The Palestinian State After the “New York Declaration”

No matter what is said about the United Nations’ modest—or even non-existent—role in resolving international conflicts, the organization still exists, retains international legitimacy, and continues to draw kings, presidents, ministers, and ambassadors from around the globe to represent their countries, deliver messages, and engage in discussions on global hotspots. They also participate in UN sessions and side meetings held in its corridors.

Even U.S. President Donald Trump, known for his frustration with the inefficiency and weakness of the UN, has attended its sessions with his wife to address the General Assembly during what is known as "Leaders’ Week." Despite what he called a “triple sabotage operation” allegedly targeting him within the UN headquarters, Trump recognizes that this organization remains the only one that represents the nations of the world. From within it, he delivered his list of accusations against the international body, questioned climate threats, attacked immigration, and criticized European policies in these areas.

Can the UN be reformed?

The answer is no. The five permanent members of the Security Council hold veto power, which they use in line with their national interests, strategic priorities, or even personal whims.

Reforming the United Nations is indeed necessary, but it remains dependent on the will of its five permanent members—especially the three major powers: the United States, Russia, and China. These three, collectively, are the cornerstone of any reform initiative. While global governance is difficult to implement, its development is inevitable. Despite criticism, the United Nations remains the only platform for enacting international governance and exploring alternatives when the Security Council is paralyzed by a veto.

This context is crucial to understanding the value of the recent Saudi-French diplomatic movement, held at the heart of the UN near the narrow chambers of the Security Council. The “New York Declaration” expanded the number of countries recognizing the State of Palestine—not just by ten new states—but more significantly, because many of them were traditionally seen as staunch allies of Israel.

The summit supporting the recognition of Palestine and the two-state solution gathered 142 countries—an unprecedented number for such a meeting. The event, along with subsequent gatherings between President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron, as well as with Arab countries, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan, signal a diplomatic win for the UN and the nations driving this global movement—especially Saudi Arabia and France.

Without the “New York Declaration,” discussions on a ceasefire, potential solutions to the current crisis, and a roadmap toward peace would not have materialized. The meetings allowed Arab representatives to hear a clear commitment from President Trump that he would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.

This diplomatic success in favor of the two-state solution must now be met with strategic wisdom from within Palestine itself, particularly from Hamas, after nearly two years of devastating war. It is imperative that the group hand over hostages and the administration of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, signaling the end of armed resistance in line with this wave of international recognition and paving the way for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, based on the pre-June 1967 borders.

The regional and international situation is highly complex and volatile. Such an opportunity may never come again. Some may argue that Israel only responds to pressure, especially American pressure. Yet the signals from President Trump’s meetings with Arab leaders suggest that symbolic pressure can become real.

While it’s clear that Jewish lobbying groups in the U.S. are working hard to sway Trump away from his recent positions, if the momentum of this international diplomatic push for a two-state solution can be sustained—and if Hamas undertakes an ideological reassessment—then this roadmap might just succeed.

We are living in a world defined by uncertainty, mistrust, and rapid change. Palestine cannot be established in the absence of strategic foresight, nor through improvisation, division, or weakness. Success hinges on Palestinian factions fully committing to the success of the “New York Declaration.”

This is a historic opportunity—a rare moment that must motivate all Palestinian factions to set aside their differences and seize this global achievement before it is too late. Presidential and parliamentary elections are approaching in the West. The efforts of French President Emmanuel Macron to energize the UN’s role in creating a two-state solution are not universally supported, even within his own country. The same applies to Britain.

Thus, reorganizing the Palestinian house—today, not tomorrow—is the key to salvation.