The Formal Title of The Event:
The UN High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution (July 28–30, 2025).
Full Text: New York Declaration, July 30, 2025
Verdict:
While the event was designed in part to pressure and diplomatically isolate Israel, the final statement’s tone and language were notably conciliatory. But its core flaw lies in bypassing Israel’s legitimate interests and ignoring a basic political reality: no negotiated settlement is possible without a credible Palestinian partner that Israel can engage with. As a result, this conference and process may generate diplomatic headlines and political friction—and it has—but it will not, on its own, bring about a Palestinian state.
The statement by the Palestinian Representative / Palestinian Authority’s prime minister reflected this same tension. While it included familiar accusatory language, it also sent deliberate signals to Israeli audiences referencing coexistence, regional integration, and international coordination.
Still, both statements—particularly the New York Declaration—include provisions that are problematic when measured against Israeli security concerns, longstanding American policy positions, and the facts on the ground. These include vague but persistent endorsement of the right of return, legal framing that implicates Israel’s conduct in Gaza, and unilateral pressure on settlements and recognition. These elements, detailed below, sit uneasily alongside the more diplomatic language.
Overall Tone and Framing
· Conciliatory Toward Israel, Not Hostile:
The Declaration avoids confrontational language toward Israel. It refers to Israel in the context of obligations, not guilt or aggression.
· The Only Instance of Condemnation in the Document is a Balancing Act:
The condemnation of Hamas (Clause 3) is sharp and unequivocal, followed immediately by condemning Israel for civilian deaths and starvation in Gaza. To be sure, this balancing act is unwarranted and is designed to meet diplomatic standards while ignoring ground realities. But any implied critique of Israel in the document is couched in the language of shared responsibility and future commitments and often avoids naming Israel.
Specific Language Observations
· Clause 3: Explicit Hamas Condemnation
o Calls out the October 7 attacks clearly: “attacks committed by Hamas against civilians.”
o Uses terms like “terror,” “disarmament,” and “accountability.”
· Clause 9–10: Critique of Israel is Soft and Future-Focused
o Language like “calls upon Israel to issue a clear public commitment” to statehood avoids accusatory framing.
o On settlements, the word “urges” is used, not “condemns” or “demands.”
o Settler violence is criticized as undermining peace, not as state-sponsored action.
· Clause 8: Attempt at Balanced Framing of Two-State Vision
o Recognizes both Israeli and Palestinian aspirations without delegitimizing either.
o Tries to align with traditional past U.S. and Israeli diplomatic positions and language, describing the two-state solution as “the only viable pathway.”
· Clause 6: Some Israeli Security Concerns Addressed
o Endorses “One Government, One Law, One Gun” – language directly supportive of demilitarization of Hamas.
o Reinforces past Israeli demands for unified Palestinian security control before statehood can be discussed.
o The declaration does not demand Israeli withdrawal or recognition of Palestine first. Instead, it emphasizes the need for disarmament of Hamas, unified Palestinian security control, and prevention of further attacks, in deference to realism and also to Israeli security priorities.
· Clause 11: Punitive Approach Discarded
o No threat of sanctions or UN action against Israel.
o International assistance is framed as helping Palestinians build capacity.
Objectionable Provisions in the New York Declaration
· Clause 4: Double Condemnation Framing
o Condemns Hamas but also condemns Israeli actions in Gaza in the same breath, equating Israeli military conduct with Hamas’s terrorism.
· Clause 12: Economic Pressure Framing
o Demands removal of movement restrictions and the release of withheld Palestinian tax revenues. This challenges Israeli sovereign economic decisions. This is a matter to be settled in bilateral talks between Israel and a legitimate, acceptable, and willing Palestinian partner.
o Pushes for Palestinian control over banking and revenue systems. This is also a matter to be settled in bilateral talks between Israel and a legitimate, acceptable, and willing Palestinian partner.
· Clause 29–30: Settlement Activity Language
o Labels settlements and land seizures “illegal” without acknowledging political and security contexts, the absence of talks with a credible Palestinian partner, and bouts of surging Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens.
o Calls for halting “annexation” and “colonial-settler violence.”
· Clause 32: Sanctions-Oriented Language
o Encourages “restrictive measures against entities and individuals supporting illegal settlements.” This is a one-sided coercive measure that ignores the role of Palestinian militancy.
· Clause 40: Reaffirmation of Right of Return
o Refers to resolving the refugee issue while “reiterating the right of return” – a red line for Israeli negotiators, and an unrealistic goal after eight decades and several wars.
o Seen as undermining the very demographic logic of a two-state outcome.
Points of Interest for Israeli Policymakers
- No call for immediate recognition of Palestine by the UN:
The document urges state-by-state recognition (Clause 12) but avoids demanding a collective action at the Security Council. - Avoidance of inflammatory language:
There’s no reference to “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” or “genocide” commonly found in anti-Israel documents and resolutions. - No mention of international legal action:
Absent are references to the ICC, ICJ, or any punitive legal mechanism. This can be a deliberate omission to keep Israel engaged.
Points of Interest for U.S. Policymakers
- Language tries to align with past and historic U.S. frameworks:
The declaration mirrors language from Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, particularly regarding a negotiated settlement and phased Palestinian reform. - Leaves room for U.S. flexibility & engagement:
Does not demand U.S. recognition of Palestine or prescribe deadlines. - Pre-empts Trump Administration objections with anti-Hamas language:
Interestingly, the Declaration’s first major clause (Clause 3) takes a hard line against Hamas, allowing room for bipartisan U.S. alignment, even when U.S. officials generally dismissed the conference.
Final Impression About the Declaration
- The New York Declaration reads more like a diplomatic framework than a pressure document with legal consequences.
- It gives Palestinian aspirations political form but tries to show deference to Israeli security and legitimacy.
- Several clauses, particularly 4, 12, 30, 32, and 40, contain language that will be interpreted as problematic, excessive, or unbalanced by many in Jerusalem and Washington.
- Still, the document’s tone appears engineered for consensus, with most inflammatory content avoided, likely reflecting the influence of moderate Arab and European states.
A Structured Outline of Palestinian Representative/P.A. Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa’s Statement Delivered At The UN High-Level Conference in New York.
The following observations and conclusions are based on the statement by the Palestinian representative to the two-state conference at the UN in New York. That representative was the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Dr. Muhammad Mustafa. This analysis relies on the full text of his statement delivered at the Conference.
An Attempt At Conciliatory Language Toward Israel
- Peaceful co-existence aspiration:
“realizing the independent, sovereign State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel in peace and security” - Invitation for shared prosperity and integration:
“There is a path to peace and regional integration” - Support for internationally-backed stabilization:
Endorses a UN-backed ceasefire enforcement mission that would coordinate with both the PA and—implicitly—Israel.
Explicit Condemnations of Israel
- Accusations of war crimes and collective punishment:
“Do not accept any justification from Israel for its targeting of civilians, humanitarian teams, or its imposition of collective punishment.” (WAFA Agency) - Destruction of civilian infrastructure:
Condemns destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, and cemeteries; blames Israel for blocking aid, even when the circumstances are contested on the ground, with responsibility clearly shared by the United Nations, but this qualification is missing. - Occupation, annexation, and settler violence:
Demands end to Israeli settlement expansion, military raids, and territorial control without offering reciprocal commitments. - Reassertion of Right of Return:
While not detailed extensively in the speech, the PA leadership reiterates the right of return. This is viewed by Israel and many U.S. lawmakers as a demographic threat inconsistent with a viable two-state compromise.
Tone and Language Assessment
· General Tone:
o Frames Palestinian demands in legal and humanitarian terms, and ignores failure to meet Palestinian commitments.
o Continues victim-centered narrative even while extending rhetorical gestures to Israelis.
· From an Israeli Perspective:
o Maintains hardline positions on refugee return and “occupation” but stops short of delegitimizing Israel’s existence.
o No direct targeting of Israeli leadership, suggesting an intentional softening of tone for international audiences.
· From a U.S. Policy Perspective:
o Attempts to appeal to bipartisan concern over humanitarian issues.
o Aligns with U.S. policy on PA governance and Hamas demilitarization.
o Positions PA as credible and ready partner, though the language may conflict with U.S. objections to the right of return and war crimes framing.
Final Impression About PA’s Statement
Prime Minister Mustafa’s address walks a tightrope: combining conciliatory overtures with traditional hardline demands. For Western audiences, it conveys:
- A commitment to peace, but on terms that remain difficult for Israeli acceptance.
- A tone that avoids inflammatory rhetoric while continuing to push maximalist legal and territorial claims.
- A diplomatic posture that suggests the PA is ready to engage, but not ready to shift fundamental red lines.
