the Israeli response: “We condemn Israel’s attacks against civilians in Gaza, civilian infrastructure, the siege, and the starvation, which have caused a devastating humanitarian catastrophe.” This formulation, also without extenuating circumstances, highlights how Israel’s action is perceived, even by its historic allies, as excessive and incompatible with the principles of international humanitarian law. This double condemnation represents a shift in the tone and intentions of international diplomacy, which in the past tended to focus almost exclusively on condemning Palestinian terrorism, overlooking Israeli responsibility. The New York Declaration, by contrast, seeks to restore an ethical and legal balance in the assessment of the ongoing violence.
HAMAS DISARMAMENT AND THE ROLE OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
Another central point of the document is the explicit call for Hamas disarmament. Point 11 states: “To conclude the war in the Strip, Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian National Authority, with international commitment and support.” This clause is significant in several respects. First, it establishes the international community’s desire to reaffirm the Palestinian Authority as the sole legitimate political and administrative body for the Palestinians. Second, the condition for disarmament is not left to a bilateral dynamic, but is placed within a multilateral framework that provides for the direct involvement of the UN, regional support, and the possible deployment of international troops. It is equally important to emphasize that the document envisions a temporary international stabilization mission, mandated by the United Nations Security Council, to protect the Palestinians, oversee the transfer of administration to the Palestinian Authority, and monitor the ceasefire. This mission would represent a concrete innovation in the post-war management of Gaza, also involving countries like Italy in providing troops.
THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION: BETWEEN REALISM AND AMBITION
At the heart of the Declaration is the revitalization of the two-state solution as an indispensable political horizon. The document explicitly calls on UN member states to recognize the State of Palestine, calling for a gradual but binding process toward the creation of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state. In this context, the initiative by France and the United Kingdom takes on symbolic and strategic value. Emmanuel Macron has announced that France will be the first G7 country and permanent member of the UN Security Council to officially recognize the State of Palestine during the next United Nations General Assembly. The United Kingdom made a similar commitment, linking its recognition to Israel’s willingness to accept a ceasefire and initiate a peace process within eight weeks. Support for the two-state solution is therefore expressed not only in words, but also through concrete diplomatic measures. Currently, 147 UN members have already recognized the State of Palestine; the accession of leading Western powers is thought to be able to break down Israeli opposition and push for a geopolitical rebalancing.
ISRAELI REFUSAL AND US ABSENCE
Despite the Declaration’s scope and consensus, Israel and the United States opposed the initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the meeting, reiterating his opposition to the two-state solution, citing security concerns and the defence of national identity. The United States, for its part, boycotted the conference, signalling its strategic distance from the proposed multilateral approach. These reactions highlight the persistent difficulty in aligning the political visions of the great powers with those of the rest of the international community. However, Israel’s diplomatic isolation, at a time when even some historic partners are beginning to recognize Palestine, could generate new pressure dynamics.
A NEW PHASE FOR INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY?
The New York Declaration could mark the beginning of a new phase in diplomacy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It articulates a complex yet balanced vision that recognizes the responsibility of both sides, puts an end to Arab ambiguity over the role of Hamas, reaffirms the centrality of the UN in the peace process, and reaffirms the two-state solution as the only viable option. At a time when the conflict has reached unprecedented levels of devastation, the urgency of a new political and diplomatic architecture is clear. The declaration, supported by diverse actors—European, Arab, Western, and Middle Eastern—demonstrates that there is common ground on which to build a working consensus, even where historical differences seemed insurmountable. The success of this initiative will depend on many variables: the effective disarmament of Hamas, the PA’s ability to credibly manage Gaza, Israel’s willingness to abandon its ideological hostility toward the Palestinian state, and the role of international actors in ensuring compliance with the agreements. It will also be crucial that the proposed international mission not remain a declaration of intent, but translate into a concrete presence on the ground, with legitimacy, resources, and a clear mandate. The support of countries like Italy, which has already expressed its willingness to contribute troops, is an encouraging sign. But it is essential that this effort be accompanied by sustainable financial support, continued diplomatic engagement and coordinated pressure on all parties involved to respect the principles of international law. The very existence of a document like the New York Declaration—shared by a broad and diverse group of nations—suggests that the status quo is no longer acceptable. The international community has finally begun to chart a coherent, concrete, and multilateral path to overcoming decades of conflict, violence, and political stalemate. This is a new foundation, one that goes beyond simply calling for an end to hostilities, but proposes a realistic, comprehensive, and shared political framework. Whether this represents a definitive breakthrough or a new illusion will now depend on the will of the parties and the determination of global diplomacy. But for the first time in many years, the possibility of structural change seems at least conceivable.