France and Saudi Arabia have called for world leaders to gather at the United Nations in New York on Sept. 22 to endorse a document being circulated as the "New York Declaration," a move that critics say could challenge the Trump administration's Abraham Accords and heighten diplomatic tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The planned endorsement was referenced in a Sept. 3 announcement reported by commentators and described in an opinion article by Anne Bayefsky of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Bayefsky wrote that the declaration, which emerged after a July confab at the U.N. chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, advances proposals that she characterized as hostile to Israel and consequential for U.S. policy.
According to Bayefsky's account, the United States and Israel did not participate in the July meeting, and the declaration was presented to the General Assembly's diplomatic stage without Washington's imprimatur. She said the document runs about 30 pages and contains a series of demands and prescriptions for handling the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and related matters.
Bayefsky described the declaration as calling for recognition of a "State of Palestine" before mutual recognition of Israel, endorsing a Palestinian "right of return," and allowing for armed Palestinian forces. She also said the document advocates limits on arms transfers to Israel and international legal measures against Israeli officials. The opinion piece further characterized the text as omitting explicit references to Jewish history, Judaism and the concept of a Jewish state, and said it framed Jerusalem primarily in terms of Christian and Islamic rights.
Supporters of the declaration have argued that renewed international engagement is necessary to address long-standing grievances and the humanitarian consequences of conflict. Organizers of the July confab have said they sought to present a path forward that reflects current regional and international concerns, including the impact of the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks and their aftermath.
Opponents, among them some American conservatives and pro-Israel advocates, have warned that the declaration would upend the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states brokered during the Trump administration. The accords, proponents say, reduced the role of a Palestinian veto over Arab-Israeli normalization and opened diplomatic and economic relations between Israel and Gulf and North African states.
In her opinion column, Bayefsky urged a range of responses she said the United States could take, including declining to attend U.N. events tied to the declaration, withholding funding from U.N. bodies, redirecting aid to vetted programs, and imposing sanctions on states that endorse measures Washington views as undermining its security interests. She invoked historical precedents in which U.S. officials refused to participate in certain U.N. activities as part of diplomatic leverage.
U.S. officials have not publicly adopted the steps Bayefsky proposed, and the State Department did not respond to requests for immediate comment on the reporting. Officials from France and Saudi Arabia have framed the Sept. 22 effort as part of a multilateral diplomatic process; their offices have described the meeting as a chance for leaders to present their positions to the General Assembly.
The dispute highlights broader tensions in international diplomacy over how to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after the violence of Oct. 7, 2023, which Bayefsky and others have cited to underscore security and humanitarian concerns. Bayefsky noted in her column that the Oct. 7 attacks resulted in large numbers of casualties and abductions, a fact frequently cited by Israeli authorities and supporters when arguing for robust security measures and opposition to concessions to militants.
Observers say the coming weeks will test whether the declaration can gather broad support at the U.N. and how Washington and Jerusalem will respond. Any move by a significant number of member states to endorse a declaration that departs from previous U.S.-backed frameworks would present diplomatic choices for the Biden administration and for the incoming Trump administration as it prepares to address the U.N. General Assembly.
Analysts caution that declarations and General Assembly resolutions do not automatically change facts on the ground but can signal shifts in international norms and influence bilateral and multilateral relations. Supporters of the Abraham Accords say those agreements have fostered regional cooperation that could be undermined by a declaration seen as privileging different priorities.
As the Sept. 22 meeting approaches, diplomats and advocacy groups on all sides are preparing statements and outreach to member states. The debate underscores how multilateral forums like the U.N. can become focal points for competing visions of peace and security in the Middle East, and how such debates intersect with U.S. foreign policy choices.
Requests for comment to representatives of the French presidency and Saudi authorities were not immediately returned. The United States Mission to the United Nations and the Israeli foreign ministry had not issued public positions specifically addressing the planned endorsement as of publication.
The outcome of the planned gathering at the United Nations will likely shape talking points and votes at the General Assembly session during the week that follows, and could frame diplomatic priorities ahead of high-level meetings in New York involving leaders from around the world.