The recently adopted New York Declaration, promoted by France and the United Arab Emirates and warmly endorsed by the United Kingdom, has been hailed as a historic step towards a two-state solution. In reality, it is not a roadmap to peace but a recipe for greater instability in the Middle East.
France’s role is particularly telling. President Emmanuel Macron, already eyeing his post-presidential career, appears more interested in international visibility than in crafting a workable peace plan. London, for its part, continues a century-long tradition of interference in the region without assuming genuine responsibility for the consequences.
Hamas named, others ignored
The declaration explicitly condemns the October 7 attack by Hamas, calling for its disarmament and the transfer of power in Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. But it avoids mentioning other militant groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad or the Lions’ Den in the West Bank. By reducing the security threat to Hamas alone, the declaration ignores the complex militant ecosystem that thrives in both Gaza and the West Bank.
Even if Hamas were to lay down its arms, the organization would simply reorganize underground. Visible today, and thus targetable, Hamas would become clandestine, harder to confront, and potentially even more dangerous—not only for Israel but also for any future Palestinian state that lacks the strength to control it.
A state without safeguards
Nowhere does the declaration specify what the institutions of a Palestinian state should look like. There is no mention of a constitution, of checks and balances, or of international oversight. Such vagueness paves the way for a failed state, vulnerable to militia control and foreign influence.
Comparisons with Bosnia, where a “High Representative” was installed to oversee post-war governance, are misleading. In Bosnia, the model has often been symbolic rather than effective. In Palestine, it would be even weaker, since there is no appetite for sustained international control.
Jordan’s nightmare scenario
Some diplomatic circles whisper about a Palestinian-Jordanian linkage. In practice, this would destabilize Jordan itself. The kingdom already balances fragile internal demographics and political fault lines. Absorbing a Palestinian state—or even being closely tied to it—would push Jordan into dangerous territory. The declaration ignores this entirely, as if Jordanian stability were irrelevant to regional peace.
No Arab recognition of Israel
Equally absent is any demand that all Arab states recognize Israel. A Palestinian state is treated as the panacea, while the refusal of some regional actors to accept Israel’s legitimacy is conveniently overlooked. Without full recognition across the Arab world, a two-state solution cannot deliver lasting peace; it will only freeze the conflict in a new and unstable form.
The illusion of diplomacy
The New York Declaration is a piece of political theater. It looks impressive on paper: a high-level conference, signatures, lofty language. But nothing changes on the ground. Guns will not fall silent, hatred will not diminish, and the militias will not surrender their arsenals. What the declaration offers is not progress, but the illusion of progress.
An economic vacuum
Equally troubling is the absence of a credible economic framework for a Palestinian state. Without strict conditions and oversight, foreign funding will likely strengthen the influence of powers such as Iran and Turkey. Far from stabilizing the region, this would entrench proxy conflicts and deepen divisions.
Conclusion
The New York Declaration is not a solution but a multiplier of the problem. By focusing solely on Hamas, ignoring other militias, overlooking Jordan’s fragility, and failing to demand universal Arab recognition of Israel, it builds on false premises. Instead of laying the foundation for peace, it sets the stage for a future of renewed conflict, deeper instability, and shattered illusions.
Real peace requires more than declarations. It demands the disarmament of all militant groups, the regional acceptance of Israel, and robust international guarantees for governance and security. Anything less is not a solution, but a dangerous deception.
Cedric Vloemans (b. 1982, Antwerp) studied history at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and is currently based in Belgrade, Serbia. He works in the telecom and ICT sector, combining analytical precision with a deep-rooted passion for historical inquiry. With a longstanding interest in the histories, politics, and cultures of both Belgium and the Middle East—particularly Israel—he examines shifting international perspectives and contested media narratives.
Cedric has contributed opinion and analysis pieces to platforms such as CIDI (Netherlands) and Joods Actueel (Belgium), where his writing often intersects historical context with current geopolitical developments. Drawing on both academic training and lived experience in Southeastern Europe, he aims to challenge simplifications in public discourse and foster a more nuanced understanding of complex regional dynamics. He is especially interested in the legacy of historical memory, the role of identity in conflict, and the evolving discourse on Israel in European media.