By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A significant declaration, spearheaded by France and Saudi Arabia, was signed by several Arab and Muslim countries, along with the EU, condemning Hamas’s October 7 attacks and calling for the release of hostages and the disarmament of Hamas. This “New York Declaration” outlines a phased plan for a two-state solution, culminating in an independent, demilitarized Palestine alongside Israel, with potential regional integration. While the declaration condemns attacks by both sides, it is opposed by the current Israeli government, and the United States, who view the meeting as unproductive. The declaration also calls for the deployment of foreign forces to stabilize Gaza after the end of hostilities, and encourages countries to recognize the state of Palestine.
Read the original article here
In 1st, entire Arab League condemns Oct. 7, urges Hamas to disarm, at 2-state confab, this announcement from the Arab League has certainly stirred up a lot of reactions, and frankly, it’s hard to know where to start. It feels like we’re witnessing a significant shift, although the timing leaves much to be desired. Many of us are grappling with the fact that this condemnation of the October 7th attacks, along with a call for Hamas to disarm, is happening now, not, say, shortly after the events themselves. It’s hard to ignore the feeling that this is a case of “better late than never,” but the implications are still huge.
The sentiment expressed by so many is that this development is long overdue. The question of why this didn’t happen earlier, say on October 8, 2023, keeps popping up. The consensus seems to be that geopolitical factors are at play. Israel’s perceived position of strength in the current conflict, and the weakening of Iran, have seemingly emboldened regional players to take this stance. It’s as if the balance of power has shifted, allowing these countries to voice their opinions without fearing reprisal from Iran or domestic pressures.
One of the most debated aspects of the Arab League’s declaration is the call for a two-state solution. While it’s positive that there’s a renewed push for peace talks, the details are crucial. The inclusion of the “right of return” is immediately seen as a significant roadblock. It’s widely considered a “poison pill” that could potentially derail any progress. And when you throw in the discussions about East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, it raises some serious concerns given the historical context, especially concerning access to Jewish holy sites.
The general feeling is that this is a step forward, but there are some fundamental problems that could lead to a deadlock. The issue of Palestinian refugees and the ongoing status of UNRWA are also huge considerations. It’s not enough to simply talk about a two-state solution; there needs to be a willingness to address the underlying issues, including the long-term integration of Palestinian refugees into the region.
The world, and the West in particular, has its own role to play. There’s a sense that some in the West have been, to put it lightly, misguided in their support for Hamas. The notion that Hamas are the “good guys” or that they should “finish what someone else started” is jarring, and this position is a major source of disagreement. The international community needs to take a unified and informed approach to achieve any lasting peace.
The hope is that this declaration marks a turning point. The fact that the Arab League, including the Palestinian Authority, is condemning Hamas, and urging them to disarm is certainly a historic moment. It appears that a shift might be occurring. Gazans are beginning to protest and fight against Hamas, while Western nations are urging Israel to surrender. This situation shows some interesting complexity. Perhaps the groundwork for a future peace is now being laid.
One of the most striking aspects of the discussion is the recognition of the need for Israel’s security. The call for peace, in the end, must consider the needs of all parties involved. It’s not enough to condemn Hamas. It is essential to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and to ensure its safety, as well. The situation needs to be approached with sensitivity to create the conditions for a lasting peace.
There’s also a feeling that the Arab world is being more reasonable than the West, and this has caught many people off guard. The timing raises some questions about political maneuvering and potential pressure from Western nations like France. France’s interest in recognizing a Palestinian state appears to be a factor. France, and other nations, might be demanding that Hamas is disarmed and removed from power as preconditions for any recognition. Whether these demands are realistic is debatable, but the move would show an attempt to be more balanced.
Finally, the underlying issues of the conflict are clear. It is apparent that this declaration is only a step forward if it is the genuine beginning of a negotiation that respects the needs of all. The emphasis on long-term vision, the combination of incentives and consequences, and the need for cooperation between Arab and European states all indicate a desire for long-term peace. Ultimately, all parties will have to come to the table and honestly evaluate their stance in order for an enduring resolution to be achieved.