UN overwhelmingly endorses call to establish Palestinian state without Hamas

Published September 12, 2025

In a dramatic display of global sentiment, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed a call for the establishment of a Palestinian state—explicitly excluding Hamas from leadership. The non-binding resolution, passed on September 12, 2025, condemned the Hamas-led October 7 massacre in Israel, demanded the release of all hostages, and called for a transition of governance in Gaza to the Palestinian Authority under international oversight.

The resolution, known as the New York Declaration, was adopted by a sweeping margin: 142 nations voted in favor, eight opposed, and twelve abstained. It urges “tangible, time-bound, and irreversible steps” toward a two-state solution, with East Jerusalem envisioned as the Palestinian capital.

For the first time in a UN text, Hamas is not only condemned but also urged to surrender its weapons. The declaration proposes the deployment of a temporary international stabilization mission, mandated by the UN Security Council, to aid civilians and ensure an orderly transfer of security responsibilities in Gaza.

The Palestinian Authority welcomed the resolution, hailing it as a historic recognition of Palestinian rights and a roadmap toward independence. “This is the international community’s affirmation that our struggle is legitimate and that peace can only be achieved without terrorism,” said PA officials in Ramallah.

But the resolution has sharply divided opinion. Israel rejected it outright, calling it a “reward for terror.” Ambassador Danny Danon told the Assembly that the move “prizes Hamas by placing pressure on Israel rather than holding terrorists fully accountable.” Israel’s foreign ministry dismissed the vote as “political theater,” warning it would embolden its enemies rather than bring peace.

The United States also opposed the measure, calling it “misguided and ill-timed.” American diplomats argued it undermines ongoing diplomatic efforts and risks prolonging the conflict. Still, many Western allies, including France and Canada, voted in favor, highlighting Washington’s growing isolation on the question of Palestinian statehood.

Supporters, however, insist the resolution offers a clear framework for moving forward. By condemning Hamas while endorsing Palestinian self-determination, they argue, the UN is signaling that the world will not let terrorism define the Palestinian cause.

The vote sets the stage for the September 22 UN summit in New York, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, where several nations—including Britain, Australia, and Belgium—are expected to formally recognize a Palestinian state.

Though non-binding, the resolution carries powerful symbolic weight. It underscores the mounting international consensus that a two-state solution remains the only viable path to peace—one that requires sidelining Hamas while empowering moderate Palestinian leadership. Whether this declaration translates into real-world change, however, remains an open question.

Criticisms / Skepticism

• Israel’s view: That the resolution gives status or leverage to Hamas, even if the resolution seeks to remove its power in Gaza. They argue that it rewards past violence.

• US concern: That diplomacy is undermined and that the resolution distracts or complicates current ceasefire, hostage-release, or negotiation efforts.

• Some analysts may warn that without a viable enforcement mechanism, the resolution could end up as symbolic only. Also, that the resolution doesn’t necessarily map out how Gaza will transition nor address deeply rooted issues like refugee rights, settlements, security concerns, or the fractured relationship between the West Bank and Gaza.

Broader Context

• The war began with the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which killed ~1,200 people in Israel and led to the taking of hostages.

• Since then, Gaza has seen massive conflict, humanitarian losses, criticism over civilian deaths, and international pressure on all sides. The widening diplomatic shifts (including nations formally recognizing a Palestinian state) are part of that broader pressure and realignment.

• There is concern among many that continuing Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, the destruction from war in Gaza, and political fragmentation may make a two-state solution increasingly difficult. The declaration tries to lock in, diplomatically, the concept of a Palestinian state under a moderate leadership.

Implications & Challenges

While this resolution is non-binding (meaning it does not legally force any party to act), its passage could have multiple effects:

1. Diplomatic pressure:

   The overwhelming support for the resolution—142 in favor, only 8 against—places significant diplomatic weight on Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority alike. While non-binding, such UN General Assembly votes carry symbolic force, shaping international legitimacy and influencing bilateral relations.

   For Israel, the vote demonstrates its growing diplomatic isolation on this issue. Even traditional allies like France supported the resolution, underscoring frustration with Israel’s refusal to endorse a concrete path toward Palestinian statehood. Though Israel often dismisses UN votes as biased, the wide margin highlights a consensus that could complicate its diplomatic standing in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

   For Hamas, the pressure comes in the form of explicit delegitimization. This is one of the first UN texts to both condemn the October 7 massacre and demand Hamas relinquish control in Gaza. By calling for the Palestinian Authority to assume governance—under international supervision—the resolution aims to shift legitimacy away from Hamas. This intensifies the message that future recognition of Palestinian statehood will depend on governance free of militant groups.

   For the Palestinian Authority, the resolution is a boost to its diplomatic clout. It provides renewed recognition that the PA, rather than Hamas, is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in the eyes of much of the international community. This adds pressure on Mahmoud Abbas and PA leadership to demonstrate capacity, unity, and readiness to govern—not only in the West Bank but potentially in Gaza as well.

   On a broader scale, the resolution increases pressure on other nations—especially the U.S. and European states still hesitant about recognizing Palestinian statehood—to clarify their positions. With many countries signaling they may formally recognize Palestine at the upcoming UN summit in New York, the diplomatic tide could strengthen in favor of recognition, leaving those opposed looking increasingly isolated.

2. Legitimacy issues:

   The heart of the UN resolution lies not only in calling for a Palestinian state but also in drawing clear lines about who can represent that state. This goes beyond diplomacy—it cuts to the very question of legitimacy.

   For Hamas, the resolution is a direct challenge to its authority. By condemning the October 7 massacre and demanding disarmament, the UN has explicitly delegitimized Hamas as a governing force. This marks a shift from past UN resolutions, which often avoided naming Hamas directly. Now, the international community has placed Hamas outside the boundaries of acceptable political leadership, reinforcing the narrative that it cannot be part of any legitimate Palestinian future.

   For the Palestinian Authority (PA), the resolution offers a rare boost of recognition. The PA has struggled for years with waning domestic support, accusations of corruption, and an inability to deliver meaningful progress toward statehood. Yet the resolution implicitly crowns the PA as the legitimate governing alternative—at least in the eyes of the international community. That comes with both opportunity and burden: the PA must prove it can govern effectively, reunite divided Palestinian territories, and command credibility among Palestinians themselves.

   For Israel, legitimacy takes on a different dimension. Israeli leaders argue that recognizing Palestinian statehood under current conditions undermines their security and rewards terror. By rejecting the resolution, Israel asserts that no external body can impose legitimacy on a Palestinian state while Hamas still poses a threat. This claim, however, clashes with the growing number of nations willing to separate the Palestinian cause from Hamas, granting statehood legitimacy even before the conflict is fully resolved.

   Globally, the resolution reflects a reshaping of legitimacy narratives. Countries that back the declaration are signaling that Palestinian statehood is no longer contingent solely on bilateral negotiations with Israel—it is an international concern with its own weight. That shift could erode Israel’s long-standing argument that only direct talks can decide such questions.

3. Obstacles on the ground:

   Turning a sweeping UN resolution into reality is far more complicated than the votes and speeches in New York suggest. On the ground, entrenched political, military, and social barriers stand in the way of any transition from Hamas to the Palestinian Authority or an international mission.

   Hamas’s entrenched presence: Despite international condemnation, Hamas retains real power in Gaza—through its armed brigades, its extensive tunnel networks, and its ability to project control over daily life. For Hamas, relinquishing authority and disarming would mean political suicide, making voluntary compliance unlikely. Forcing Hamas out militarily or through sanctions risks prolonging violence and humanitarian suffering.

   The Palestinian Authority’s weakness: The PA, touted by the resolution as the alternative leadership, faces a legitimacy crisis at home. Many Palestinians see the PA as corrupt, disconnected, and ineffective, particularly in Gaza where it has had no governance role since Hamas’s takeover in 2007. Installing the PA in Gaza under international supervision could spark resentment among Gazans who feel excluded from the decision-making process.

   Security vacuum risk: Even if Hamas were removed, the transition period would be fraught with instability. Armed factions, criminal networks, and radical splinter groups could fill the gap, undermining both the PA and any international stabilization force. Establishing reliable security structures in Gaza will require resources, coordination, and political will that have often been absent in past international interventions.

   Israeli skepticism: Israel’s current leadership has little faith in the PA’s ability to control terrorism or govern responsibly. Without Israeli cooperation—particularly in matters of border control, security coordination, and reconstruction aid—any transition risks being unworkable. Israel may also actively resist measures it views as undermining its sovereignty or rewarding Palestinian diplomacy.

   Humanitarian crisis: Gaza’s devastated infrastructure, collapsing health system, and widespread displacement complicate any political plan. Before questions of governance can even be addressed, international actors will need to manage urgent humanitarian relief. Yet, funneling aid through contested authorities risks further entrenching divisions and fueling corruption.

   Regional dynamics: Egypt, Qatar, and other regional players hold influence over Hamas and Palestinian politics. If these states feel sidelined or disagree with the UN plan, they could act as spoilers, weakening enforcement or providing Hamas with lifelines.

4. Israeli internal politics:

   The UN resolution lands in Israel at a time of deep political polarization and public anxiety. Far from uniting the country against international pressure, it exposes fractures within Israeli society and its leadership over how to handle the Palestinian question.

   Government hardliners: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition, which leans heavily on far-right and religious nationalist parties, has made clear that it will reject any recognition of Palestinian statehood. For these factions, even a Palestinian Authority–led government in Gaza is unacceptable, as they believe it risks legitimizing Palestinian claims to land they view as historically and biblically Jewish. Some ministers have openly called for reoccupying Gaza permanently, or for encouraging “voluntary migration” of Palestinians—positions starkly at odds with the UN’s vision.

   The opposition’s dilemma: Centrist and center-left parties, while more open to a two-state framework, are wary of openly supporting the UN resolution. Doing so risks alienating voters traumatized by the October 7 attacks. Leaders like Benny Gantz, who served in the wartime unity cabinet, have argued for a pragmatic approach that focuses on security first and political solutions later. Yet they face pressure from international partners who want Israel to show willingness for a broader peace deal.

   Public opinion: Israeli society remains scarred by the October 7 massacre, with widespread skepticism about Palestinian intentions. Polls show that while many Israelis support the idea of separating from Palestinians to ensure a Jewish and democratic state, few trust that the Palestinian Authority—or any future Palestinian government—can guarantee security. This sentiment gives political cover to Netanyahu’s rejectionist stance, even as Israel becomes more isolated internationally.

   Security establishment vs. politicians: Behind the scenes, elements of Israel’s military and intelligence communities acknowledge that permanently ruling over millions of Palestinians is unsustainable. Some security officials have hinted that a demilitarized Palestinian state under international supervision might ultimately serve Israel’s long-term interests better than indefinite occupation or endless conflict. Yet their cautious pragmatism often clashes with the hardline rhetoric of elected leaders.

   Impact of the UN vote: The resolution adds fuel to Israel’s internal political battles. Netanyahu and his allies frame it as proof that the world is biased against Israel, using it to rally domestic support and deflect criticism of their handling of the war. The opposition, meanwhile, faces the challenge of presenting an alternative vision that can reassure both the Israeli public and international partners.

5. Peace process dynamics:

   For decades, the phrase “peace process” has been synonymous with stalled negotiations, missed opportunities, and cycles of violence. The UN resolution seeks to reset that narrative, but its impact on the dynamics of peacemaking is far from straightforward.

   A shift in the framework: Traditionally, Israel and the Palestinians insisted that only direct negotiations could resolve the conflict. The resolution challenges that model by asserting that the international community has both the right and the responsibility to define the parameters of peace—specifically, a two-state solution without Hamas. In effect, the UN has redrawn the diplomatic map, elevating multilateral involvement over bilateral bargaining.

   Pressure on mediators: The United States has long dominated the mediation process, but Washington’s opposition to the resolution exposes its growing isolation. Meanwhile, European states, Arab nations, and even smaller powers see an opportunity to step into a more assertive diplomatic role. France and Saudi Arabia, co-chairs of the upcoming summit in New York, are positioning themselves as alternative brokers, potentially diluting U.S. influence in Middle East diplomacy.

   Palestinian political realignment: The resolution implicitly pushes for Palestinian reconciliation under the Palestinian Authority. If Hamas were sidelined—or at least weakened—this could open the door to new elections or a unity government acceptable to the international community. Yet the risk is that internal Palestinian divisions could deepen if Hamas refuses to cede power, stalling the peace process once again.

   Israeli red lines: From Israel’s perspective, the resolution is not a step toward peace but a move that undermines negotiations by dictating outcomes in advance. Israeli leaders argue that by endorsing Palestinian statehood without Israeli consent, the UN has removed incentives for Palestinians to compromise, making direct talks even less likely. This could reinforce Israel’s defensive posture and further entrench skepticism about diplomacy.

   Symbolism vs. substance: Critics warn that without enforcement mechanisms, the resolution may become another symbolic gesture that leaves the “peace process” frozen in rhetoric. Others see it as laying the groundwork for gradual but irreversible change: international recognition of Palestine, a redefined role for the PA, and the marginalization of Hamas.

   The bigger picture: By putting the two-state solution back at the center of global discourse, the resolution revives an idea many thought was dead. Whether this leads to meaningful negotiations, or simply more diplomatic theater, depends on how the key players—Israel, the PA, Hamas, the U.S., Europe, and Arab states—respond in the coming months.

6. Humanitarian implications:

   Behind the debates in the UN halls, Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe remains the most urgent and visible crisis. Any talk of statehood, governance, or diplomacy is inseparable from the staggering human toll of nearly two years of war.

   A population under siege: Gaza’s infrastructure is shattered—entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble, hospitals running on scarce fuel, and water supplies contaminated. International agencies warn that famine and disease remain constant threats. For the 2 million Gazans trapped in the enclave, daily survival often overshadows political questions of leadership or sovereignty.

   The hostage dimension: The resolution’s demand for Hamas to release all hostages underscores how the humanitarian issue extends beyond Gaza. Israeli families of hostages continue to live in limbo, torn between grief, hope, and anger at their government’s inability to secure releases. The human suffering on both sides of the border gives the conflict an emotional immediacy that no resolution can paper over.

   Aid bottlenecks: The call for an international stabilization mission reflects recognition that humanitarian relief cannot be delivered effectively under current conditions. Aid convoys face constant delays due to Israeli security checks, damaged infrastructure, and internal chaos in Gaza. Without a reliable channel for food, medicine, and reconstruction materials, any plan for state-building risks collapse before it begins.

   Displacement and trauma: More than a million Gazans have been displaced since October 2023. Many live in makeshift shelters or crowded camps with limited access to sanitation or schooling. Generations of children are growing up amid trauma, creating long-term psychological scars that could destabilize any future Palestinian state.

   The trust deficit: Even well-intentioned humanitarian initiatives are entangled in politics. Israel fears that aid materials could be diverted to Hamas. Palestinians distrust foreign actors who they believe prioritize geopolitics over human dignity. This cycle of suspicion undermines efforts to build confidence between the parties and creates obstacles for international agencies on the ground.

   Opportunity within crisis: Advocates argue that effective humanitarian relief could serve as the first building block for peace. If international missions succeed in stabilizing Gaza—providing food, water, and medical care—while simultaneously curbing Hamas’s control, it could prove the viability of a post-Hamas governance model. Conversely, failure to deliver tangible relief risks fueling more anger, radicalization, and violence.

   Ultimately, the humanitarian implications are not just a backdrop to the political story—they are the story. Without immediate relief for Gaza’s civilians and a credible plan for long-term reconstruction, even the most ambitious resolutions will ring hollow.

What’s Next

Some potential outcomes or developments to watch:

• Whether the resolution(s) lead to concrete steps on the ground: e.g., transfer of power in Gaza, disarmament of Hamas, or confirmation of East Jerusalem as capital in any recognized Palestinian‐state framework.

• The upcoming UN summit (co-chaired by Riyadh and Paris, scheduled for Sept. 22, 2025) may include formal recognition by countries such as Britain, France, Canada, Australia, and Belgium of a Palestinian state.

• How Israel responds in terms of policy: will there be more resistance, or will there be new offers or counterproposals?

• How Hamas reacts: whether it doubles down, tries to assert power, or seeks to negotiate postures.

• How this affects the humanitarian situation: whether stabilization missions or international missions are actually deployed, aid increases, or reconstruction initiatives get underway.

 Overall Takeaway:

While the resolution is symbolically powerful, and reflects overwhelming international sentiment, its practical impact depends heavily on follow-through. Without real shifts—especially by Hamas, by Israel, and by regional/international actors—there’s a risk that this becomes another moment of international framing rather than a turning point on the ground.

But this does signal something: that many countries are no longer content with open-ended conflict or vague calls, but want concrete, irreversible steps, leadership changes, and accountability. Whether that can happen in Gaza, given the realities, is the big question.

SOURCES: THE TIMES OF ISRAEL – UN overwhelmingly endorses call to establish Palestinian state without Hamas