This week, the United Nations was set to host a significant high-level conference, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, aimed at revitalizing the “two-state solution”—the long-standing international vision for Israel and Palestine to coexist as sovereign nations.
However, Israel’s early-morning airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites on Friday derailed those plans—at least for the time being.
By that same morning, Saudi Arabia sought a postponement, primarily due to airspace closures in the Middle East making travel to the United States challenging, if not impossible.
By evening, France’s President Emmanuel Macron announced that the event was canceled.
A ceasefire resolution passed overwhelmingly in the General Assembly on Thursday, indicating that the event needed to take place by June 2025.
Yet, diplomats were keenly aware that only half of the month remained.
As rescheduling efforts unfold, a major question lingers: what can this gathering realistically achieve given the current situation on the ground?
Members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet openly speculate about the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.
After 20 months of bombardments initiated by Hamas-led attacks on Israel in October 2023, the Gaza Strip has been left in tatters.
In the West Bank, meanwhile, illegal settlements have flourished under the Netanyahu government’s approval.
More than half a million Israeli settlers now reside on territories recognized by most of the global community as Palestinian.
Diplomatic sources acknowledged these stark realities as problematic but emphasized the importance of initiating dialogue.
Critical questions also arise concerning who holds the political leverage and willingness to negotiate the two-state solution.
The Palestinian Authority, intended to lead the proposed Palestinian state, is seen by many as too weak and corrupt, while Hamas—a group labeled as a terrorist organization by much of the international community—retains control over what remains of Gaza.
In a move seemingly responsive to appeals from European and other nations, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sent a letter to the conference co-chairs, reportedly committing to a reform agenda and condemning the Hamas attacks on October 7.
On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has unequivocally rejected the two-state solution.
His cabinet ministers have openly pondered the full expulsion of Palestinians.
In a significant recent shift, Israel’s main supporter, the United States, which has historically backed the two-state concept, appears to have altered its stance.
President Donald Trump indicated that there are alternative solutions beyond the two-state model.
“Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land controlled by Israel,” US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told the BBC.
“So if there is a desire for a Palestinian state, perhaps someone will step forward to host it,” he added.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already dismissed a two-state solution.
Previously, Huckabee called France’s plans to co-host the UN conference “revolting,” suggesting that France should consider allocating a part of the French Riviera for a Palestinian state.
Throughout these developments, Israel has remained steadfast in its opposition to the UN initiative.
“We will not participate in a conference that does not urgently address condemning Hamas and securing the return of all remaining hostages brutally taken by Hamas in Gaza. The massacre of 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals on October 7 triggered this conflict,” said Jonathan Harounoff, Israel’s spokesperson at the UN.
Then, last Tuesday, increasing tensions, the US issued a “démarche”—a diplomatic warning—advising UN member states not to attend the conference, implying “diplomatic consequences” for those who do. The State Department did not clarify what those consequences would entail.
“We urge governments not to participate in the conference, which we see as counterproductive to ongoing, life-saving efforts to end the war in Gaza and liberate hostages,” read the diplomatic cable.
“The United States opposes any actions that would unilaterally recognize a hypothetical Palestinian state, which would impose significant legal and political barriers to resolving the conflict and might pressure Israel during wartime, thereby aiding its adversaries,” it continued.
This measure was characterized as “extremely undiplomatic diplomacy” by one European observer.
Yet many member nations appeared undeterred.
Read more: Two-state solution conference postponed after Iran attack
It is “full-steam ahead,” a senior European UN diplomat told RTÉ News on Thursday.
The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided a succinct response to Washington’s threats.
This is a conference “organized within the UN framework,” a spokesperson stated.
“As far as we’re concerned, we are advocating for broad participation among UN member states at the highest levels,” the spokesperson continued.
“Once again, this presents an opportunity to initiate dialogue regarding the implementation of a two-state solution,” the spokesperson added.
It remains unclear whether the US démarche successfully intimidated some nations, who prefer not to clash with Washington while President Trump is in office.
If the conference is rescheduled later this month, attention will focus on the General Assembly Hall to see which countries choose to participate.
Additionally, a critical and vastly significant question is whether Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman will make an appearance.
As a co-chair of this conference, Saudi Arabia is also a vital Gulf ally of the United States.
Mr. Trump selected Saudi Arabia for his first foreign visit after taking office, just as he did during his initial term.
Saudi Arabia later pledged a $600 billion (€520 billion) investment in the United States, while the US agreed to sell Saudi Arabia $142 billion (€123 billion) in “state-of-the-art warfighting equipment and services,” marking an arms deal hailed as “the largest in history” between the two nations.
The agreements “represent a new golden era of partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia,” according to the White House.
Donald Trump chose Saudi Arabia for his first foreign visit after taking office.
It is well known that Mr. Trump is eager for Saudi Arabia to endorse the Abraham Accords—his inaugural foreign policy goal aimed at normalizing relations between Israel and Arab states.
However, the oil-rich nation has laid down its own conditions: ending the conflict in Gaza and establishing a credible path towards a Palestinian state.
Rumors circulating within the UN suggest the crown prince may only attend if France commits to recognizing Palestine.
Despite earlier indications that recognition was imminent, last weekend, France hesitated and retracted the proposal for the conference.
Perhaps the rescheduling of the meeting allows France time to clarify its position.
On Friday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot reaffirmed France’s commitment to recognition, although he did not specify a timeline.
Last year, Ireland, Spain, and Norway recognized the state of Palestine, raising the total to 147 out of 193 UN member states that do so.
Yet, not a single G7 country has recognized it.
Nevertheless, analysts suggest that momentum is building towards more tangible actions regarding Israel and Palestine.
“Observing recent events in Europe, many governments have begun to signal to Israel that enough is enough,” stated Max Rodenbeck, head of the International Crisis Group’s Israel/Palestine program.
Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway have imposed sanctions on two of Israel’s far-right ministers for “inciting violence against Palestinians”.
Sweden has subsequently urged the European Union to follow suit.
“We have been advocating for the sanctioning of extremist settlers, and we are now taking the next step to push for sanctions against individual extremist ministers because action is imperative,” said Sweden’s Foreign Minister Malmer Stenergard.
This week within the United Nations, there was a collective sentiment that the atmosphere had shifted, and the time may be ripe to reenergize the global commitment to a two-state solution.
Whether this momentum persists by the time the conference finally convenes remains a question.
