Israel-Palestine conflict: Is the New York Declaration a ‘paper solution’?

Like much of the international community, India was quick to embrace the goals and objectives of the highly proclaimed New York Declaration that seeks to resolve the vexed Israeli-Palestinian conflict. India's permanent representative to the United Nations, Ambassador P. Harish, articulated the Indian position before the UN conference on ‘The Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution’ held in New York during 28-30 July. He also reiterated India's historic support for the Palestinian cause, its recognition of the Palestinian State in 1988, tangible ‘human centric’ financial support through the Palestine National Authority and its unwavering commitment to the two-state solution.

Flagging the need to immediately alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the people of the Gaza Strip, he repeated India's basic position vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “A sovereign, viable and independent State of Palestine within recognised and mutually agreed borders, living side by side with Israel in peace and security, is a pre-requisite for enduring peace and sustainable development.” However, towards the very end, Ambassador Harish issued a word of caution over being complacent about ‘paper resolutions’ and urged for tangible and immediate action.

The expression ‘paper solutions’ is rather odd, unprecedented, but profound. What could be the reason for this frankness? India's overall approach towards the Palestinian question, especially since the October 7, 2023, terror attack, was completely in sync with the final New York Declaration issued at the end of the three-day UN meet. Yet, India was not among the 19 chairs and co-chairs; despite their close ties with New Delhi, the principal force behind the UN meet—France and Saudi Arabia—chose to ignore India.

Cynics will offer a more imaginative logic to India's non-inclusion in the UN meet as co-chairs and interpret it as a sign of its international marginalisation, especially on the Palestinian question. To get there, the critics will gloss over the similarities between the positions of India and the UN meet; the New York statement belatedly admitted that the October 7 attack by Hamas was terrorism and should be condemned unequivocally; it called for the removal of Hamas from power and its complete disarming; and it demanded placing the Gaza Strip under the unified control of the PNA and President Mahmoud Abbas.

The UN conference idea was first officially mooted on May 23, and the first preparatory meeting of eight working groups was held during June 2-6. There could be genuine logistical hitches at either or both ends, which precluded India's participation. Alternatively, if the exclusion was deliberate, then ‘paper solution’ reflects India's anger and disappointment.

However, one can offer a logical explanation for India using that powerful phrase. India is acutely aware of the negative voices from the most critical player: President Donald Trump. Without his tacit acquiescence, if not approval, no proposal concerning the Middle East has a realistic chance of success. The Trump administration has not yet signalled its willingness to accept the two-state solution as the way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President even threatened to sanction any Western country that is prepared to recognise the Palestinian State. His tariff campaign against Canada, for example, now revolves around the Palestinian issue. When its own trade negotiations with Washington are in a critical stage, why would India add fuel to the fire and antagonise President Trump?

The other player, Netanyahu, has been vociferously opposed to the two-state solution. Earlier, his opposition was rooted in ideological framing, and now, his political survival is the driving force. Since the October 7 violence, co-existence with the Palestinians is least popular within Israel, and the two-state solution has no takers at this point. Since the UN conference sought ‘Implementation of the Two-State Solution’, the vehement Israeli opposition is logical and inevitable. And India is aware that without the tacit support of Israel and the US, the New York meet will be yet another missed opportunity. Why join the chorus when the chances of success are extremely unlikely?

Thus, even if India was not actively involved in the New York Declaration, both are on the same page. Ambassador Harish’s ‘paper solution’ serves as a warning and strong reminder of the need to entice President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu into the process. Without these two players, the New York conference will soon be forgotten and therein lays Ambassador Harish’s warning of ‘paper solution’.

The author teaches contemporary Middle East at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Middle East