Who will upstage Netanyahu at the New York showdown?

The UN has dedicated its upcoming ordinary session, scheduled to run from 23 to 29 September in New York, to celebrating the 80th anniversary of the world body’s founding “for peace, development, and human rights.” Yet all signs point towards a fierce political showdown pitting the US and Israel against more than 140 nations backing the Palestinian people.

Among these are major Western powers like France, Canada, and Australia, which have declared their intent to recognize the State of Palestine, alongside the UK, which has floated the idea of “conditional recognition.”

This looming diplomatic battle is no routine debate. It demands the mobilization of all conscientious actors and serious efforts, reaching for ideas that soar beyond the exhausted framework of routine, rising beyond the stale theater of performative statements that long ago outlived their purpose. 

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing to use this stage to formally declare the death of the two-state solution. Only through this lens can we understand the decision of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to revoke the visas of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, officials of the Palestinian Authority/PA, and members of the Palestine Liberation Organization/PLO, locking them out of the UN General Assembly. Only the Palestinian Permanent Observer in New York will be allowed in the hall.

This move illustrates the profound stranglehold Netanyahu’s Zionist lobby exerts over the Trump administration. The aim is naked: to strip Western nations seeking to recognize Palestine of their key political card—the one lever Europeans have shown any willingness to use to slow the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Recognition with no reality

Trump ignored European and Arab efforts during the late July international conference on implementing the two-state solution, held under French-Saudi patronage. Netanyahu’s hand is clear: decapitate the Palestinian state by dismembering the West Bank, refusing to return Gaza to PA control, and rejecting every proposed vision for a “day after” in nearly two years of negotiations.

The limited and timid nature of Arab and Western moves, however, has emboldened Netanyahu and Trump to further escalate. The decision to bar Abbas and his officials seems designed to mock the international community, as if taunting: “What state will you recognize? With what borders? And with what leadership?” They feel free to justify this move with flimsy pretexts. Rubio cloaked this decision with contrived concern, claiming the need “to purge Palestinian educational curricula of terrorist ideas.” 

The two-state conference itself was a masterclass of “limitation and low ambition.” The speeches and final declaration revealed fractured priorities— appearing more like a promotional attempt to placate Trump, buy time, passively obstruct the wheels of genocide, and stall Netanyahu’s dream of “liquidating the Palestinian cause”—than a platform for decisive action.

It included no landmark commitments to support the people of Gaza or the PA in the West Bank. Crucially, the conference included no substantial decisions targeting the occupation’s economic or military lifelines. In stark contradiction to the measures pledged by The Hague Group member states, in a conference convened in Bogotá last July. The meager Arab and European attendance in Bogotá left a glaring absence.

This retreat confirms the growing chasm in solidarity efforts between East and West. The frayed coordination among blocs with different national histories and geographies, robs them of the potential to forge common, and unified ground that could embarrass Washington and rattle it from its slavish obedience to Netanyahu.

No nation is better positioned than Egypt, and no bloc more than the Arab Group, to effectively play this role.

The clear precedent of 1988

Hopes for a unified Arab stance have all but evaporated, leaving the Palestinian resistance to bear the brunt of chiseling away at Israelis' faith in their government. However, September’s New York showdown is a rare chance to revive Egyptian and Arab diplomacy. It is a chance to coordinate an international stance to halt genocide and famine, expand recognition of Palestinian statehood, and confront plans to occupy the West Bank and annex Gaza.

An internationally coordinated endeavor, such as this, is not without precedent. In 1988, in response to the PLO declaring the establishment of the “State of Palestine” from Algiers, Ronald Reagan’s administration banned Yasser Arafat from entering the US to address the GA's meeting on the “Question of Palestine”. The GA overwhelmingly defied Washington, voting 154–2 to move the session to Geneva, so Arafat could speak as the voice of his people.

It was an striking rebuke. For the first time, the Assembly abandoned New York in protest against US behavior. Legal arguments failed to dissuade the Assembly from its strong decision, even though some specialists at the time claimed the move involved procedural violations because the rules required such a decision to be made in a prior session.

Arab and Non-Aligned Movement diplomacy, spearheaded by Egypt and Jordan, rallied Algeria, Iraq, and dozens of Asian and African states. They linked Palestine’s struggle with those of South Africa and Namibia. 

While Washington had tried to legitimize its move against Arafat by labeling him a terrorist, an argument it continues to echo today—noting it allowed a Palestinian monitoring mission at the UN since 1975, The GA stood firmly, labeling the US ban as a “force majeure” circumstance.

Arab nations considered the US decision a breach of the UN Headquarters Agreement and quickly advanced a comprehensive proposal to move the special session on Palestine to Geneva. The PLO formally submitted the proposal to the GA with support from Cairo and Amman, backed by other Arab states—especially Algeria and Iraq—and a large number of Asian and African nations. This effort leveraged the mutual support then between the Palestinian cause and the liberation struggles of South Africa and Namibia against apartheid.

This solidarity was no accident. It was the product of relentless Arab and international activism, a division of labor across capitals, and communication with blocs that had never supported Palestine before. Japan, for instance, called the US move “excessively harsh” even while voting with Washington.

The Geneva session ended with a landmark decisions whose effects endure. Most notably, it recognized the proclamation of the State of Palestine issued by the Palestinian National Council, affirmed the necessity of enabling the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty over their occupied territories. It also approved the use of the name “Palestine” instead of “PLO” within the UN.

Solidarity as a launchpad

Yes, 1988 was a different context. Parallel to those efforts in New York, Arafat was desperately seeking to open a direct channel with Washington. It was achieved after he condemned “terrorism” in his speech following intense communications led by Egypt and involving Sweden, France, and others, pushing the Reagan administration to agree to participate in the Geneva meeting in mid-December 1988.(*)

But the current reality is rich with different positives that can be used to build a unified stance—not only to move a GA meeting outside New York so Palestinian representatives can attend, but also to take more effective steps to implement the International Court of Justice's rulings against the Israeli occupation and to wield economic tools against the occupation army and settlements.

The most recent US decision is not a punitive measure against Mahmoud Abbas, nor is it related to Hamas. It is part of Netanyahu’s scheme to sabotage international support for Palestine.

Looking back to 1988, we find that Palestine’s representatives were exiled from their land, searching for any path to international recognition. Today, over 76% of the world's states recognize the State of Palestine, a number expected to grow this month.

In 1988, Washington demanded the condemnation of what it called “terrorism.” Now, the world is more aware of the truth of Israeli criminal practices against the Palestinian people. Sympathy for Gaza and supportive stances from countries like Spain, Slovenia, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile are growing—despite daily accusations of terrorism against the resistance and Netanyahu’s warnings about compromising the security of “the only democracy in the region.” Meanwhile, international legal opinions and judgments have accumulated, agreeing that the core of the problem is the occupation, not the Palestinian people.

The battle options

Some now argue that Hamas must announce it is relinquishing power or surrendering as the only path to broad international support, as in 1988. Others, in turn, accuse Arafat of having “betrayed the rifle” when he conceded to “condemn terrorism.” In truth, this is beside the point. The struggle now is to forge a collective stance—one Egypt and the Arab Group must shape—to ensure Palestine prevails in New York.

The unjust American decision is not a punitive measure against Mahmoud Abbas, nor is it about Hamas. It is part of Netanyahu’s scheme to challenge international support for the Palestinian people.

The diplomatic quiver is full of options. Options range from convening an alternative General Assembly in Geneva to declare recognition of Palestine and adopt punitive measures against genocide and settlement expansion, to boycotting Netanyahu’s speech and protesting his appearance as an ICC war crimes suspect. Effectively thwarting his narrative.

The clear goal is to deepen the Israeli sense of isolation, fortify mechanisms of solidarity with the Palestinian people, and make Washington feel the threat to its interests.

Not a shred of complacency marks Netanyahu’s approach to the New York showdown. Egyptian and Arab leaders must match that intensity. History will not forgive turning this moment into yet another stage for Zionist criminality.

---

(*) For further reading, consult the memoirs of former Egyptian FM Dr. Esmat Abdel Meguid, A Time of Setback and Victory, and the memoirs of former Arab League Sec-Gen and former Egyptian Foreign Minister Dr. Nabil Elaraby, Taba - Camp David - The Separation Wall.