Can the UN’s Two-State Solution Conference Break the Gaza Deadlock? A U.S. Perspective

Introduction: A Pivotal Moment for Peace?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, marked by the ongoing war in Gaza, remains one of the world’s most intractable challenges. With no ceasefire in sight and the Middle East peace process stalled for years, the international community is turning to a new effort: the UN High-Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, set for June 17-20, 2025, in New York. Co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, this conference aims to revive the two-state solution—a vision of independent Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side in peace. But with the U.S. playing a critical role in shaping Middle East policy, what does this conference mean for American interests, and can it break the cycle of violence? In this analysis, we explore the conference’s goals, challenges, and implications for U.S. global strategy, offering a clear-eyed view of its potential to reshape the region.

The Gaza Crisis: A Humanitarian and Strategic Quandary

Gaza’s ongoing conflict is a humanitarian disaster and a strategic headache for the U.S. Since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis and took 250 hostages, Israel’s military response has resulted in over 54,000 Palestinian deaths, mostly women and children, and displaced 90% of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. The devastation has strained U.S. alliances, with Arab partners like Saudi Arabia demanding action on Palestinian statehood, while domestic pressure grows to address the humanitarian crisis.

For the U.S., Gaza is a balancing act. Supporting Israel, a key ally, is a cornerstone of American Middle East policy, but the escalating violence risks alienating Arab states and fueling anti-American sentiment. Posts on X reflect this tension: one user argues that U.S. vetoes in the UN Security Council enable Israel’s actions, while another warns that recognizing a Palestinian state could reward Hamas. The UN conference offers a chance to address these dynamics, but U.S. participation—or lack thereof—will be pivotal.

The UN Conference: Goals and Structure

Scheduled for June 17-20, 2025, at UN Headquarters in New York, the conference is a response to General Assembly resolution 79/81, adopted with 157 votes in favor. Co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, it aims to produce an “action-oriented outcome document” to chart an “irreversible pathway” toward a two-state solution. Key features include:

• Plenary Sessions: Statements from UN leaders, member states, and observers, including the UN Secretary-General and General Assembly President Philemon Yang.

• Eight Thematic Roundtables: Covering security arrangements, economic viability of a Palestinian state, humanitarian aid, and narratives for peace, co-chaired by countries like Qatar, Canada, and the UK.

• Focus on Concrete Steps: France’s Anne-Claire Legendre and Saudi Arabia’s Manal Radwan emphasize moving “from words to deeds,” with calls for a Gaza ceasefire, hostage release, and increased aid.

The conference builds on a preparatory meeting held May 23, 2025, and follows the launch of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution in Riyadh in October 2024. It also aligns with the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 ruling that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, adding legal weight to demands for change.

U.S. Stance: A Delicate Dance

The U.S. faces a complex calculus at the conference. Historically, it has backed a two-state solution but insists on direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, opposing unilateral moves like state recognition. Under President Donald Trump’s second term, the U.S. has taken a hardline stance, discouraging attendance at the conference and warning of “diplomatic consequences” for countries taking “anti-Israel actions.” A U.S. cable cited by Reuters argues that unilateral recognition of Palestine could undermine ceasefire talks and “embolden Hamas.”

This position puts the U.S. at odds with allies like France, where President Emmanuel Macron has called recognizing Palestine a “moral duty,” and the UK, which is open to evolving its stance. It also risks isolating the U.S. from the 145+ UN members that recognize Palestine, including recent additions like Ireland and Norway. Posts on X highlight this divide: one user claims the U.S. is giving Israel a “green light” for annexation, while another defends the U.S. for prioritizing Israel’s security.

Yet, the U.S. cannot ignore the conference entirely. Saudi Arabia, a key partner in countering Iran and pursuing normalization with Israel, is co-chairing the event and insists on Palestinian statehood as a condition for ties with Israel. The U.S. has also worked with Egypt and Qatar on Gaza ceasefire talks, which the conference could complement—or complicate.

Challenges to Success

The conference faces steep hurdles, many of which challenge U.S. interests:

1. Israeli Resistance: Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, opposes the conference and rejects a two-state solution, calling it a “reward for terrorism.” Israel’s absence from the conference, noted in X posts, undermines its credibility.

2. Hamas’s Role: Hamas’s control of Gaza and its rejection of Israel’s existence complicate negotiations. The U.S. and UK insist Hamas be excluded from Gaza’s future governance, but Arab plans for its disarmament or political integration remain contentious.

3. Palestinian Divisions: The Palestinian Authority (PA) lacks legitimacy and control over Gaza, hindering its ability to negotiate. The UK emphasizes PA reform as a priority, a view shared by some X users.

4. Settlement Expansion: Israel’s approval of 22 new West Bank settlements, the largest in decades, violates international law and erodes the two-state vision, as noted by Austria and the ICJ.

5. U.S. Domestic Politics: Trump’s pro-Israel base, exemplified by Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s claim that recognizing Palestine equates to celebrating October 7, limits U.S. flexibility.

These challenges raise doubts about the conference’s ability to deliver, with some X users calling it a “symbolic gesture” doomed to fail without Israeli buy-in.

Opportunities for U.S. Leadership

Despite these obstacles, the conference offers the U.S. a chance to advance its interests:

• Strengthening Alliances: Engaging constructively could align the U.S. with Saudi Arabia and moderate Arab states, bolstering efforts to counter Iran and secure normalization deals.

• Humanitarian Leadership: Co-leading efforts on Gaza’s reconstruction, as the UK plans, could restore U.S. credibility on humanitarian issues.

• Ceasefire Momentum: Supporting a conference-backed ceasefire could build on U.S.-led talks with Egypt and Qatar, reducing regional instability.

• Countering Rivals: A proactive U.S. role could prevent China or Russia from filling the diplomatic void, as Syria’s UN delegate has criticized U.S. inaction.

By participating, the U.S. could shape the conference’s outcome to prioritize security guarantees for Israel, PA reform, and a phased approach to statehood, aligning with its long-standing policy.

Implications for U.S. Global Strategy

The conference’s outcome will ripple through U.S. foreign policy. A successful push for a ceasefire and renewed talks could stabilize the region, strengthen U.S.-Arab ties, and reduce pressure from domestic critics. Failure, however, risks further isolating the U.S., empowering adversaries, and prolonging a conflict that drains diplomatic capital. The U.S. must also consider the broader context: with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional proxies like Hezbollah, a stable Middle East is critical to U.S. security.

X posts reflect polarized views: some urge the U.S. to support Palestine to counter Israel’s “final solution,” while others warn against betraying Israel. The U.S. must navigate this divide, balancing moral imperatives with strategic realities.

Conclusion: A Test of U.S. Resolve

The UN conference is a high-stakes moment for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. global leadership. While skepticism abounds, the event offers a platform to address Gaza’s crisis, revive the two-state solution, and reinforce U.S. influence in the Middle East. By engaging strategically, the U.S. can advance its interests while contributing to a just peace. The question is whether it will seize this opportunity or remain on the sidelines, risking further escalation and diplomatic isolation.

Thought Questions for Readers

1. Should the U.S. prioritize Israel’s security or push for Palestinian statehood to align with Arab allies?

2. Can the UN conference succeed without Israel’s participation, and how should the U.S. address this absence?

3. What role should the U.S. play in ensuring Hamas is excluded from Gaza’s future governance?

4. How can the U.S. balance domestic political pressures with its global leadership responsibilities at the conference?