Abu Mazen's ban from entering New York: Scenarios for the potential impact on recognition of a Palestinian state
The United States faces difficult challenges in the Gaza crisis and its handling of the Palestinian issue from its inception until now. These positions reveal extreme bias on the part of the United States under the exceptional Republican President Donald Trump, including the intransigence of its positions during the "mediation" of the Gaza negotiations and the efforts to achieve a ceasefire and a temporary truce. During the prolonged round of negotiations in July 2025, Witkoff surprised everyone by announcing the departure of the American delegation and issuing statements attacking Hamas, portraying a false image of President Trump. Trump issued fiery statements calling for the elimination of Hamas, exceeding the level of statements issued by Netanyahu himself. This occurred at a time when Hamas had announced its acceptance of the proposed American ceasefire plan, and everyone was close to a ceasefire.
Trump's Advisors
With the new emergence of two of Trump's most dangerous advisors on the Middle East: Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, and a think tank official who prepared a project related to the Gaza crisis for the US administration; and Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and envoy during his first term for the Middle East crisis, and the architect of the Abraham Accords, which have plunged the region into all its crises. This is evidenced by the statement of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, in which he said that among the causes of the "Al-Aqsa Flood" was the attempt to stop the "free normalization" train, referring to the Abraham Accords signed by Arab countries with Israel. With the emergence of Tony Blair and Kushner, the dangers associated with the future of the Palestinian cause are renewed, due to the combination of "malice," cunning, and political shrewdness represented by Tony Blair, and the impetuosity, strength, great ability to influence, and extreme bias toward the diplomatic frameworks governing America's historical policies with Israel represented by Kushner.
Despite Trump's negative stance toward Gaza, the crisis unfolded in the United States' refusal to prevent Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas from attending the UN General Assembly meetings in New York in September 2025. This came after a number of US allies pledged to recognize Palestine as a state during the summit, despite objections from the United States and Israel. A US State Department official announced that Abbas and approximately 80 other Palestinian officials would be affected by the decision to deny and revoke entry visas for members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, which is based in the West Bank, according to Reuters.
The Palestinian Reaction
Abbas had planned to travel to New York to attend the annual high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in Manhattan. He was also scheduled to attend a summit on the two-state solution hosted by France and Saudi Arabia. Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and dozens of other countries have pledged to formally recognize a Palestinian state. The Palestinian president's office considered this a violation of the UN Headquarters Agreement. Under the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, the United States is generally required to allow foreign diplomats into the UN headquarters in New York. However, Washington said it could deny visas for security, extremism, and foreign policy reasons. The US State Department justified its decision by repeating long-standing US and Israeli allegations that the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had failed to renounce terrorism, while pushing for "unilateral recognition" of a Palestinian state. "Our national security interests require holding the PLO and the Palestinian Authority accountable for not abiding by their commitments and for undermining prospects for peace," the department said in a statement. "The restrictions will not extend to the Palestinian Authority's mission to the United Nations." Which includes officials who reside there permanently."
The United Nations, for its part, commented, through UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, that the international organization will discuss the visa issue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs "in accordance with the UN Headquarters Agreement concluded between the United Nations and the United States."
Scenarios for Dealing with the Crisis
The issue of the United States refusing to grant a visa to the Palestinian president is not a new phenomenon. It occurred before, when the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was denied entry in 1988. That year, the UN General Assembly met in Geneva instead of New York so he could deliver a speech.
The shocking US decision created several diplomatic and legal frameworks under international law to deal with the crisis, which witnessed widespread mobilization by the countries organizing the two-state solution conference scheduled to be held in New York on September 22 at the invitation of Saudi Arabia and France, as well as Palestinian efforts to push for a change in the US position on the unjustified crisis.
Palestinian Vice President Hussein al-Sheikh, appointed to his position several months ago, headed a high-level diplomatic delegation that began a diplomatic tour in Riyadh, where he was received by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who promised to pressure the United States to change its stance. He also visited Cairo, where he met with Foreign Minister Dr. Badr Abdel Ati. He is also expected to meet with the French Foreign Minister and possibly President Macron.
Hussein al-Sheikh, the Palestinian Vice President, believed that Abu Mazen's mere approval of the man's departure on this mission might qualify him to become part of the solution. It is possible that one of the solution scenarios would involve reducing the Palestinian delegation's representation, allowing the vice president to replace President Abu Mazen. This would achieve several combined messages, namely, introducing a new face to represent the Authority, on whom hopes can be pinned to renew the frozen blood within the Authority. This would be in the same vein as the nomination of Abu Mazen as the anticipated successor to Abu Ammar, having previously served as Prime Minister through international consensus until he succeeded Abu Ammar. This same scenario appears to be the most likely, especially since al-Sheikh was appointed to his position following consensus from all international parties.
The second scenario is for President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to deliver his speech at the conference, which will be held in New York, via video conference to emphasize his messages to all. This scenario is also possible, while retaining the Palestinian mission to the United Nations to attend the conference.
Another scenario is to move the conference venue from being held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings in New York to a UN headquarters outside the United States. It is likely that the meeting will be held in Geneva if this option is retained. This is in keeping with what happened with Abu Ammar in 1988, when the General Assembly meetings were moved to Geneva to circumvent the American desire at the time to take a disgraceful step in that direction by preventing leader Yasser Arafat.
Some raise a dispute between the two positions, as Abu Mazen represents the President of the State of Palestine, while Yasser Arafat was only the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization at the time.
But the most important question remains: Does international law have a position on what is happening? The answer is that what Washington did constitutes a clear legal violation of the Headquarters Agreement, which waives Washington's right to prevent diplomatic representatives of other countries. Here, the right remains for the United Nations, as well as the Palestinian state, to legally review Washington's position, even if this is not practically possible.
Overall, however, the search for the overall results of recognizing a Palestinian state remains open. More than 100 countries from across the world have pledged to recognize the Palestinian state in two ways: one is open and unconditional, led by France, and another has conditioned recognition on Israel's continued war with Gaza. Perhaps the prevention of the Palestinian delegation from attending, along with similar political and media skirmishes, could yield more positive results if focused on, as this would increase the recognition rate among all countries collectively, a goal we all hope for.