In a move that’s set to reverberate through diplomatic circles, the United Nations General Assembly on Friday, September 19, 2025, voted overwhelmingly to allow Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to address its 80th session by video, following the United States’ decision to revoke his visa. This historic resolution passed with 145 countries in favor, five against—including the United States and Israel—and six abstentions, according to multiple reports from the Associated Press and other international outlets.
The unusual step was prompted by the U.S. State Department’s recent action to deny and revoke visas for about 80 Palestinian officials, including Abbas himself. The U.S. government cited concerns over national security and accused Palestinian leaders of undermining peace efforts, a move that has drawn sharp international criticism and raised questions about America’s obligations as the UN’s host country.
Under the new resolution, Abbas will be able to deliver a pre-recorded statement that will be played in the General Assembly Hall, introduced by a Palestinian representative physically present in New York. The measure also extends to other high-level Palestinian officials, allowing them to participate in UN meetings or conferences via video over the next year if barred from traveling to the United States. This arrangement, however, applies only to the current 80th session of the General Assembly.
The decision comes at a tense moment in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Abbas had planned to attend a high-profile meeting next week, convened by France and Saudi Arabia, aimed at advancing the long-stalled two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That summit, scheduled for September 22, is expected to see several countries—including France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia—formally recognize a Palestinian state. The United States, however, remains firmly opposed to these efforts, arguing that they embolden Hamas and complicate already fraught negotiations over a ceasefire and the release of hostages in Gaza.
“U.S. opposition to this resolution should come as no surprise,” U.S. diplomat Jonathan Shrier stated before the vote, as reported by Reuters. “The Trump Administration has been clear: we must hold the PLO and Palestinian Authority accountable for not complying with their commitments under the Oslo Accords, some of them very basic, and for undermining the prospects for peace.”
The U.S. position has been met with skepticism and, in some quarters, outright anger. The United Nations itself has expressed regret over the American decision, suggesting it may violate the 1947 Headquarters Agreement. This agreement obligates the United States, as the host nation, to grant visas to foreign diplomats attending UN sessions—except in cases involving security, extremism, or foreign policy concerns. The UN’s resolution specifically noted its concern and regret over the U.S. visa bans, echoing the sentiments of many member states who see the move as a breach of international diplomatic norms.
India, among the countries voting in favor of the resolution, reaffirmed its longstanding support for Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution. As The Hindu reported, India has recognized the State of Palestine since 1988 and has consistently advocated for peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “The resolution expresses regret over the U.S. decision to deny visas to and revoke visas of Palestinian representatives, which effectively barred them from participating in the UN meetings,” the outlet noted.
Currently, Palestine holds the status of a non-member observer state at the United Nations—a designation it has held since 2012. This status allows Palestine to participate in UN proceedings but does not grant it voting rights. The only other non-member observer state at the UN is the Holy See (the Vatican). Despite its limited status, Palestine’s diplomatic presence at the UN has been a focal point for international debates over the legitimacy and future of a Palestinian state.
The political context surrounding Abbas’s video address is fraught with internal and external challenges. The Palestinian Authority, led by Abbas, currently administers parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, recognizes Israel, and cooperates with it on security matters. However, Israel has accused the Authority of incitement and of not being genuinely committed to peace. Many Palestinians, meanwhile, view their own leadership as corrupt and autocratic. Polls in recent years have shown that a vast majority want the 89-year-old Abbas—whose mandate expired in 2009—to step down. National elections have not been held since 2006, when Hamas won in a landslide, further complicating the internal political landscape.
The backdrop to these developments is the ongoing war in Gaza, triggered by Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Ceasefire talks have repeatedly stalled, most recently after the Trump administration’s Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, walked away from negotiations in July, blaming Hamas for the impasse. The situation was further exacerbated when Israel launched a strike targeting Hamas leaders in Qatar, a country that has served as a key mediator throughout the conflict.
The United States’ hardline stance has put it at odds with many of its traditional allies. In the days leading up to the General Assembly vote, countries like France and the United Kingdom reportedly urged the U.S. to reconsider its visa ban for Abbas, but to no avail. The resolution’s passage is being interpreted by many as a diplomatic rebuke to Washington’s policy and a reaffirmation of the UN’s commitment to inclusivity, even amid deep divisions over the path to peace in the Middle East.
In a parallel development, the General Assembly also agreed—by consensus and without a formal vote—that Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman could deliver a statement by video or pre-recorded message at the high-level conference on September 22. This move underscores the growing use of remote participation in international diplomacy, especially when political or security concerns limit travel.
As the diplomatic world turns its attention to the upcoming high-level meetings, all eyes will be on Abbas’s video address and the broader international response to the Palestinian bid for statehood. Whether this moment signals a meaningful shift in the Israeli-Palestinian saga or simply marks another chapter in a decades-long struggle remains to be seen. What’s clear is that the debate over Palestine’s place on the world stage—and the United States’ role as both gatekeeper and participant—shows no signs of abating.
In the end, the UN’s decision to accommodate Abbas’s virtual presence stands as a testament to both the power and the limitations of international diplomacy in a world where politics, security, and technology are increasingly intertwined.