Two-state solution conference fails to address key Palestinian issues
- Representatives from various nations met in New York City for a two-state solution conference led by France and Saudi Arabia.
- Critics argue that the conference failed to address the interests of the Palestinian population and that continuous pressure on Israel may not yield a fruitful resolution.
- The ongoing conflict requires a shift in strategy that focuses on envisioning a positive future for Palestinians rather than pushing for a fragmented state.
On a recent week in August 2025, representatives from numerous countries gathered in New York City for a conference on the two-state solution, primarily led by France and Saudi Arabia. The conference was met with skepticism and a sense of futility regarding its ability to reach a viable solution for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Critics assert that without considering the aspirations of those living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, the conference was unlikely to yield any meaningful progress. Additionally, prominent European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney, hinted at pressuring Israel to cease its military actions in Gaza while calling for actions from the Palestinians in return. However, Donald Trump dismissed the efficacy of European influence, suggesting that pressuring Israel might inadvertently reward Hamas and exacerbate tensions. The challenges associated with finding a sustainable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were evident throughout the discussions taking place in New York. European leaders believe that an internationally recognized Palestinian state is paramount for long-term peace and counter-terrorism efforts. They attribute a significant share of the conflict’s perpetuation to Israel's political culture, characterized by distrust, fear of terrorism, and alleged racism against Arabs. Due to such sentiments, Israelis are perceived to reject any offer of peace or compromise, resulting in a stagnant political climate that fosters endless cycles of violence. From a historical perspective, the Palestinian refusal to accept past settlements has contributed to the current state of affairs. The repercussions of the Arab wars post-1947 and subsequent Israeli military gains during critical conflicts have only deepened the divide. Palestinians are now described as potentially having a future comprising of a bifurcated, demilitarized state, surrounded by a political environment that denies them genuine sovereignty over borders and airspace—all of which raises questions regarding the legitimacy of concessions expected from them. In light of these unfolding dynamics, observers emphasize the need for Western allies to rethink their strategies. Instead of pressuring Israel or pushing Palestinians towards a fragmented statehood proposal, a more constructive approach may involve fostering a comprehensive vision for Palestinian society and encouraging constructive dialogue that prioritizes broader peace efforts. Until such shifts occur, the conference's outputs and broader peace initiatives in the region remain deeply uncertain, and the fallout from continued hostilities will likely persist.