Cet article est aussi disponible en Français ici.
This post analyses of conflicts between Oslo II Accords and the France and Saudi Arabia New York Declaration, which could kill the two-state solution in the short run.
The New York Declaration proposes an international framework that is structurally and substantively incompatible with the bilateral nature of the Oslo process. It seeks to replace negotiation between the parties with a solution implemented by the international community.
A. Subversion of Bilateral Negotiations
The Declaration replaces the Oslo model of bilateral negotiation with a model of international implementation of a pre-determined outcome.
The document’s purpose is to take « collective action to end the war… based on the effective implementation of the two-State solution » and to create a « concrete time-bound action plan to guide international engagement and implementation« .
This approach fundamentally contradicts the Oslo framework, wherein the final status—including borders, Jerusalem, and security arrangements—is not a predetermined premise but the subject of negotiations. The Declaration’s focus on implementing a solution negates the very purpose of the permanent status negotiations mandated by Article XXXI(5).
B. Preemption of Final Status on Statehood and Borders
The Declaration treats Palestinian statehood and its borders as settled facts to be recognized, rather than as core issues for negotiation.
It asserts that « Full admission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations is an indispensable element » and calls for a state based on the « 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem ».
This directly contravenes Article XXXI(7) (no unilateral change of status) and Article XXXI(5), which reserves Jerusalem and borders for final status talks. The Declaration inverts the Oslo logic: instead of statehood being the outcome of resolving these complex issues through negotiation, it is presented as a precondition for the process.
C. Imposition of External Security and Economic Arrangements
The Declaration proposes to replace core security and economic annexes of the Oslo Accords with internationally mandated frameworks.
It supports a UN-mandated « international stabilization mission » to provide security guarantees for both parties. It also commits to the « revision of the Paris Protocol on Economic Relations (1994) » and its replacement with a new framework.
The Oslo security architecture is exclusively bilateral and cooperative (Annex I). An armed international mission would supersede Israel’s retained « overriding responsibility for security » and « responsibility for external security ». Likewise, the Paris Protocol is not an ancillary document but is Annex V of the Accords and integral to them. The Declaration’s call to replace it is a call to unilaterally discard a foundational pillar of the interim agreement.
D. Advocacy for Coercive Third-Party Measures
The Declaration encourages third-party states to take punitive actions, undermining the cooperative dispute resolution process agreed upon in the Oslo Accords.
It commits signatories to « adopting restrictive measures, against… extremist settlers and entities and individuals supporting illegal settlements » and to « Activate human rights clauses in bilateral or multilateral agreements » against Israel.
Article XX provides a self-contained system for resolving disputes between the two parties. The Declaration disregards this agreed-upon process, instead promoting adversarial and coercive measures by outside actors. This approach violates the principle of resolving differences through the agreed bilateral channels and seeks to impose pressure from outside the contractually established framework.