UN Adopts “New York Declaration” for Two‑State Solution: 142 in favour and 10 opposed

 The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution known as the New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and Implementation of the Two‑State Solution, with 142 countries voting in favour, 10 against, and 12 abstaining. 

Initiated by France and Saudi Arabia following a high‑level international conference in New York in July, the document is designed to chart a concrete, “irreversible” pathway toward establishing a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Key Provisions of the Declaration

• A reaffirmation of support for a two‑state solution with two democratic states living side by side in peace and security based on the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem. un.org+2WAFA Agency+2

• Condemnation of all attacks against civilians by any party, including acts of terrorism, indiscriminate attacks, incitement, and provocation. Specifically calls out the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, and also condemns actions by Israel in Gaza, including damage to civilian infrastructure and humanitarian crises tied to blockade and starvation. 

• Calls for the Palestinian Authority to carry out democratic elections—including in East Jerusalem—within one year under international oversight. 

• Provisions for international support and guarantees: political, humanitarian, legal, and economic measures. Also, mechanisms to follow up on implementation, including working groups under the co‑chairs (France, Saudi Arabia, and others) to monitor progress. 

Supporters, Dissenters, and Diplomatic Reactions

• Supporters: A majority of UN member states backed the declaration. Many Arab states, European countries, and others emphasised the urgency of a new diplomatic framework, calling the initiative a positive step toward peace.

• Opposition: Countries voting against included Israel and the United States. They argue the resolution is one‑sided, giving undue legitimacy or leverage to certain actors without sufficiently addressing security concerns and the role of Hamas. Reuters+2Reuters+2

• Abstentions: A dozen countries abstained, signaling diplomatic caution about some of the language, timing, or implications. Reuters

Israel’s Response

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, strongly criticized the declaration, calling it a “hollow proposal that completely ignores reality — not diplomacy.” He accused it of being a “unilateral declaration that embraces the lies of our enemies and gives backing to Hamas.” According to Danon, the resolution “does not bring peace closer, but rather prolongs the war,” and when “Hamas is the one cheering for these resolutions, it is clear that this is a reward for terrorism and not a step towards peace.” 

International and Regional Implications

• The declaration represents an attempt by parts of the international community to re‑energize the Israeli‑Palestinian peace process, which has stalled amid war, humanitarian crises, and political mistrust. 

• There is growing pressure from many states for Hamas to relinquish control in Gaza, hand over weapons, and allow governance by the Palestinian Authority under international oversight. The text explicitly demands that Hamas end its rule in Gaza. 

• The resolution comes ahead of a planned UN summit on September 22, during which a number of countries, including France, are expected to formally recognize a Palestinian state. 

Assessment & Challenges Ahead

While non‑binding, the declaration carries symbolic weight, reflecting broad international consensus on certain key points: the necessity of a two‑state solution, the urgency of ending violence, and the need for accountability. However, substantial obstacles remain:

• Implementation: Translating declarations into action—especially in the face of unresolved issues such as borders, security, refugee status, Jerusalem, and political fragmentation in Palestinian leadership.

• Opposition from Israel and key allies: Resistance to measures perceived as undermining security, or legitimacy of current Israeli policies.

• The role of Hamas: The requirement for Hamas to disarm, relinquish control of Gaza, and allow the PA to govern is central but contentious.

• Humanitarian urgency: With ongoing war and suffering in Gaza, there is an urgency for aid, cessation of hostilities, and civilian protection. The declaration underlines this.