UN Faces Crisis Amid Escalating Gaza Conflict: A Call for Global Action

For nearly eight decades, the plight of Palestine has remained an unresolved global issue, a situation where claims for justice continue to be unmet. The foundation of the UN Charter, established after World War II, was meant to promote peace, equality, and protection for the oppressed. However, in the case of Palestine, these commitments have often been disregarded, repeatedly undermined by Israel’s actions. The reality is stark: when Israel faces scrutiny, the United States’ veto often serves as a powerful shield, rendering international law ineffective.

Since 1972, the United States has utilized its veto power more than 50 times to protect Israel from accountability, constituting about half of all vetoes it has exercised in the UN Security Council. This practice raises significant concerns regarding fairness and justice on the global stage.

Some notable instances include:

• The first veto in September 1972, which blocked a resolution condemning Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon.
• Multiple vetoes against measures that would censure Israel for its settlement expansion.
• A rejection of resolutions condemning Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• A 2011 veto against a draft that declared settlements “illegal,” despite the U.S. agreeing with the content.
• In 2017, a veto isolated the U.S. 14 to 1 against a resolution rejecting former President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
• In 2023 and 2024, repeated vetoes blocked calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, even as civilian casualties mounted significantly.

This pattern of vetoing does not represent balance; rather, it signifies complicity. In contrast, the UN General Assembly—unrestricted by veto power—has condemned Israel numerous times. Between 2015 and 2023, it passed a total of 154 resolutions condemning Israel, compared to only 71 against all other member states combined. In 2024 alone, an additional 17 resolutions were adopted, including a historic call for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories within a year.

The reality is that the United States possesses the ability to restrain Israel but often chooses not to. Israel is regarded as a strategic ally and a “democratic outpost” in the Middle East, along with being a partner in military technology and intelligence. Domestic politics in Washington complicate any attempts to condition aid or arms, making such moves politically expensive. Successive administrations have framed their vetoes as a means to block “unbalanced” texts; however, in truth, they are simply obstructing justice.

This unyielding support has emboldened Israel to extend its military reach far beyond its borders. Israel has engaged in wars with Egypt and Jordan since its establishment in 1948, invaded Lebanon multiple times, and conducted military actions in Syria. Notably, it bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, targeted PLO leaders in Tunisia in 1985, and executed the Entebbe raid in Uganda in 1976.

More recently, Israel has conducted military operations in Sudan and Yemen, and it carried out a missile attack on Doha, marking its first strike in the Persian Gulf. Throughout its relatively brief history, Israel has attacked or invaded ten countries—an astonishing achievement for a state of its size, made possible largely due to U.S. protection from consequences.

For the Muslim world, the Palestinian issue transcends geopolitical concerns; it is fundamentally a moral one. The Quran emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the obligation to support the oppressed. Yet, the current international system allows a single veto to outweigh the suffering of thousands. Palestinians do not merely see an occupier; they perceive a superpower that ensures the impunity of that occupier.

While there are alternative avenues for addressing the Palestinian issue, they all require courage and decisive action. Options include:

• The General Assembly using the ‘Uniting for Peace’ procedure if the Security Council is obstructed.
• Implementing arms embargoes or suspending export licenses that support the occupation.
• Utilizing international legal mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court or universal jurisdiction, to hold individuals accountable.
• Countries recognizing Palestine or imposing sanctions on settlement businesses.
• Making trade conditional upon adherence to international law.
• Establishing humanitarian firewalls to ensure the protection of aid corridors for medics and journalists.

However, relying solely on the Security Council for change is insufficient. Historically, liberation has never been granted by institutions; it has always been the result of the actions of people and nations willing to challenge the dominant powers.

Future historians will not remember the intricate details of UN procedures but will remember the tragic images of children buried under rubble in Gaza, the obliterated villages of the West Bank, and the sprawling refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. The U.S. vetoes are not merely procedural votes; they serve as shields for ongoing injustices. Similarly, the General Assembly’s condemnations are not just formalities; they represent the cries of a world betrayed.

If the international community cannot protect Palestine, which stands as the starkest symbol of dispossession in our time, it is difficult to argue that it can safeguard anyone else. For Iran, the Arab world, and Muslims globally, this situation is more than a diplomatic failure; it is a litmus test for the relevance of dignity, justice, and international law in the twenty-first century.