New York Conference Sparks Political Push to Revive Two-State Solution

Co-chairs Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud (R) and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot attend a conference on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians at UN headquarters on July 28, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP)
Co-chairs Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud (R) and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot attend a conference on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians at UN headquarters on July 28, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP)
TT

New York Conference Sparks Political Push to Revive Two-State Solution

Co-chairs Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud (R) and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot attend a conference on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians at UN headquarters on July 28, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP)
Co-chairs Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud (R) and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot attend a conference on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians at UN headquarters on July 28, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP)

A Saudi-backed political initiative at the United Nations, held in coordination with France, has triggered renewed momentum for the two-state solution and spurred new pledges to recognize a Palestinian state, following Paris’s recent announcement of its intent to do so.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to follow French President Emmanuel Macron in recognizing Palestinian statehood as early as September, unless Israel takes tangible steps to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza and engage in serious peace talks.

The announcement came after an emergency cabinet meeting in London and was reaffirmed by Foreign Secretary David Lammy during the conference in New York.

Facing mounting domestic and international pressure, Starmer warned that the UK would move ahead with recognition unless Israel halts its military campaign in Gaza, allows unimpeded humanitarian aid into the enclave, and commits to credible negotiations to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Recognition by the UK — historically tied to Israel’s creation through the 1917 Balfour Declaration — would mark a major diplomatic shift. It would make Britain the second G7 country, after France, to recognize a Palestinian state, and the fourth among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to do so. It would also bolster a growing Western consensus, something Paris has been actively encouraging.

The New York conference’s closing statement, endorsed by 15 Western nations, called for recognizing Palestinian statehood as a key step toward a two-state solution. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot described the move as “a geopolitical earthquake,” noting it was the first time such recognition was being considered collectively by Western powers.

The endorsing nations included Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Iceland, San Marino, and Andorra. Malta has formally pledged recognition, while Canada, Finland, and Portugal are reportedly preparing to follow suit.

“We have recognized, expressed readiness, or hold a favorable view toward recognizing the State of Palestine as a crucial step toward a two-state solution,” the declaration read. “We call on all states that have not yet done so to join this effort.”

The document also outlined goals for post-war Gaza, including reconstruction, disarmament of Hamas, and the group’s exclusion from Palestinian governance — indicating a united Western vision for the day after the war.

Diplomacy Goes Viral

The tone of the joint statement reflects not only collective intent but also encouragement for others to act. Currently, 149 countries recognize the State of Palestine.

According to French diplomatic sources, Macron’s recent announcement served a dual purpose: to pressure hesitant European governments and give them time to align their positions ahead of a leaders' summit in New York, tentatively set for September 21.

France’s Foreign Ministry said Barrot told UN Secretary-General António Guterres that the recognition move was part of a broader political strategy backed by the conference — one that seeks to legitimize Palestinian statehood, normalize ties with Israel, reform Palestinian governance, and ensure Hamas’s disarmament and exclusion.

The closing section of the road map captures the core objective: “This is a historic opportunity. It is time for decisive, collective action to end the war, establish a Palestinian state, and secure peace and dignity for both peoples.”

Global Participation Defies Pressure

Despite Israeli and US pressure, the conference drew broad participation, with 125 countries and dozens of international and regional organizations — including the EU and Arab League — in attendance. More than 40 foreign ministers took part.

Macron’s decision to announce France’s plan to recognize Palestine during the high-level UN General Assembly week in September triggered a backlash at home. Critics warned it would be an empty gesture with little impact on the ground and could leave France diplomatically isolated, since no other major Western state had yet committed to a similar move.

Skeptics argued that the two-state solution had become a relic of the past due to political and military developments — and Israel’s outright rejection of a Palestinian state. Last year, the Israeli Knesset passed a resolution opposing Palestinian statehood, and just last week, it voted to urge the government to annex the West Bank, with 71 lawmakers in favor.

For many in Israel, recognizing Palestinian statehood equates to rewarding Hamas and terrorism, a stance frequently echoed by the government. Israeli officials have warned such moves undermine peace efforts and prolong the war in Gaza.

Yet, the opposite seems to have occurred.

Saudi-French Alliance Revives Two-State Vision

France and Saudi Arabia, co-sponsors of the conference, succeeded in reviving international focus on the two-state solution — long sidelined amid escalating violence and regional fragmentation.

In just two days, over two-thirds of UN member states turned their attention to a comprehensive road map, the product of weeks of work by eight co-chaired Arab and international working groups. The document offered actionable proposals on ending the conflict and steering the region toward security, economic integration, and humanitarian recovery.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan described the seven-page final document as a “comprehensive, actionable framework for implementing the two-state solution and achieving peace and security for all.”

He urged states to endorse the document before the end of the 79th session of the General Assembly by notifying either the Saudi or French missions to the UN.

 



Lebanese Army Chief Faces Labeling Dispute During Washington Visit

Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
TT

Lebanese Army Chief Faces Labeling Dispute During Washington Visit

Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)

What was meant to be a routine visit by Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal to Washington to discuss military support and aid coordination turned into a political flashpoint, after a brief meeting with US Senator Lindsey Graham ignited a dispute over whether the army chief would describe Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization.”

The controversy was sparked by a brief meeting with hardline Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who publicly said he cut the meeting short after Haykal declined to use the designation in what he called the “context of Lebanon.”

What happened in the Graham meeting

In a post on X, Graham said: “I just had a very brief meeting with the Lebanese Chief of Defense General Rodolphe Haykal. I asked him point blank if he believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. He said, “No, not in the context of Lebanon.” With that, I ended the meeting.”

“They are clearly a terrorist organization. Hezbollah has American blood on its hands. Just ask the US Marines,” he added.

“They have been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by both Republican and Democrat administrations since 1997 – for good reason.”

“As long as this attitude exists from the Lebanese Armed Forces, I don’t think we have a reliable partner in them.”

“I am tired of the double speak in the Middle East. Too much is at stake,” Graham concluded.

The reaction went beyond expressions of displeasure. Some US coverage suggested Graham effectively raised questions about the “usefulness” of continuing support for the Lebanese army if such a gap persists between the US position and Lebanon’s official language.

Haykal’s answer raises its cost in Washington

Inside Lebanon, the issue is not limited to the stance on Hezbollah. Still, it extends to the army’s role as a unifying institution in a country whose political balance rests on sectarian arrangements and deep sensitivities.

Adopting an external designation, even a US one, in official language by the head of the military could be interpreted domestically as a move that risks triggering political and sectarian division or drawing the army into confrontation with a component that has organized political and popular representation.

That explains why Lebanese voices, including some critics of Hezbollah, defended the logic that “the state does not adopt this classification.” Therefore, the army commander cannot formally do so.

In other words, Haykal sought to avoid two conflicting languages: Washington’s legal and political framing of Hezbollah, and the Lebanese state’s language, which walks a fine line between the demand for exclusive state control over arms and the avoidance of reproducing internal fractures.

US State Department position

Amid the controversy surrounding the Graham meeting, an official US position emerged on Tuesday through the US Embassy in Beirut, welcoming the visit and focusing on the core US message.

The statement said that “the Lebanese Armed Forces’ ongoing work to disarm non-state actors and reinforce national sovereignty as Lebanon’s security guarantor is more important than ever.”

The wording was notable because it separated two levels: continued US reliance on the army as a state institution, and, in practice, linking that reliance to the issue of disarming non-state actors.

The phrase avoids direct naming but, in the Lebanese context, is widely understood to refer primarily to Hezbollah.

The visit’s broader track

Despite the political awkwardness, Haykal’s visit was not reduced to a single meeting. He held senior-level military talks, including meetings with US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine.

According to a statement from a Joint Chiefs spokesperson, the meeting “reaffirmed the importance of enduring US defense relationships in the Middle East.”

The visit coincided with broader discussions in Washington on support for the Lebanese army and plans to extend state authority, as international reports spoke of Lebanon entering new phases of a plan to dismantle illegal weapons structures in the south and north.

The army commander’s visit had initially been delayed for reasons that add another layer to understanding Washington’s sensitivity to the military’s language.

In November 2025, sources quoted the US State Department as saying Washington canceled scheduled meetings with the Lebanese army commander after objecting to an army statement on border tensions with Israel, prompting the visit to be postponed to avoid a pre-emptive political failure.


Egypt Steps Up Efforts to Support Gaza Administration Committee After Entry Stalled

Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Egypt Steps Up Efforts to Support Gaza Administration Committee After Entry Stalled

Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)

Egypt is intensifying efforts to back the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, hoping it can begin operating inside the enclave to implement commitments under the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, which started about two weeks ago but has yet to take shape on the ground.

Experts told Asharq Al-Awsat that those Egyptian efforts, through phone calls and meetings with international partners, are focused on two main objectives: pushing for the deployment of police forces and an international stabilization force on the one hand, and securing a gradual Israeli withdrawal on the other, increasing pressure on Israel to move the agreement forward.

A member of the administration committee said in a brief phone statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, speaking on condition of anonymity, that there is still no specific date for entering the enclave.

In the Slovenian capital, Ljubljana, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty stressed Cairo’s full support for the work of the committee headed by Dr. Ali Shaath.

He made the remarks during a dialogue session of the Arab-Islamic committee on Gaza with Slovenian Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon.

The foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain attended the meeting. Abdelatty stressed the importance of the committee’s role in managing the daily affairs of Gaza’s residents and meeting their basic needs during the transitional phase.

He underscored the need to ensure the continued flow of humanitarian and relief aid into the enclave, as well as the formation and deployment of an international stabilization force to monitor the ceasefire.

Abdelatty reiterated his stance during a phone call on Friday with British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper.

The Gaza committee, established under the ceasefire agreement, operates under the supervision of the Board of Peace, chaired by US President Donald Trump. The committee has been holding meetings in Cairo since it was announced last month and has yet to enter Gaza.

Ahmed Fouad Anwar, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs and an academic specializing in Israeli affairs, said Egypt is making significant efforts to facilitate the committee’s mission as quickly as possible and enable it to operate.

He said this would limit Israeli obstacles, increase pressure on Israel, and place it under the obligations set out in the plan, particularly withdrawal from Gaza. This would counter intense pressure from Tel Aviv to accelerate the disarmament of Hamas without implementing its Gaza agreement commitments.

Palestinian political analyst Abdel Mahdi Motawea said Israel objected not only to the committee’s work but even to its emblem.

He noted, however, that Israel is not the only party hindering the committee. Hamas and other factions want to impose conditions on the committee’s work.

He warned of serious concerns that the committee could be marginalized, stressing that Egypt’s extensive efforts to support it are crucial at this critical stage of the Gaza agreement.

Hamas announced days ago that it was ready to hand over management of the enclave to the committee, while Israel continues to obstruct it.

Anwar expects the committee to begin operating in the enclave soon if Egypt’s efforts and those of international partners succeed and Washington responds positively.

He warned that the committee's failure would threaten the ceasefire agreement.


Gaza Deal Mediators Have Few Options on Hamas Disarmament

Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
TT

Gaza Deal Mediators Have Few Options on Hamas Disarmament

Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)

Israel’s demand for the disarmament of Hamas has become the top priority since the second phase of the Gaza agreement began 10 days ago.

It exposed deep uncertainty over how such a step could be enforced amid firm resistance from the movement, which says it will not relinquish its weapons unless progress is made toward establishing a Palestinian state.

Analysts speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat said the issue has left mediators with minimal options, ranging from complete disarmament to freezing weapons, either by persuading Hamas or applying pressure.

The demand has become a political pressure tool that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others in Israel are likely to use increasingly in the run-up to elections, they added.

Israeli opposition figure Benny Gantz, who is preparing for elections, called on Thursday in a post on X for the “disarmament of Hamas.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that Israel will dismantle Hamas if it does not agree to lay down its arms.

Netanyahu, following a meeting on Tuesday with US envoy Steve Witkoff, said he was insisting on the non-negotiable demand to disarm Hamas before any step toward rebuilding Gaza.

Military and strategic analyst Brig. Gen. Samir Ragheb said mediators have few options other than reaching understandings or exerting pressure, noting that the demand to disarm Hamas has been echoed by Israel, Washington, the EU, and donors, and has become an obstacle to ending the war and launching reconstruction.

He said Netanyahu and others would use the issue electorally and as a pretext to collapse the agreement at any time, adding that the second phase is filled with “landmines,” particularly those related to the Israeli withdrawal, which Netanyahu does not want to address.

Strategic and military expert Maj. Gen. Samir Farag said available options are now limited, suggesting that freezing weapons may be more likely than complete disarmament, mainly since Hamas’ arsenal does not consist of missiles or drones and could be handed over.

He said there is US and Israeli insistence on implementing the weapons clause, but that it must coincide with an Israeli withdrawal and guarantees to prevent a new war.

By contrast, sources in Hamas told Reuters on Wednesday that the group had agreed to discuss disarmament with other Palestinian factions, but that neither Washington nor regional mediators had presented it with any detailed or concrete proposal on disarmament.

Israel’s Channel 13 reported in late January that the US was preparing a document granting Hamas several weeks to hand over its weapons to multinational forces within a set timeframe. Failure to comply would give Israel the green light to “act as it sees fit,” the channel said.

Farag stressed that Hamas’ room for maneuver is extremely limited and that it must quickly reach understandings with mediators, particularly Egypt, Qatar, and Türkiye, to resolve what he described as the most significant obstacle currently being created by Israel.

Ragheb said Hamas has no option but to implement US President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan and the disarmament clause, warning against delaying or circumventing it, as “every day lost poses a threat to the ceasefire agreement.”

He added that police forces in the enclave would be deployed within days or weeks, along with a possible stabilization force, leaving little space for further maneuvering.