Urgent Warning: UN Faces Irrelevance Over Gaza Crisis, Says Expert Alfred de Zayas

As the United Nations General Assembly prepares for its 80th session in New York on September 9, 2025, the credibility of this global institution is facing intense scrutiny. With the ongoing conflict in Gaza capturing international attention, concerns are rising about whether the UN can effectively address the crisis or if it will remain hindered by geopolitical divisions. To provide insights into these urgent matters, the Tehran Times engaged in an exclusive interview with Professor Alfred de Zayas, a prominent figure in international law and a former UN Independent Expert on International Order. During this comprehensive discussion, de Zayas highlights Israel’s violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention, the complicity of Western powers, and the failures of international courts. He cautions that without decisive action from the UN General Assembly (UNGA) under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, the UN risks losing its authority in global governance.

Below is the full text of the interview:

The President of the 80th session of the General Assembly is the former German Foreign Minister Analena Baerbock, who has been criticized for her support of military actions that violate the UN Charter, particularly concerning Israel.

How do you assess the application of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention, in the context of Israel’s military actions in Gaza? To what extent do these actions constitute war crimes or genocide under international law?

As the General Assembly opens its 80th session on September 9, 2025, its authority and credibility are at stake. The primary agenda should focus on halting the ongoing genocide against the Palestinians, yet the UN has struggled to stop Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. Alarmingly, Israel continues to receive support from the “collective West,” which is complicit in these actions and is openly defying the UN Charter and international law.

However, a new world order is emerging, driven by the awakening of the “Global Majority,” which is rejecting the imperialism and colonialism of the “collective West.” The General Assembly should urgently adopt a “Uniting for Peace” Resolution that authorizes military intervention to prevent genocide and impose accountability on the perpetrators.

The existence of the State of Israel is linked to the United Nations, yet the conditions for Israel’s statehood and UN membership have been consistently violated. Israel’s actions since its inception demonstrate a blatant disregard for international law and moral obligations. Historically, Israel emerged from acts of terrorism perpetrated by Zionist settlers against Palestinians, the British, and even UN officials.

• Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) demanded Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories.
• The Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have affirmed that Israel must adhere to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• The 2024 Advisory Opinion ruled Israel’s presence in occupied territories as unlawful and mandated the cessation of settlement activities.

On September 18, 2024, the UN General Assembly endorsed the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, providing Israel a 12-month deadline to comply. Despite this, Israel has intensified its actions against Palestinians, leading to accusations of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Israel is openly defying international law and should be expelled from the UN under Article 6 of the UN Charter. The General Assembly must take action by imposing sanctions on Israel and urging member states to uphold their Responsibility to Protect the Palestinian population.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Despite these serious allegations, there has been no genuine effort to arrest him, and he continues to receive honors in various nations.

What are the legal implications of Israel’s claim to self-defense in Gaza, given its status as an occupying power under international law?

Israel’s claim of self-defense lacks validity under international law. The ICJ has repeatedly classified Israel as an occupying state, bound by international humanitarian and human rights law. Notably, the right to self-defense outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter does not apply to Israel in this context, as it is not defending against another state’s aggression but is committing acts of genocide against an occupied population.

The situation in Gaza is reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto, where the oppressors had no legitimate claim to self-defense against the oppressed population. Israel’s claim falls flat, especially when the rights of the Palestinian people to resist occupation are considered.

How effective do you believe the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have been in addressing war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza? What reforms or actions are needed to end selective justice?

The ICJ has made significant legal pronouncements, including the ongoing case of South Africa v. Israel, which is expected to provide clarity regarding Israel’s actions. Yet, the lack of enforcement mechanisms means that the ICJ’s judgments often remain unenforced, making it a less effective body.

The ICC differs in its operational challenges. Critics argue that the ICC has been primarily influenced by Western interests, selectively prosecuting leaders from the Global South while ignoring crimes committed by Western leaders. Recent warrants for Netanyahu and his former Minister of War suggest a shift, yet the credibility of the ICC remains in question.

How has the “hijacking” of human rights institutions affected the UN’s ability to hold Israel accountable for violations in Gaza?

Many UN agencies have been compromised by external political interests, undermining their ability to uphold human rights effectively. The UN’s self-serving nature has become evident with leaders like Baerbock, whose history raises concerns about the impartiality of the General Assembly.

Israel’s actions in Gaza, characterized by genocide, have not only drawn international outrage but have also positioned the US, UK, and European states as complicit in these crimes.

How does the selective weaponization of human rights rhetoric impact the credibility of human rights advocacy in conflicts like Gaza?

Despite the challenges, there are signs of change. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have begun to categorize Israel’s actions as genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars recently passed a resolution urging Israel to cease its genocidal policies.

What practical steps can the international community take to ensure the protection of civilians in Gaza and uphold Palestinian rights under international law?

Rhetoric alone will not suffice. It is crucial for states to sever commercial and diplomatic ties with Israel to pressure it as a genocidal state. A collective stance from nations against Israel’s actions, coupled with the adoption of a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, could pave the way for decisive action to protect Palestinian lives.

Independent journalists and civil society have a vital role in combating misinformation and advocating for the oppressed. Their efforts are essential to restoring integrity to human rights advocacy and ensuring that the voices of the marginalized are heard.

As the UN General Assembly convenes, it is crucial for civil society and independent journalists to demand accountability and assert the authority of the UN to condemn the ongoing genocide in Gaza.