The Saudi Initiative: A Countercurrent to the Neglect of the Forces of War and Extermination

The New York Conference for the Two-State Solution: The Cumulative Harvest of a Tireless Effort Woven by Saudi Diplomacy with Prudence

The United Nations Conference in New York, initiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in partnership with France, and aimed at ending the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, was nothing but the cumulative harvest of a tireless effort woven by Saudi diplomacy with prudence and foresight. It was an extension of the outcomes of the Arab, Gulf, and Islamic summits in Riyadh, and an echo of the meetings in Jeddah.

The conference thus stood as the culmination of a continuous Saudi effort, one that integrates with renewed European, Islamic, and international alliances—enriched by the voices of administrations, intellectuals, and political figures—all of which contribute to the construction of a new global order countering the neglect of the forces of war and extermination, and restoring international legitimacy.

Dr. Samir al-Taqi

In the face of challenges to the financial system and international law, and amid the dangers of a world on the verge of reviving the great empires, where imperial powers divide the sources of peace, the rights of nations and peoples, and their interests, the Saudi initiative converged with international efforts to safeguard the minimum values of peace, coexistence, and the principles of international legitimacy.

With the launch of this initiative, a coalition was woven with Europe and, behind it, several other states with diverse interests. The foundation of this coalition was able to form, accomplish, and conclude one of the greatest agreements of “modern history,” redirecting it in favor of an organized peace.

Unlike previous initiatives, the New York Declaration included practical mechanisms for rescue, sequential strategies, and international guarantees that directly address historical deadlocks.

Within one of the most complex arenas of contemporary diplomacy, the New York Declaration emerged as a manifestation of history’s return with balanced mechanisms, reaching into the chamber of the European Security Council—a body extended for ninety-eight years since the Napoleonic wars. From the folds of history, it entered the field of context and reality. The Kingdom, together with France, co-authored a solid initiative.

The forces of war and extermination, and the miserable logic of chauvinism, had combined to drive the region toward new fragmentation and entrenched conflict. Yet Saudi Arabia, along with its citizens who have suffered to the lowest depths in the adoption of these painful catastrophes, discerned in them a historic opportunity to rescue the region from war.

As the world acknowledges the contradictions between Israel in its alliance with war and the indulgence of some in favor of this powerful entity, the goal remains clear: tension must be ended through victory. And as Saudi Arabia’s emerging vision unfolds, the only alternative is a new chapter with a horizon already in preparation.

Such is the logic of the solution that emanated from Saudi diplomacy—one of the greatest transformations of our time. For how else can the logic of war, fear, destruction, and paralysis be countered, except through an initiative that calls for stability, transformation, and resilience? How else could Saudi Arabia serve as the spearhead in extinguishing the flames of prolonged conflict? How else can the struggle be transferred anew from an internal feud—fought on demographic and legitimacy-based battlegrounds—toward a framework of international law?

The Decline of the Global Order and the Saudi Convergence with International Efforts

Amid the collapse of the global order, the Saudi shift has converged with international efforts to uphold the minimum of peace, coexistence, and legitimacy—the most viable prospect for conflict resolution since Oslo. For far too long, the neglect of extremist forces in the region has undermined every peace initiative.

The structural imbalance in power played a decisive role in the failure of previous initiatives. As Israel controls land and resources, Palestinians lack even the most basic means of power and influence. Previous agreements had long depended on good faith, in the absence of an external guarantor. Extremist ideological forces and armed groups on both sides of the conflict have repeatedly undermined hopes for peace.

Moreover, profound regional and international shifts have altered the hierarchy of risks and opportunities among the principal actors. This, in turn, has changed the rules of engagement among the parties, creating opportunities for spoilers of peace to dismantle agreements. Because of the dangers that the Middle Eastern conflict could exacerbate international instability and push the global order toward chaos and unrestrained war, the initiative was framed as a new avenue for peace in the Middle East. This process outlined a diplomatic mediation to resolve the conflict, one that assigns weight to states, institutions, and multilateral organizations, and situates them along multiple tracks of negotiation and coordination.

This process is grounded in the theory of “ripeness of conflict” (Zartman), which allows for taking advantage of the current deadlock that traps both parties in a futile, blocked path, keeping them in a spiral of sustained violence. The diplomatic design of the initiative takes into account the critical task and strategies of “managing spoilers” on all sides, distinguishing between total spoilers and the limited, greedy, or opportunistic ones.

The plan proposes a phased program of fifteen months, supported by practical enforcement capacities for stabilization, capable of creating the structure necessary for durable peace.

The New York Declaration includes concrete mechanisms for rescue, sequential strategies, and international guarantees that address historical impasses—unlike earlier initiatives. The joint Saudi–French presidency expressed a strong desire, not only from Europe but also from other major international actors, to participate in the objectives of the initiative.

Israel, for its part, was subjected to broad pressures, particularly after October 7, and the Arab League echoed this call by rejecting retaliatory violence through Gaza. The matter became increasingly complex, requiring balanced measures. Palestinians, therefore, require an international role to ensure the success of the process. The declaration stipulates the necessity of establishing a genuine international partnership that can provide guarantees for a balanced political settlement—one that does not rely solely on good faith or local decisions but instead rests on clear principles and rules of sovereignty.

Saudi Arabia’s role in this initiative grew increasingly central, acting as a unifying international framework designed to stabilize the region, mitigate factional polarization, and prioritize evaluation with execution—an area where many previous diplomatic initiatives had failed.

Stability, however, remains contingent upon a settlement imposed on Israel, the first party, in order to create an environment of security and stability. This requires enforcing Israel’s adherence to international legality, enabling the integration of Israeli society as a whole into serious questions about the fate of its weaponry. For arms cannot remain without oversight or guarantees. Already, settler credibility is collapsing alongside the disintegration of political leadership.

The most important indicators of Israeli commitment include freezing settlement activity (permits for building and expansion), releasing prisoners, and adopting legal steps against settler violence.

The Oslo negotiations had afforded Israel a major advantage: the ability to delay recognition of Palestinian political rights. The outcome was the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state, restricted to Gaza, stripped of Hamas’s arsenal.

In return, Israel insists on limiting the Palestinian Authority to an administrative substitute—the only practical alternative deemed viable for implementation. This, however, requires restructuring and reactivation of the Authority. At present, the Authority suffers from institutional weakness, Palestinian divisions, and a deteriorating security apparatus, leaving its administration and governance vulnerable and incapable of competing with rival forces. For this reason, its political orientation has been increasingly drawn toward non-state groups on the ground.

Hence, the initiative demanded a comprehensive rescue umbrella requiring international engagement, in order for the transitional governance to succeed and for sovereignty to be restored to the Palestinian Authority.

International initiatives, particularly those involving France, have played a vital role—especially in formulating agreements that created a new balance in managing the European Union’s cohesion against American policies. French participation, alongside guarantees of international legality, reinforced the balance of actors and the institutional frameworks necessary for safeguarding peace and blocking the path toward destructive chaos.

Direct involvement by the European Union and the G7 added crucial weight to the initiative, enhancing the political and diplomatic architecture based on recognition of the Palestinian state and reinforcing the trajectory of the two-state solution—now promoted both internationally and practically through the sustained positions of European states.

At the international and Arab levels, mounting risks have brought consensus on the Palestinian Authority as a stabilizing factor for international accords, and as a counterweight to forces that have sought to undermine the peace process.

Elements of the Saudi Initiative

The Theory of Ripeness of Conflict The Saudi–French initiative provides a practical example of the “ripeness” theory (Zartman). It capitalizes on the persistence and costs of the ongoing, futile conflict. With the immense burdens of prolonged war and the absence of decisive alternatives, the outlines of a new political engineering became visible. Saudi Leadership and the Restructuring of the Palestinian Authority: The Only Viable Alternative

Saudi leadership increasingly regards the Palestinian Authority as the only viable alternative, one that requires restructuring and revitalization. The conflict and its consequences have nearly transformed the Authority into an emerging state within the international community, with economic influence qualifying it to become part of the initiative. Responsibility dictates that the Palestinian Authority should assume the executive leadership role.

An Added Opportunity: The Saudi–French PartnershipThe central challenge: all obstacles must be overcome.

Managing Palestinian CorruptionThe challenges of conflict—corruption and division—necessitate a fundamental rebuilding of the Palestinian Authority, with an emphasis on its capacity to represent the Palestinian people. The initiative stresses that the world recognizes the dangers of escalating corruption within the Authority, requiring a decisive approach through a system of sanctions directed against potential corrupt actors.

Adjustment in PowerThe full engagement of the international community enhances organizational and political capacity. International involvement also obliges the initiative to impose realistic measures on Israel in order to curb the ambitions of extremist forces, within the framework of containing agreements.

The initiative assumes that a “Track One” diplomacy—formal negotiations under the sponsorship of France, Saudi Arabia, and the United Nations—must be complemented by “Track Two” diplomacy, consisting of non-governmental activities and think tanks engaged in policy design.

Mechanisms and Instruments of Conflict Transformation

The initiative begins with a ceasefire. Its primary focus is the disarmament of Hamas and the transfer of its weaponry to the Palestinian Authority, culminating in a cessation of hostilities.

• Transitional Administration: The Palestinian Authority governs under international supervision.

• International Stabilization: UN-mandated forces include oversight of the occupation.

• Phased Mediation: A fifteen-month program of elections, a constitution, and state-building.

• Recognition: The Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union, and Arab states formally acknowledge the Palestinian Authority.

• Legitimacy: A sanctions regime targets potential spoilers through accountability.

Strategies and Lines of Fortification

• Forces fueling war and instability intersect with the risks faced by the initiative.

• The creation of new diplomatic mechanisms seeks to guarantee international and regional engagement, embedding the Arab–Israeli conflict in a broader framework.

• Settler violence: escalating settler attacks and Hamas’s militant actions remain major threats.

• International coalition fragility: in the context of technological shifts, supporting powers may fracture under the weight of regional and global pressures.

Risks of Time PressureThe fifteen-month timeframe may be insufficient for building institutional depth, risking collapse. The costs of effort could escalate if external reactions destabilize the process. Responses from both parties across the region reflect the initiative’s fragility and its uncertain trajectory.

Success or Failure: Gradual Consequences

The initiative acknowledges escalating risks alongside the potential impacts of success or failure. Success would create a new, well-structured political framework, securing recognition and mechanisms of rescue. Its achievement would lower the cost of international intervention, establishing a global precedent for safeguarding peace.

Arab League Engagement and Saudi Alignment

The engagement of the Arab League, in coordination with Saudi leadership, serves to stabilize international consensus and to regulate forces intent on undermining peace. The conflict remains one of the most intractable globally. Partial success has historically dealt with entrenching the occupation, leaving Israel with minimal concessions. International recognition of a Palestinian state—even partial—would bolster the Authority’s legitimacy while deferring sovereignty.

The initiative thus carried two dimensions: Riyadh’s assertion of its role as defender of Palestinian rights and its expansion as a hub of regional stability, as well as confronting Israel on such a platform.

Challenges of ImplementationThe initiative bore signs of hesitation. Spoilers threatened Palestinian and Israeli commitment. There was the risk of a wavering UN mediation bloc and broader external reactions.

International MandateThe success of the initiative hinges upon a strong UN Security Council mandate, the distribution of credible sanctions and incentives, and a clear timeline.

Israel ultimately opted for engagement coupled with delay. The Palestinian Authority, however, risks internal paralysis—either through incomplete reform or reliance on partial, short-term gains. This, in turn, fuels further fragmentation within Palestinian politics.

The Critical RiskWeak international commitment to the rescue measures underscores the need for robust U.S. sponsorship, a unified global will, and renewed incentives to ensure agreement among parties. Execution of the initiative depends on such external enforcement, even against Israeli resistance.

Diplomatic Milestone: July 2025

In July 2025, Saudi Arabia and France jointly convened a high-level diplomatic conference in New York. Israel viewed the moment as unfavorable, as the conference exposed it to international pressure. The initiative, aimed at peace, gained momentum through this forum.

International recognition of a Palestinian state was coordinated with Europe, the Arab world, and other global actors.