The events unfolding since October 7th, resulting in over 40,000 deaths, thousands displaced, hostage taking, ill-treatment of detainees, and a major humanitarian crisis, sent shockwaves in the region and the world as a whole. Yet, more than that, it tested the international system, represented in the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice.
The United Nation’s ability to fulfil its mandate has been questioned. The fundamental danger lies not necessarily in the scope and efficiency of international interventions but rather in the idea that the United Nations has been dragged as a party into the conflict and even called ‘unnecessary’ by Israel’s UN representative. This approach leads to fears that the United Nations may face the fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations, should a major war break out.
While the Palestinians aspire for full membership of the State of Palestine in the United Nations and are focusing all their diplomatic efforts on gaining acceptance at this international body, Israel has accused the UN of bias and even called one of its agencies a terrorist organization. Moreover, Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed confidence in U.S. veto to protect their policies, while the Palestinian president explicitly accused the United States of preventing the Palestinians from joining the UN as a member state.
Violating Rules in Gaza War
In the Gaza war, the rules of war are not being observed, starting with the killing and hostage taking of Israeli civilians; the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, mostly women and children, in indiscriminate air attacks and bombardments; the displacement of more than 1.8 million civilians; and the continuous blockade leading to a humanitarian crisis, hunger, disease, and lack of access to medical assistance. At the same time, horrific testimonies of systematic brutal torture and abuse of prisoners in Israeli detention camps and prisons are emerging.
The UN Charter defines its mission as “maintaining international peace and security,” protecting human rights, supporting the development and delivery of humanitarian aid, as well as upholding international law by taking effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace and achieving international cooperation in solving international problems. The UN was meant to be a center “for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”
Today, the question is: What is the role of the international body that was established after World War II with the aim of preventing a recurrence? What are the guarantees that the system will be able to address a mass casualty conflict and human rights violations, and what would guarantee that it remains relevant and does not suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed with the outbreak of a second world war?
Successes and Failures in UN Resolutions on Gaza
In the Gaza context, after several failed attempts, the UN Security Council (UNSC) successfully passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire. The UN General Assembly also passed two resolutions, and the International Court of Justice called for precautionary measures in its investigation into charges of genocide. UN agencies have led efforts to provide humanitarian aid, and UN officials have issued countless calls on all sides to respect international law, to spare the lives of innocent civilians, to allow the entry of humanitarian aid, and to respect the neutrality of international aid workers.
It was unable to exert any pressure, however, without the support of the superpowers, primarily the U.S. This failure is not a novelty in UN history and is rather characteristic of the bipolar world with the veto rights of permanent member states in the Security Council. The novelty lies in the fact that the Israeli Government, backed by the United States, has shown disdain for the international organization without any consequences. All member states have pledged to uphold the UN Charter and are expected to fulfil that obligation, said a UN spokesperson; however, the Israeli representative at the UN, Gilad Erdan, shredded the UN Charter on the stage of the General Assembly on May 10, 2024, prior to a vote on Palestinian membership. Moreover, Erdan said, that if the resolution passes or changes the status of Palestinians at the UN: “I expect the United States to completely stop funding the UN and its institutions.”
In addition, since October Israel has prevented entry visas and access for UN international workers. Several directors of leading UN agencies have had to leave Jerusalem after their visas weren’t renewed, while entry into Gaza was highly restricted.
Israel Seeks to Outlaw UNRWA
The most significant move, however, has been the Israeli parliament’s preliminary approval of a bill that would label the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) a “terrorist organization,” without pushback from the United States, a superpower and member of the UN Security Council. The vote was the latest step in an Israeli push to delegitimize the agency, which is the main provider of education, health, and aid services to millions of Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, by accusing it of collaborating with the Hamas movement in Gaza. UNRWA admitted that seven of its hundreds of workers may have been involved in the October 7th attack and took action against them.
The Israeli Government has been lobbying against the existence of UNRWA for years, asserting that it enshrines the Palestinian refugee issue. It influenced President Trump’s decision in August 2018, to cut UNRWA funding. Following Israel’s accusations regarding collaboration with Hamas on October 7th, the United States and several European states suspended funding to UNRWA, but much of it has resumed as UNRWA proceeds with its investigations. Juliette Touma, UNRWA’s director of communications, said the bill was part of Israel’s ongoing “systematic campaign” to dismantle the UN agency.
Israel Defies ICJ Ruling on Illegality of Settlements
As for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the illegality of Israel’s occupation, the Israeli prime minister said: “The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land – not in our eternal capital, Jerusalem, not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria.” He continued: “No false decision in the Hague will distort this historical truth, just as the legality of Israeli settlement in all the territories of our homeland cannot be contested.”
Not only do such statements contradict the international consensus that settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law, but they also contradict the peace agreements signed by Israel in the 1990s (the Oslo Accords). International law views the West Bank, including Jerusalem, as occupied territory. Even Benny Gantz, however, one of the opposition leaders, considered the ICJ opinion “counterproductive to regional security and stability”. Israel’s Foreign Ministry said: “It injects the politics of the corridors of the UN in New York into the courtrooms of the ICJ in The Hague.”
The Israeli statements received U.S. backing, although a State Department spokesperson also said that the U.S. recognizes the ICJ's “vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes” and maintained that the Biden administration has “consistently made clear that Israel must take all possible steps to minimize civilian harm, increase the flow of humanitarian assistance, and address dehumanizing rhetoric.”
In the 1930s, the League of Nations was overwhelmed by a spirit of mistrust and failed to intervene in major conflicts, which not only affected its political credibility but also marked the collapse of a collective security system. Germany withdrew from the League in 1933, and the World Disarmament Conference (1932-34) failed significantly. The organization was unable to contain the deterioration of the international system that led to the outbreak of World War II.
Today, as we are witnessing shifts in major governments; wars in Ukraine, Israel, and Sudan; and unrest elsewhere and with the Middle East on the brink of a major war, there is a need to readdress the issue of an international system capable of preventing a major collapse or major war.
Reform Needed to Balance Authorities of Superpowers
Since the 1990s, there have been calls for reform of the United Nations. In 2011, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed Atul Khare, UN undersecretary general for operational support, to spearhead efforts to implement a reform agenda to improve the efficiency of the organization. In addition, there were calls to reform the 15-member UNSC, as Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil formed the G4, launching efforts to gain permanent seats and veto rights at the Council as the power structure today is different than it was in 1945. Despite achieving some progress, the issue remains subject to the political interests of the permanent members. Thus, a change is necessary that will introduce mechanisms for enforcing international law without dependence on the consent of a superpower with veto rights and holding the superpowers with veto rights responsible for their decisions to support.
In August, outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan said the United Nations building in New York is “unnecessary” and “should be closed and wiped off the face of the earth.” In a snippet from an upcoming interview in Hebrew with i24News, Erdan also says: “On the one hand, I’m coming out with a feeling of satisfaction regarding my battle and work here, but on the other hand with great distress and frustration with the fact that this building, which may look nice from the outside, is actually twisted and distorted.” A month earlier, Erdan was quoted as saying: “We must take unprecedented steps against the UN, such as closing the UN compound in Jerusalem and expelling the heads of the agencies stationed in Israel, to send a clear and unequivocal message that the continued bias and exploitation of the UN against Israel will come at a price.” In the same interview, Erdan expressed confidence in a U.S. veto of any anti-Israeli decision.
While the United States strongly adheres to the approach of defending Israel at the UNSC and continues to argue against recognition of the State of Palestine, as a superpower and permanent member of the UN it is endangering the organization by not taking a stand against such undiplomatic statements, especially since the current U.S. Administration is run by Democrats who are expected to follow a different approach than that of the previous Trump administration.
If the superpowers are interested in the continued functioning of the UN, they must take action to reform the current international political system which it represents, protect its parity and neutrality, and preserve its credibility and role as stated in its Charter. If not, its fate will be no better than that of its predecessor, the League of Nations.