New York Conference: Between Many Questions, Big Headlines, and Deferred Actions... Is it a New Reiteration of Oslo?

Author: اسماعيل جمعه الريماوي

While children are gasping for breath under the tents of displacement in the Gaza Strip, and while Gaza is being besieged by a calculated famine and bombed incessantly, foreign ministers from some countries gather in New York to hold a high-profile conference on the "two-state solution," as if they have suddenly discovered the tragedy of a people that has persisted for 76 years. The New York conference, sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia under a humanitarian facade, raises many questions before the public: Is it a bold step towards recognizing a Palestinian state, or is it merely an attempt laden with political landmines aimed at controlling the trajectory of the Palestinian cause in accordance with "what remains of the international system" after the masks have fallen.

In terms of form, the conference appears to be a rare diplomatic breakthrough in the era of Zionist arrogance. France announces that it will officially recognize the State of Palestine in the upcoming United Nations General Assembly meeting, and urges Britain, Australia, and other European countries to follow suit. The European Union emphasizes the need to activate the two-state solution before it is completely buried. Saudi Arabia links final normalization with Israel to the establishment of the Palestinian state along the June 4 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. Even the United Nations Commission speaks of supporting the reconstruction of Gaza and establishing a unified Palestinian government. Although these headlines seem shiny, promising, and compassionate, they are closer to a process of beautifying the corpse of international politics towards Palestine than to reviving any authentic sovereign Palestinian entity.

At its core, the conference does not address the essence of the conflict; rather, it consciously bypasses it. There is no serious talk about stopping the Israeli aggression, lifting the siege on Gaza, or holding the perpetrators of daily massacres legally accountable. There are no calls for accountability, only calls for "reforming the Palestinian Authority," holding elections, and forming a "unified Palestinian leadership that represents the people both inside and outside," but with the condition that resistance not be part of it. These are not merely technical notes; they are a prelude to erasing any liberatory resistance project from the scene, replacing it with a lawful, politically tamed authority that can be integrated into arrangements following the massacre.

The New York conference is not separate from the aftermath of October 7; it is rather an extension of the struggle for awareness and control that erupted on that day. What is required today is not only a ceasefire but also the disarmament and demonization of the resistance, and the rehabilitation of the Oslo Authority to be a compliant partner in the "post-resistance" era.

Thus, the conference comes with terms reminiscent of Oslo but in a more brazen context: No land is to be recovered, no refugees are to return, and no sovereignty is to be seized. Rather, a feeble functional entity is intended to be declared as a "state" in order to barter Gaza's blood, providing a moral cover for normalization with Israel.

Indeed, some major countries' call to recognize the State of Palestine at this very moment—when the largest operations of displacement and ethnic cleansing are taking place in the beleaguered sector—raises the question: Is this a sign of support or an attempt to cool global anger and soothe the wounds of the nation? Or is this merely recycling Oslo in a "more humanitarian" manner from the outside, but with more danger from the inside? Oslo robbed the land under the illusion of statehood; now the New York Conference seeks to rob will and resistance under the banner of "the recognized state." What is the difference between the two? Is it suffocating the victim in public or injecting them with a lethal sedative under the calm of diplomacy?

Can the timing of the conference be understood outside the framework of role distribution between Tel Aviv and Washington on one hand, and European and Arab capitals on the other? Israel publicly boycotts and attacks the conference to allow its allies to play the role of the "sensible mediator" pressing for the two-state solution, while it continues to kill, destroy, and starve on the ground. Meanwhile, Washington rejects the conference as "propaganda" but implicitly supports it, knowing that its outcomes will not exceed the limits allowed by Israel's security.

All peace conferences have failed when they lacked a balance of power, and Israel still believes that peace is imposed by the force of fire, not the force of right. Thus, any international initiative that does not begin with an immediate cessation of aggression, a comprehensive lifting of the siege, holding the occupation accountable for its crimes, and uprooting the roots of settler colonialism will not lead to a state, but to a "political shop" that sells slogans and buys time.

While some voices rely on the idea that international recognition of the Palestinian state will embarrass and isolate Israel, this recognition will remain ink on paper unless it is supported by an independent Palestinian presence, sovereignty on the land, and a resistant national program that protects this entity from turning into a "rehearsal" for the end of the cause.

What is occurring in New York is not solidarity with Gaza, but an attempt to frame the new catastrophe in a legal formula that legitimizes what has occurred and reduces the bloodshed to statements of support, rebuilding, and conditional funding. It is a conference in a mirage, promising a state without borders, peace without justice, and sovereignty without arms—a conference that seeks to turn the page on Gaza, not to save it, and to end "the resistance," not to end the occupation.

Despite the numerous statements calling for peace, the scene in Gaza reflects a tragic reality: more than 200,000 martyrs and wounded, thousands missing, and famine claiming lives.

The vast majority of Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian people in general, and in Gaza particularly, see that these international conferences remain far from effecting tangible change, doubting their ability to stop the massacres or end the occupation, believing that betting on international will is no longer effective in light of complicity with aggression and the continued siege.

Many observers have gone further, considering that these conferences are merely part of conspiracy schemes, and a means to throw dust in the eyes, especially as Saudi Arabia leads the countries pushing the normalization wheel with the entity at a time when other countries participate in slaughtering, besieging, and starving Palestinians, along with other regimes that have colluded through silence or direct support.

These observers believe that the recent conference in New York is nothing more than an attempt to beautify the image of the occupation and present it as a partner in peace, while it continues to commit massacres in Gaza and the West Bank, reinforcing policies of displacement, annexation, and settlement.

Observers affirm that betting on these conferences is a losing wager, and that the real solution begins with supporting resistance, stopping all forms of normalization, and holding the occupation accountable for its crimes—not through negotiation tables that operate under biased Western agendas.

The Palestinian people do not need conferences that recognize their right to a fictitious state, but need international will that stops the massacres, dismantles the eradication project, and returns the Palestinian cause to its true compass: liberation not negotiation, resistance not coordination, return not resettlement. A state means nothing if it is not on the ruins of the occupation.