The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has drawn significant attention and response from several Arab nations, particularly Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. As the violence escalates, these countries, alongside the entire Arab League and numerous other nations, have come together to advocate for a two-state solution and the disarmament of Hamas. This united front is encapsulated in the “New York Declaration,” formed during a recent conference co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia. The declaration calls for the Palestinian Authority to regain control over Gaza and the West Bank while also outlining specific demands for ending the violence, including the relinquishing of armed capabilities by groups such as Hamas.
A critical aspect of this declaration is its demand that Hamas end its governance over Gaza and transfer its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, reinforcing a broader vision for a sovereign Palestinian state. It presents a dual expectation: not only must Hamas disarm, but Israel is also urged to commit to a two-state resolution that recognizes East Jerusalem as the future capital of Palestine. However, resistance remains strong from Israeli leadership, particularly from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has consistently dismissed the viability of a two-state solution, citing security threats posed by Hamas and other militant groups.
The declaration underscores the necessity of political dialogue as the only means to achieve lasting peace and security, framing the aspirations of a Palestinian state as congruent with Israel’s own security interests. While emphasizing the need for cohabitation between an independent Palestine and Israel, the declaration advocates for a comprehensive cessation of hostilities, calling for not only an end to fighting but also the release of hostages taken by Hamas and the return of the remains of fallen individuals, along with a prisoner exchange. Such measures, according to the declaration, could pave the way for a stable and sustainable peace process.
Within this framework, a transitional committee is envisioned to take charge in Gaza, operating under the Palestinian Authority after a ceasefire is established. The declaration also attempts to maintain a balanced perspective, condemning both the brutal Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas on civilians and the subsequent Israeli military actions that have also resulted in civilian casualties and widespread humanitarian crises in Gaza. This attempt at balance indicates a recognition of the complexities involved in the ongoing conflict and highlights the urgent need for humane considerations on both sides.
Despite the collaborative efforts and diplomatic initiatives presented in the declaration, Israel’s response has been one of rejection. Israeli officials reaffirmed their commitment to dismantling Hamas, framing any calls for disarmament or concessions as inadequate. The Israeli U.N. Ambassador expressed a firm stance against what he termed “appeasement,” emphasizing that their mission to secure hostages and obliterate Hamas would not waver in light of external pressures or declarations. This reveals a significant contention in the discourse surrounding international approaches to the conflict, where Israel’s prioritization of national security remains at odds with calls for negotiation and peace.
The U.S. has also distanced itself from the conference, deeming it “unproductive” and criticizing it as an endeavor that could inadvertently extend the conflict rather than resolve it. The State Department pointed to the timing and nature of the conference as counterproductive, suggesting that such initiatives could empower Hamas rather than encourage a genuine dialogue for peace. The American administration’s position further complicates the landscape of international intervention and collaboration aimed at surmounting the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The intricate dynamics of these nations reflect a greater struggle between security concerns, humanitarian needs, and the complexities of political sovereignty in the region.
