Australia has distanced itself from the concluding statement of the Middle East Peace conference in Paris, where more than 70 countries met to try to revive the stalled peace process between Israelis and Palestinians.

Key points: The concluding statement of Israel-Palestine resolution talks reaffirmed condemnation of Israeli settlement in the West Bank

The concluding statement of Israel-Palestine resolution talks reaffirmed condemnation of Israeli settlement in the West Bank Australia was represented at the talks in Paris but refused to sign off on the entire final statement

Australia was represented at the talks in Paris but refused to sign off on the entire final statement Australia distanced itself last month from the US's moves to end Israeli settlement building

The concluding communique of the Paris meeting, which took place overnight, reaffirmed that only a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians could resolve the conflict.

The statement also "welcomed" the adoption of the UN security council resolution that last month condemned Israeli settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

A spokesperson for the office of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told the ABC that "while the Australian Government was represented at the Paris conference, this does not mean we agree with every element of the final statement".

"The most important priority must be a resumption of direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians for a two-state solution as soon as possible."

The Foreign Minister's office says Australia does not agree with every element of the final statement. ( ABC News: Ross Nerdal )

Britain also said on Sunday it had reservations about the outcome of the conference in Paris, saying it risked "hardening positions".

Britain had observer status at the conference and did not back the final communique.

Australia was the only country to speak out publicly against the US-backed security council resolution on settlements last month, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull calling it "one sided" and "deeply unsettling".

Washington effectively cleared the way for the resolution, which demanded an end to Israeli settlement building, prompting Israeli Government officials to direct harsh attacks against US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Ms Bishop noted at the time that Australia was not currently a member of the Security Council and was not eligible to vote on the resolution, but indicated the Federal Government did not support the contentious move.

Paris meeting 'an important opportunity'

Palestinian commentator Salem Barahmeh, who is based in the West Bank, said the Palestinians would be disappointed France did not use the conference as an opportunity to officially recognise a Palestinian state, but said overall they would be heartened by the initiative.

"There's been a shift to internationalise the conflict," Mr Barameh told the ABC.

"I think historically it's been very apparent that bilateral negotiations mediated by the US haven't worked."

Mr Barahmeh said the Paris meeting was particularly significant, coming in the wake of last month's UN Security council resolution.

"I think it's a very important opportunity. Spelling out the need to address the two-state solution before it is no longer possible," he said.

"I think the international community is reaffirming the two-state solution because it's going to be under further threat under the incoming American administration. So this is just a recognition that the international community won't accept any other terms other than the ones based on the 67 borders."

Israel against Paris initiative

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been against the Paris initiative from the very beginning, said Israeli analyst Ofer Salzburg, who works with the International Crisis Group in Jerusalem.

"He feels that Abbas has been able to do this to him — to outsmart him and get the international community to support Palestinian views," Mr Salzburg said.

Benjamin Netanyahu thinks a Palestinian state is a "major security threat", an Israeli analyst says. ( Reuters: Abir Sultan, file )

He said the Israeli Prime Minister's optimal scenario was to try to delay any final status peace talks.

"Mr Netanyahu thinks that a Palestinian state is a major security, strategic threat for Israel. He equally thinks that annexing the West Bank and giving Israeli citizenship to all the Palestinian residents of the West Bank is a nightmare scenario for Israel," he said.

Mr Salzburg said Prime Minister Netanyahu was trying to avoid both scenarios for now, but a Trump administration might force the Israeli PM into a corner.

"There are others to his right and to his left that want to finally see a moment of decision. We will need to see whether Mr Netanyahu is able to deflect these pressures. The cart blanche seemingly that Netanyahu is getting, Israel is getting from President Trump make it much more difficult for him to resist pressure from the right."