From Conflict to Consensus? Inside the UN Peace Conference on Gaza

From Conflict to Consensus? Inside the UN Peace Conference on Gaza

Renewed Debate at the United Nations Peace Conference

Recently, the world debate on the United Nations UN Peace Conference on Gaza has been renewed, focusing again on the two-state solution. More than 40 diplomats from around the world met in Geneva with persistent violence, pervasive mistrust, and mounting global pressure for practical progress toward enduring peace. While not designed to deliver immediate breakthroughs, the conference was a substantial attempt to reestablish dialogue and gauge the political environment.

The Two-State Solution: Hopes and Obstacles

Historically, long the most viable solution, the two-state solution demands independent Israeli and Palestinian nations existing in harmony. Despite this, conflicts in claims, settlement growth, and leadership disputes have often thwarted implementation. Importantly, more than 700,000 Israeli settlers currently inhabit the Israel-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, thus making territorial negotiations more difficult, as reported by a 2024 UN report.

Calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and the return of humanitarian access dominated the center stage of the conference. Declaring, “The human cost of this conflict is unacceptable,” United Nations Secretary General António Guterres underlined the need of resolving civilian pain.

Guterres reaffirmed in his remarks that the two-state solution not only between Israelis and Palestinians but also throughout the larger Middle East remains the “only believable road” to peace. He said that political inaction and failure of leadership cause the continuation of the conflict, not that it is unavoidable. “We have to make sure this conference does not turn into another exercise in well-meant rhetoric,” he said, asking for irrevocable advancement toward the establishment of two independent states based on the pre-1967 boundaries, with Jerusalem as shared capital. He pressed parties to return to “meaningful, direct negotiations”.

However, the obstacles remain steep as the Israeli government maintains firm opposition. Still, some Arab nations showed previously unheard-of interest in enabling communication. Beginning with a ceasefire, prisoner exchanges, and economic reconstruction in Gaza, followed by talks over final status concerns, Egypt and Jordan suggested a phased approach.

Old ally of Israel, the United States, appeared to adopt a neutral tone. Secretary of State Antony Blinken supports Israel’s right to defend itself, but also stressed the need for Palestinian sovereignty, dignity, and respect. This change points to rising knowledge in Washington of the world and regional consequences of prolonged battle. Blinken’s remarks signal a subtle shift in American policy.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas asked the international community to carry out previously agreed UN resolutions, particularly Resolution 242, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories. “The world cannot keep watching while our people suffer under occupation and siege,” Abbas said.

Questions still are there. Many observers questioned the lack of representation from Palestinian civil society and Gaza-based political voices. Some worry that without local involvement, talks will once again be separated from events on the ground. Analysts at Carnegie emphasized this concern.

In conclusion, the UN Peace Conference on Gaza is another attempt to push forward the two-state agenda. Political stakes are high and there are many obstacles, while the participation of key global and regional players indicates a shifting consensus. The coming months will be a test whether this diplomatic momentum can turn into concrete action, or it will become yet another chapter in a long history of talks.