Reflecting on the UN Security Council’s Role in the Gaza Conflict

Reflecting on the UN Security Council’s Role in the Gaza Conflict

On October 7, 2023, I woke up to shocking news of a terrorist assault by Hamas that claimed the lives of more than 1,200 innocent individuals from Israel, the United States, and other nations. This was not merely an attack; it was a horrific act that left families shattered and communities in despair. News broadcasts showed grim images—wounded children, grieving parents, and shocking scenes of violence. The events were a sobering reminder of the ongoing human toll of conflict.

That same day, the United States called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to address this unprecedented assault. I had the privilege of representing my country during this vital meeting. As the U.S. ambassador responsible for Security Council matters, I pushed for an unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and its brutal actions.

Regrettably, our appeal was met with resistance. Key players, including Russia and China, declined to support the statement. Their unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of the situation was both frustrating and unfathomable. It is worth noting that even now, the Security Council has yet to officially label Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Global Reactions and Consequences

In the wake of the October 7 attacks, global sympathy for Israel was palpable. However, when Israel took defensive actions—a right recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter—many countries, particularly from the Global South, criticized Israel for its response, deeming it excessive. This backlash not only added to Israel’s isolation but also highlighted the shifting dynamics within international relations.

The United Nations, since Israel joined in 1948, has seen a troubling decline in support for Israel, a trend that accelerated after decolonization in the 1960s. Many nations began to frame the Israel-Palestinian conflict through the lens of their historical struggles against colonial powers, portraying Israel as an oppressor and the Palestinians as victims.

An especially dark moment in this history came in 1975, when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution equating Zionism with racism, a measure that was finally overturned in 1991. Nevertheless, attempts by the Palestinians and their allies to leverage the UN against Israel have not waned. In fact, post-October 7, these efforts have intensified.

Challenges in Effective Diplomacy

During my tenure as ambassador, I witnessed the challenges of navigating the complex landscape of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. I vetoed two draft resolutions in the Security Council that lacked a clear condemnation of Hamas, failed to link a ceasefire to the release of hostages, and ignored Israel’s right to defend itself under UN Charter guidelines. Approving such resolutions would not have stopped hostilities but would have allowed Hamas the space to regroup and rearm.

The ongoing insistence for an immediate ceasefire from many council members put the U.S. in a challenging position. Although the U.S. offered various diplomatic alternatives, it found itself at odds with those favoring an unconditional cessation of hostilities. Occasionally, some members would find common ground on humanitarian issues, focusing on the protection of civilians, but that often proved insufficient.

The United States’ Position and Actions

In the face of mounting tension in the Council, the U.S. was compelled to exercise its veto to maintain its stance. Each veto weighed heavily on our international standing, however, we believed that a one-sided resolution would hinder genuine efforts towards a sustainable ceasefire in an already volatile situation.

Achieving a long-term and effective resolution to the conflict requires a credible negotiation channel. While the Biden administration did not successfully end the conflict during its term, it did manage to negotiate a diplomatic framework aimed at de-escalation and the release of hostages. This framework, although not perfect, has been supported by the Security Council and even received backing from past administrations.

Geopolitical Maneuvering and Its Effects

One ongoing obstacle to achieving council unity on Gaza is the strategic use of the situation by Russia and China. These powers seem intent on diverting attention from their own geopolitical issues, particularly Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I often found myself reminding council members of Russia’s hypocrisy while they attempted to criticize the U.S. for its support of Israel.

Chinese diplomats often made counterproductive accusations against the U.S. regarding Gaza. In response, I highlighted China’s contradictory stance, pointing to its support of Russia’s military efforts while claiming neutrality in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Both Russia and China must reconsider their approaches and either contribute positively to peace or step aside entirely.

The Importance of Support Among Allies

What shocked me further was the behavior of three U.S. allies on the council—Slovenia, Algeria, and Guyana—who frequently sided with Russian and Chinese positions. Their actions suggested a desire to embarrass the U.S. and shift its unwavering support for Israel. Meanwhile, these allies were acutely aware of U.S. diplomatic efforts to mediate a stable resolution in Gaza.

The focus of many of these nations appeared to be on pushing for immediate action without understanding the nuanced and sensitive negotiations taking place behind the scenes. Their approach placed unnecessary pressure on the U.S. and risked undermining broader peace efforts, influenced by the complex dynamics involving Hamas and other regional actors.

The Future of the Security Council and Gaza

The persistent divisions within the UN Security Council reflect ongoing geopolitical tensions and differing national interests. Some member states are laying the groundwork for future resolutions aimed at sanctioning Israel or imposing arms embargoes, a move that will likely escalate tensions further. The U.S. veto of recent resolutions only adds fuel to this fire.

As the situation evolves, discussions about potentially suspending Israel’s voting rights within the General Assembly are surfacing. Such measures would have deep implications for U.S.-UN relations and could provoke severe political fallout.

Lasting Impacts of Misguided Policies

It remains disheartening that some UN officials believe the U.S. should simply instruct Israel to cease its actions against Hamas. Many seem unwilling to acknowledge Israel’s legitimate security concerns. Despite the influence the U.S. wields, it is unrealistic to expect America to dictate terms to Israel regarding its perceived threats.

The UN Security Council’s inability to function effectively stems from various factors, including misguided pressure tactics, attempts to isolate Israel, and geopolitical maneuvering. Until these dynamics change, the council risks irrelevance in resolving the issues facing Gaza and the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, a reality that continues to cause immense suffering.

To end this war, Hamas must disarm and disband. Only then can Gazans dream of a peaceful and prosperous future. Continued escalation and violence will only lead to more suffering for all involved.