The gamble of peace: a geopolitical emergency
In the Middle East, the infernal cycle of violence seems never to end. In Gaza, the humanitarian catastrophe worsens day by day while the diplomatic path appears to be stuck in a total impasse. The incessant bombings, the methodical destruction of vital infrastructure, and the growing despair of an embattled population paint a picture of endless tragedy. Yet, on September 11, 2025, the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the New York Declaration revived a glimmer of hope. This text, supported by an overwhelming majority of states, represents a bold attempt to revive the two-state solution, considered by many as the last chance to write a new chapter for the region.
In this context, respect for the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people appears not only as a moral imperative but also as a strategic imperative. Recognizing a viable, sovereign and dignified Palestinian state is not just a demand; it is the sine qua non condition for breaking the spiral of violence and establishing lasting peace.
The legal basis: international law violated
For more than half a century, the Palestinian cause has been based on an undeniable legal foundation: international law. The UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 242 of 1967, demand the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and affirm the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. In addition to this, there are the Geneva Conventions, which protect the civilian population from occupation, forced transfers, and violations of human dignity.
Yet, these texts remain dead letters. The inaction in the face of their repeated violation has turned this legal framework into a mere declaration of intent. This inability to enforce international law has eroded the trust of the peoples of the region in the multilateral system, perceived as powerless or complicit in the Israeli policy of occupation and colonization.
The reality on the ground: colonization, siege, and humanitarian tragedy
In Gaza, two million inhabitants live in a hermetically sealed enclave.
Israeli strikes target hospitals, water, electricity, and sanitation networks, condemning the population to a total collapse of their living conditions. Each bombardment leaves behind hundreds of victims, often children, and an increasingly torn social fabric.
This siege strategy aims to empty Gaza of its population, through death or forced exile, in order to make a gradual annexation of an depopulated territory possible. Such a policy, denounced by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, amounts to an ethnic cleansing and demographic cleansing campaign. It directly contradicts the most elementary principles of international law and constitutes a direct challenge to universal conscience.
International inaction: an intolerable price
In the face of this situation, the international community has all too often chosen the easy way out: statements of principle, without sanctions or follow-up. The unconditional support of the United States for Israel, systematically blocking any binding resolution in the Security Council, has drained the peace process of its substance. The divided European Union struggles to exert a credible influence. This diplomatic vacuum has allowed colonization to continue and Palestinian despair to take root.
This absence of action is not neutral. It fuels radicalization, fuels regional instability, and makes the prospect of a peaceful settlement ever more distant. Every day of silence by the international community costs human lives and weakens the international order based on law a little more.
The New York Declaration: a fragile but hopeful diplomatic milestone
Adopted by 142 countries, the New York Declaration sets out a clear roadmap. It demands an immediate and lasting ceasefire, a prerequisite for any political progress.
She calls for the disarmament of Hamas, its exclusion from governance, and the handing over of the administration of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, an indispensable step for Palestinian political reunification. She also envisages the deployment of a United Nations mission to protect civilians, monitor the ceasefire, and ensure security.
Although this text is not legally binding, it is nevertheless a strong signal: the principle of the two-state solution remains at the heart of the international consensus. It reminds us that peace can only be achieved within the framework of law, not by force. But its effectiveness will depend on the real political will of the major powers and their ability to translate these commitments into concrete actions.
Why the two-state solution remains the most realistic option
The full and complete recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people requires the establishment of a sovereign state based on the 1967 borders. This state must offer its citizens respected civil and political rights, allowing them to finally live in dignity. The Israeli doctrine that the Land of Israel is reserved exclusively for the Jewish people denies any political legitimacy to the Palestinians and makes any lasting peace impossible.
The alternative to two states is fraught with dangers: the establishment of an institutionalized apartheid regime, the mass expulsion of Palestinians, or the increased radicalization of armed movements. The idea of a single democratic state, seductive in theory, is unrealistic in the current context of ethnic and religious divisions. The solution of two states, although difficult to implement, remains the only pragmatic path, in line with international law and capable of avoiding widespread unrest.
The obstacles to overcome
The first obstacle is Israeli colonization, which is fragmenting the West Bank and jeopardizing the territorial viability of a future Palestinian state. Its immediate cessation is essential to re-establish trust.
The second obstacle is internal to the Palestinian camp: the division between the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Unified, legitimate, and representative governance is a sine qua non for any credible negotiation.
Finally, the role of external powers remains crucial. The United States must break with its traditional bias and adopt a balanced position. The European Union, for its part, must overcome its hesitation to fully assume its strategic responsibilities. Collective mobilization by the international community under the auspices of the UN is indispensable to guarantee the credibility of the process.
Conclusion: a geopolitical and moral imperative
The recognition of the fundamental rights of the Palestinians and the creation of a sovereign state are not mere moral imperatives. They constitute a major geopolitical imperative for the stability of the Middle East and, beyond that, for global balance.
The two-state solution, reaffirmed by the New York Declaration, remains the only realistic path to break the cycle of violence and establish peaceful coexistence between two peoples.
Its success will depend on sincere mobilization, strong political will, and concrete pressure exerted on all parties.
History has shown that half-measures and diplomatic illusions only lead to stalemate and despair. The time has come to translate the consensus expressed at the UN into concrete action. Peace is not a distant option; it is an urgent necessity dictated by dignity, justice, and the rule of law.
Only collective determination can give the Palestinian people what is rightfully theirs: to live free, on their land, in a sovereign state recognized by all. It is on this foundation, and only on it, that a new era of coexistence and stability can finally dawn in the Middle East.
French 
English 
Chinese 
Arabic