At the U.N., a Franco-Saudi-Led Step Toward Realism About Hamas

By Dan McLaughlin

Monday, August 04, 2025

 

Last week, the United Nations High-Level International Conference on the Two-State Solution, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, concluded a three-day conference by issuing the “New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution,” a 42-point peace plan. Israel and the United States both boycotted the conference, which featured demagogic claims of “genocide” by representatives of Iran and Cuba. Other co-signers include Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, and the League of Arab States, as well as the European Union, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, Indonesia, Japan, and Brazil; the declaration reportedly has the backing of the Palestinian Authority. The broader context is a renewed push to pressure Israel with threats of international recognition of a Palestinian state and international acceptance of unsubstantiated claims by Hamas of an Israel-caused famine in territory under the governance of Hamas. French President Emmanuel Macron recently called on “both sides” to release their hostages, as if Israel holds hostages.

 

As you may imagine, given the parties involved, the New York Declaration is not an even-handed document or one that honestly describes the behavior of the combatants. Then again, accusing Israel of crimes against humanity is just how people at the U.N. say ‘good morning.’ If you actually read carefully, however, there is a fair amount of welcome realism buried here that reflects progress in admitting what is obvious to any fair-minded observer. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot leaned into that description: “For the first time, Arab countries and those in the Middle East condemn Hamas, condemn October 7, call for the disarmament of Hamas, call for its exclusion from Palestinian governance, and clearly express their intention to normalize relations with Israel in the future.” While those aspirations come with conditions that Israel and its supporters are likely to consider unrealistic, the declaration is — within the context of where it starts from — a step in the right direction. Consider some of the highlights:

 

·         “Gaza is an integral part of a Palestinian State and must be unified with the West Bank. There must be no occupation, siege, territorial reduction, or forced displacement. Governance, law enforcement and security across all Palestinian territory must lie solely with the Palestinian Authority, with appropriate international support. We welcomed the ‘One State, One Government, One Law, One Gun’ policy of the Palestinian Authority and pledged our support to its implementation including through the necessary DDR process that should be completed within an agreed mechanism with international partners and a set timeframe. In the context of ending the war in Gaza, Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State.” In other words, the signatories endorse Israel’s most controversial and important war aim – to remove Hamas from power and disarm it. They also acknowledge that there is simply no two-state solution so long as Hamas remains in power. This is an extraordinary statement to receive this level of multilateral endorsement from nations hostile to Israel and its aims.

 

·         “Hamas must free all hostages” as an element of any cease-fire. Hamas won’t do this, but it’s important to keep front and center that (contra Macron) Hamas chooses to hold hostages, which it could free at any time, and Israel does not.

 

Of course, not everything forward-looking in the declaration is sensible or attainable. A few examples:

 

·         Calls for “an independent, sovereign, economically viable and democratic State of Palestine.” This is a paradox — if Palestinians voted, as they haven’t in nearly two decades, they would quite likely once again elect a tyranny that would once again immediately abolish elections. Even so, holding out the aspiration of democracy highlights the continuing incompatibility of Hamas and a two-state solution.

 

·         Demands that “the war in Gaza must end now.” That presupposes some ending Hamas can live with – i.e., leaving it in power, which would moot everything else in the declaration.

 

·         “We also committed to supporting measures and programs combating radicalization, incitement, dehumanization, violent extremism conducive to terrorism, discrimination and hate speech across all platforms and actors, and promoting a culture of peace at school, in Israel and Palestine, and to support civil society engagement and dialogue. We welcomed the ongoing efforts to modernize the Palestinian curriculum and called upon Israel to undertake a similar effort. We supported setting up an international monitoring mechanism to verify both sides’ commitment to these objectives.” The “in Israel” part is its own calumny, and policing “hate speech” has a dismal record, but even aside from that, while it’s crucial to undertake such a project within the Palestinian territory, who exactly is going to carry this out?

 

There’s a lot else here about international security architecture and contribution to Palestinian reconstruction that sounds good, but is unlikely to work well in practice, if it’s even attempted. Merely to discuss, at a level beyond slogans, how a two-state solution would work is to reveal the daunting nature of the challenges. But it is encouraging to see that even a U.N. conference full of Arab states is willing to spotlight, however grudgingly, the fact that none of this can even begin to happen so long as Hamas runs Gaza.