Palestinian Voices

Red Spark’s Palestinian Voices series shares statements and materials from the various factions of Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation. To counter the distortions and spin promoted by the Australian state – a supporter of Israel – the solidarity movement must understand the reality in Palestine. This means being familiar with the political positions and perspectives of those on the ground.

The following article was circulated by email on 31 July by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It outlines the DFLP’s official response to the July 29 “New York Declaration” concerning the two-state solution.

The [New York Declaration – RS] Revives U.S. Conditions to Redefine the Palestinian Identity and Undermines Land, Sovereignty, and the Right of Return.

In its statement responding to the “New York Declaration” issued following the conference on “Protecting the Two-State Solution” sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) stated that the declaration revives the ten American conditions previously delivered by former U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to the Palestinian Authority leadership. These conditions seek to redefine the Palestinian identity in a way that would make it acceptable for a “two-state solution” based on standards that surpass the legitimate national rights of our people—as endorsed by international legitimacy and reaffirmed by the Palestinian National Council (session 32, 2018), the Central Council (2022), and the Declaration of Independence on November 15, 1988.

The DFLP further noted that a review of the New York Declaration clearly shows it undermines Palestinian land, national sovereignty, and the refugees’ right of return to their homes and properties from which they were expelled in 1948. The Front added the following observations: The declaration dropped the clear reference to the June 4, 1967 borders in favor of a vague phrase referring to “secure and recognized borders based on the 1967 lines.”

It omitted the principle of Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and dismantling of settlements, instead making a distinction between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” settlers—implicitly legitimizing the continued existence of settlements in the West Bank. It dismissed the Palestinian people’s right to resist occupation in all forms, labeling such resistance as terrorism—adopting American standards and violating international legitimacy, which recognizes the right of oppressed peoples to defend themselves by all available means. It stripped the future Palestinian state of elements of sovereignty by demanding it be demilitarized without offering guarantees to protect the population from settler violence and other aggressions.

It called for the disarmament of the resistance, even as the fascist Israeli state continues to occupy the West Bank and Jerusalem, expand settlements, pursue annexation, displace Palestinians, demolish their homes and institutions, seize their livestock and farmland, and destroy and depopulate Gaza.

It imposed numerous preconditions on the Palestinian side, while placing no obligations on Israel, the occupying power.

It constituted a blatant interference in internal Palestinian affairs by endorsing the Palestinian Authority’s preconditions for organizing National Council elections—an issue still under debate among Palestinian factions. This endorsement undermines national dialogue and enables the PA to impose its agenda, reinforcing the Oslo Accords and the restrictions they place on the Palestinian Authority.

It dismissed the legitimate right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties in accordance with UN Resolution 194, reducing this right to a “just and agreed- upon solution”—thus giving the occupying power a say in the fate of refugees and reviving a string of discredited proposals from the Geneva–Dead Sea Conference to Trump’s first-term suggestions.

The Democratic Front added: While France’s intention to recognize the State of Palestine, along with the conditional promise from the UK and declarations by approximately 15 other states to do the same at the upcoming UN session, is a significant step, this recognition—important as it is—does not alter a single word of what was stated in the “New York Declaration.” Nor will it change the realities on the ground in the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and Gaza unless it is translated into concrete, effective pressure on Israel, the occupying power, to comply with international law and legitimacy.

This includes halting settlement expansion and annexation, recognizing the Palestinian people’s legitimate right to an independent, sovereign state within the June 4, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, and the inalienable right of refugees to return to their homes and properties from which they were expelled in 1948. This would require Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories, dismantle the apartheid wall and all settlements, in accordance with the relevant rulings of the International Court of Justice, and compensate all victims of its aggression.

DFLP Central Media
July 31, 2025