Saudi FM seeks global support for final document of ‘Two-State Solution' conference
The document includes an agreement to work jointly toward ending the war in Gaza and reaching a just, peaceful, and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the effective implementation of the two-state solution, and to build a better future for Palestinians, Israelis, and all peoples of the region.
The declaration's plan says conference co-chairs France and Saudi Arabia, the European Union and Arab League, and 15 countries that led the working groups agreed 'to take collective action to end the war in Gaza.'
Prince Faisal urged the rest of the 193 UN member nations 'to support this document' before the start of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in mid-September.
'These outcomes reflect comprehensive proposals across political, humanitarian, security, economic, legal, and strategic narrative tracks, and they form an integrated and actionable framework for implementing the two-state solution and achieving peace and security for all,' the foreign minister said, according to the Saudi Press Agency.
He reiterated Saudi Arabia's condemnation of all attacks by any party targeting civilians, including indiscriminate attacks, all assaults on civilian infrastructure, provocative actions, incitement, and acts of destruction.
The declaration condemns 'the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians' in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. It marks a first condemnation by Arab nations of Hamas, whose attacks killed about 1,200, mainly Israeli civilians, and whose militants took about 250 people hostage. Some 50 are still being held.
It also condemns Israel's attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza and its 'siege and starvation, which have produced a devastating humanitarian catastrophe and protection crisis.'
Israel's offensive against Hamas has killed over 60,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants.
It's plan envisions the Palestinian Authority governing and controlling all Palestinian territory, with a transitional administrative committee immediately established under its umbrella after a ceasefire in Gaza.
'In the context of ending the war in Gaza, Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority,' the declaration says.
It also supports deployment of 'a temporary international stabilization mission' operating under UN auspices to protect Palestinian civilians, support the transfer of security to the Palestinian Authority and provide security guarantees for Palestine and Israel — 'including monitoring of the ceasefire and of a future peace agreement.'
The declaration urges countries to recognize the state of Palestine, calling this 'an essential and indispensable component of the achievement of the two-state solution.' Without naming Israel but clearly referring to it, the document says 'illegal unilateral actions are posing an existential threat to the realization of the independent state of Palestine.'
(With agencies)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Anger over Gaza could unseat top UK ministers: Pollsters
LONDON: Pro-Palestine election candidates in the UK could unseat top government ministers at the next general election, leading pollsters have said. Figures including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood will likely face major battles to keep their seats despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer's decision to potentially recognize a Palestinian state, The Independent reported on Saturday. At the last election in 2024, a pro-Palestine candidate unseated a key member of Starmer's team, Jonathan Ashworth. Streeting retained his seat but with a tiny majority of 528, down from 5,198 in 2019. Mounting public anger over Britain's response to the Gaza war could cause major embarrassment for the government at the next election, pollsters say. Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader and now independent MP, has announced a new party that could also take a chunk of votes from the government by highlighting the Gaza crisis. John Curtice, the country's top pollster, told The Independent that Starmer's pledge to recognize a Palestinian state in September — should Israel fail to meet key conditions — 'may not be sufficient' for voters. Both Streeting and Mahmood are in significant danger of losing their seats at the next election, while other ministers and MPs could also fall if anger continues to grow over Gaza. Starmer had also 'lost out' on votes in his own constituency last year because of concerns over Gaza, Curtice said. However, the prime minister's majority is substantially larger than some of his Cabinet ministers. 'Here is somebody (Starmer) who spent a great deal of time and effort trying to reconnect with the Jewish community, and now he's finding himself having to spend a great deal of effort trying to reconnect with the Muslim community. It is very difficult to keep himself on board with both groups at the moment,' Curtice said. When Corbyn launched his party last week, he said its members would campaign heavily on Palestine, as well as Britain's response to Israel's war on Gaza. Luke Tryl of polling firm More in Common said events in Gaza and government policy toward the war have revealed 'deeper' problems within the ruling Labour Party. 'When we have done focus groups with voters in Muslim areas, particularly some of those who backed or were thinking about backing pro-Gaza independent candidates, I compared it to speaking to voters in the red wall after Brexit,' he said. 'In the sense that Brexit was the thing which caused the split, but it actually brought to the fore much deeper resentments — that they have been taken from granted, ignored, left behind by Labour … I think we're going to see exactly the same thing with Muslim voters.'
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Africa's debt crisis demands self-reliant solutions
The much-discussed Jubilee Report, emerging from expert deliberations commissioned by the Vatican, diagnoses the acute debt distress strangling developing economies, particularly in Africa, with commendable clarity. It presents a familiar litany of systemic failures: pro-cyclical capital flows, creditor-friendly legal architectures in New York and London, the inadequacy of debt sustainability analyses, and the perverse incentives perpetuated by international financial institutions. Its prescriptions, including a new heavily indebted poor countries initiative, legal reforms to curb predatory litigation, shifts toward 'growth-oriented austerity,' and massive increases in multilateral financing, echo decades of expert consensus. Yet, a fundamental flaw remains. The report's prescriptions rely on coordinated global goodwill and structural reform that is demonstrably absent in today's fragmented world. For Africa, where public debt has outpaced national economic growth since 2013, and home to 751 million people in countries spending more on servicing external debt than on education or health — waiting for this global consensus is not strategy; it is surrender. The report's morally resonant idealism dangerously underestimates the entrenched hostility to meaningful concessions benefiting African economies and overlooks the imperative for radical, self-reliant solutions. Consider the sheer scale of the crisis versus the proposed global fixes. A total of 54 developing countries now allocate over 10 percent of public revenues merely to interest payments. In Africa, this fiscal hemorrhage directly competes with existential needs: costly climate adaptation for countries contributing minimally to emissions, yet facing devastating impacts, and investment in a youth population projected to reach 35 percent of the global total by 2050. The report rightly condemns the injustice, historical and ongoing, embedded in this dynamic. However, its central remedy, a heavily indebted poor countries initiative, requires unprecedented cooperation from diverse and often adversarial creditor blocs: traditional Paris Club members; newer bilateral lenders such as China; and, crucially, private bondholders who now dominate over 40 percent of low and lower-middle income country external debt. Regardless, historical precedent does not inspire confidence. A predecessor heavily indebted poor countries initiative, while delivering relief, failed to prevent recurrence precisely because it did not alter the fundamental dynamics or the structure of global finance. Why expect a sequel, demanding even greater concessions from powerful financial interests operating within unreformed legal jurisdictions, to succeed now? The Common Framework, hailed as progress, has delivered negligible relief precisely due to creditor discord and obstructionism. Betting Africa's future on such actors suddenly developing a collective conscience is not realism; it is negligence. Additionally, the report's reliance on international financial institutions as engines of reform and finance is equally problematic. It calls for an end to International Monetary Fund bailouts of private creditors; lower surcharges; massive SDR, or Special Drawing Right, reallocations; and transformed multilateral development bank lending models. Yet, the governance structures of these institutions remain frozen in mid-20th-century power dynamics that remain heavily skewed against African representation and influence. For instance, securing a $650 billion SDR allocation during the pandemic proved a herculean task; achieving the regular, larger, and equitably distributed issuances the report envisions, given rising fiscal nationalism and escalating geopolitical rivalries, seems quixotic. Moreover, the notion that these same institutions, historically enforcers of austerity and guardians of creditor interests, can reinvent themselves as champions of unconditional, mission-driven finance for African transformation ignores their institutional DNA and the political constraints imposed by their major shareholders. Meanwhile, the call for MDBs to lend massively in local currencies, while technically sound for reducing exchange rate risk, faces fierce resistance from bond markets and rating agencies wary of currency volatility, effectively limiting its scale without improbable capital increases. Furthermore, the report's focus on grand interventions, from debt buyback funds and global climate funds to international bankruptcy courts, fails to grapple with the toxic geopolitical environment. Historical prejudices framing African governance as inherently corrupt or incapable, combined with rising great power competition, actively work against complex cooperative frameworks perceived as primarily benefiting African countries. Solutions built on African agency, regional cohesion, and financial self-reliance offer a more realistic path out of the debt trap. Hafed Al-Ghwell In addition, resources for global funds are notoriously scarce and fiercely contested; establishing new international legal architectures faces veto points at every turn. The current global context is not merely indifferent to African debt distress; elements within it are actively hostile to solutions requiring hefty financial transfers or perceived concessions of leverage. Waiting for this hostility to abate condemns Africa to prolonged debt traps, draining precious reserves crucial for the continent's 1.4 billion people and, ultimately, global stability. The path forward, therefore, demands a harsh pivot toward solutions Africa controls, minimizing reliance on external mobilization vulnerable to global whims. This is not isolationism but pragmatic self-preservation. It requires, for instance, aggressively developing domestic capital markets. Africa's savings, estimated in the trillions of dollars collectively, are often parked in low-yield advanced economy assets or leave the continent entirely. Redirecting these resources requires efforts to deepen local bond markets, strengthen regulatory frameworks, and incentivize institutional investors to allocate capital locally. Second, the report mentions implementing strategic capital account regulations, but underplays their centrality. African countries must actively deploy tools, from reserve requirements to taxes on short-term inflows and prudential limits on foreign currency exposure, to break the pro-cyclical boom-bust cycle of capital flows. This shields fiscal space and reduces vulnerability to the monetary policy shocks emanating from advanced economies. It is a tool of sovereignty, not retreat. Third, strengthening mechanisms such as the African Monetary Fund and expanding regional swap arrangements is critical for building robust regional financial safety nets. Pooling reserves and establishing regional payment systems, thereby reducing dollar dependency for intra-African trade, can provide vital liquidity during crises without the conditionalities of the IMF. This demands unprecedented political will for regional integration and also offers a tangible buffer against global volatility. Fourth, every new infrastructure project financed in dollars increases future vulnerability. Negotiating harder for local currency loans from remaining bilateral partners and MDBs, even at marginally higher initial rates, is essential. Simultaneously, investing in credible monetary policy frameworks is nonnegotiable to sustain this approach. Lastly, transparency and robust domestic oversight of borrowing, including contingent liabilities from public-private partnerships, are vital to prevent repeating past mistakes. Building domestic technical capacity for sophisticated debt sustainability analyses, independent of existing models often blind to climate vulnerability, strengthens negotiation positions. Ultimately, the diagnoses are accurate — there is no argument there. However, the prescribed medicine is simply a dose the global pharmacy refuses to dispense. Africa's debt crisis, crippling distressed countries and suffocating the futures of 288 million people in extreme poverty, cannot await a global kumbaya moment. The moral imperative remains, but the strategic response must shift. Solutions built on African agency, regional cohesion, and financial self-reliance, however difficult, offer a more realistic, and ultimately, more dignified path out of the debt trap than persistent reliance on a system structurally biased against the continent's development.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
A masterclass in diplomacy
Over the past 18 months, Riyadh has quietly delivered a masterclass in diplomacy, steadily reshaping how Western capitals approach the Palestinian file. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the hands-on diplomacy of Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, the Kingdom has pursued a strategy rooted in hard-nosed pragmatism: Washington's strategic umbrella over Israel will not fold under fiery speeches or social media storms. Rather than waste energy on theatrics, Saudi Arabia has opted for a patient, cumulative approach — chipping away at Israel's aura of effortless Western legitimacy until the political calculus inside G7 capitals begins to shift. It may feel slow to the impatient observer, but in a world that rewards persistence over noise, this is how real influence is built. At the core of this approach is a sober understanding of limits, paired with precisely applied leverage. Saudi Arabia does not pretend it can strong-arm a superpower. Instead, it keeps oil markets steady and refrains from military theatrics — moves that earn quiet access where it matters most: in chancelleries, parliaments, and boardrooms that shape policy toward Israel. Critics mistake this restraint for timidity. In truth, it reflects a deeper wisdom: Decades of impulsive grandstanding have done little beyond plunging the region into chaos. Riyadh has learned that proportion, not provocation, delivers lasting results. The coalition-building effort began in Paris, where France, seeking Middle East relevance, found its regional ballast in Saudi Arabia. London, responding to domestic outrage over Gaza, followed suit; Ottawa, wary of standing alone in the G7, came next. Each recognition of Palestine may be symbolic, but symbolism is precisely what has underpinned Israel's hard-won status as a normalized Western democracy. Every fracture in that image raises the long-term reputational cost of occupation and embeds it into Israeli strategic thinking. This quiet momentum reflects the polling data: US support for Israel's Gaza operations has eroded sharply, especially among voters under 40. Demography is destiny. Riyadh is playing the long game — betting on time, not tantrums, to unwind Washington's old consensus. That consensus is already fraying on college campuses, in statehouses, and across ESG-conscious boardrooms. The tactic: maintain the spotlight on Gaza, deny any pretext for American disengagement, and let US voters begin to carry the moral and political weight. The crown prince made the Kingdom's position unequivocal in his Shoura Council address: There will be no recognition of Israel without a viable Palestinian state. This is not a revival of 1973-style oil brinkmanship — which in today's world would simply accelerate Western diversification and slash Arab revenues. Instead, Riyadh keeps markets stable while freezing Israel's regional integration until it engages seriously with a two-state solution. That keeps global consumers comfortable — and Israel on edge. Saudi diplomacy has achieved in 18 months what half a century of summitry and rhetoric failed to deliver. Ali Shihabi The promise of normalization remains on the table — but firmly behind a two-state gate. The Abraham Accords opened easy access to the Gulf. Saudi Arabia redrew that map. Sovereign capital, Red Sea connectivity, and cutting-edge partnerships are all within reach — but only post-settlement. The burden now shifts to Israel: It must explain to its own citizens why ideology should block a generational opportunity to transform from a garrison state to a regional player. When economic logic aligns with strategic necessity, ideology eventually yields. One of the most consequential developments came when Saudi Arabia, alongside other Arab states, publicly called for Hamas to disarm and relinquish control of Gaza. This decisive step stripped Israel of a convenient excuse to delay its withdrawal and continue its campaign of collective punishment. By removing the justification of 'no partner for peace,' it undercut Israel's excuse to prolong military operations and war crimes under the guise of self-defense — reinforcing the international call for an end to occupation and the need for a political solution. Those Muslim and Arab voices calling for boycotts, embargoes, or war have misread both history and the current moment. Power today lies in leverage applied at pressure points — not in slogans shouted from podiums. Saudi diplomacy has forced Western democracies, Israel's most critical club of supporters, to seriously reconsider the question of Palestinian statehood. It has achieved in 18 months what half a century of summitry and rhetoric failed to deliver. The task now is for other Arab capitals to reinforce this approach, consolidating influence rather than scattering it in performative gestures. Yes, Israel retains a US veto — for now. But no veto can stop demographic shifts in swing states, the quiet pressure of British MPs attuned to their constituents, or the economic calculus of European firms navigating boycott risks. In time, Israel will face a stark choice: perpetual siege and growing isolation, or coexistence with a sovereign Palestinian neighbor. Saudi Arabia today holds the key to that door — and remains the only real diplomatic lifeline for Ramallah. In the battlefields of 2025 — conference rooms, boardrooms, and social media feeds — the Kingdom advances quietly, methodically, and on its own terms. For those who value outcomes over optics, this is not caution. It is wisdom.
