The United Nations General Assembly’s overwhelming passage of a resolution demanding unrestricted humanitarian access to the Gaza Strip, protection of United Nations facilities, and compliance with international law marks a moment of rare moral clarity in an increasingly fractured world. Supported by 139 countries, with only 12 voting against and 19 abstaining, the resolution reflects a near-universal recognition that the situation in Gaza has spiraled into a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Yet this decisive vote also exposes a painful contradiction at the heart of global governance: while the world can agree on what is right, it remains structurally unable to enforce it.
Gaza today stands as one of the gravest humanitarian emergencies of modern times. Entire residential districts have been reduced to rubble. Hospitals, schools, refugee shelters, and facilities run by UN agencies—sites explicitly protected under international humanitarian law—have been repeatedly struck. According to UN agencies and humanitarian organizations, civilians, overwhelmingly women and children, account for the vast majority of casualties. Food, water, electricity, fuel, and medicine have been deliberately restricted, turning basic necessities into instruments of coercion. This is not the accidental byproduct of conflict; it is a crisis shaped by policy choices that have transformed Gaza into a zone of engineered deprivation.
The General Assembly’s resolution followed an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in October, which reaffirmed Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law and the UN Charter as an occupying power. While advisory opinions are not legally binding, they carry immense legal and moral weight. The ICJ restated long-established principles: occupation does not confer sovereignty; it imposes duties. Chief among these are the protection of civilians, facilitation of humanitarian assistance, and strict adherence to the laws of war. Israel’s conduct in Gaza, viewed through this legal lens, raises profound concerns about systematic non-compliance with these obligations.
Despite US-brokered humanitarian arrangements and understandings reached in October—intended to ease suffering and facilitate aid deliveries—only a fraction of the agreed assistance has been allowed into Gaza. Aid convoys have faced delays, arbitrary restrictions, and outright blockages. Humanitarian workers have been killed. UN premises have been damaged or destroyed. The obstruction of life-saving assistance has not been episodic; it has been sustained. This pattern, documented by multiple international agencies, has deepened an already catastrophic situation and pushed Gaza closer to famine-like conditions.
What is unfolding in Gaza demands moral clarity. This is not a conventional conflict conducted within the bounds of international law. It is a campaign marked by disproportionate force, collective punishment, and an extremist interpretation of Zionism that has translated into state policy. The scale of destruction, the targeting of civilian infrastructure, and the rhetoric that dehumanizes an entire population point to acts that amount to war crimes and may constitute crimes against humanity under international law. Palestinians in Gaza are not collateral damage; they are the primary victims of a prolonged system of domination and violence.
Norway’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, introducing the draft resolution, warned that 2024 was among the most violent years in decades and that 2025 has followed a similarly dangerous trajectory. Her intervention captured a broader truth: violence in the occupied Palestinian territory is not an aberration but a structural reality. Gaza’s suffering is not the result of a single military operation; it is the outcome of a long-standing policy framework that normalizes force, erodes legal protections, and renders Palestinian lives perpetually vulnerable.
Yet the tragedy of Gaza is inseparable from the failure of the international system to translate consensus into consequence. The UN General Assembly can articulate global norms and express the conscience of humanity, but its resolutions remain non-binding. This structural limitation has repeatedly rendered overwhelming international agreement politically potent yet practically ineffective—particularly when violations are committed by states shielded by powerful allies.
At the center of this paralysis lies the misuse of veto power in the UN Security Council. Conceived in the aftermath of World War II to prevent great-power conflict, the veto has evolved into a mechanism that too often enables impunity. Time and again, resolutions aimed at protecting Palestinian civilians or holding Israel accountable have been blocked by a single veto. This pattern has hollowed out the Council’s credibility and fostered a perception that international law applies selectively.
The role of the United States in this dynamic warrants honest scrutiny. Washington’s unwavering diplomatic, political, and military support for Israel—regardless of the scale of civilian suffering or the weight of international legal concern—has been a decisive factor in shielding Israel from accountability. Repeated US vetoes in the Security Council, coupled with continued military assistance, have sent a clear message to Israeli leadership: consequences are unlikely. This political cover has emboldened policies that have intensified destruction and prolonged human suffering.
Such complicity carries global implications. By prioritizing strategic alliances over legal principles, the United States has undermined the very international order it claims to uphold. When accountability is blocked not because facts are unclear but because power intervenes, faith in multilateralism erodes. For much of the world—particularly in the Global South—this double standard reinforces the belief that international institutions serve the powerful rather than protect the vulnerable.
Yet the shortcomings of the United Nations are not immutable. They are the result of outdated structures and political inertia, not an absence of ideas or alternatives. If the international community is serious about rescuing human lives in Gaza and preventing similar catastrophes, reform is no longer optional—it is urgent.
- First, the misuse of veto power must be addressed. One pragmatic and increasingly supported proposal is to restrict or suspend the use of vetoes in situations involving mass atrocities, genocide, crimes against humanity, or severe humanitarian crises. Initiatives such as the “Responsibility Not to Veto,” already endorsed by dozens of states and civil society coalitions, should be institutionalized. No single state should possess the authority to block action when civilian lives are at immediate risk.
- Second, the authority of the General Assembly must be strengthened. While comprehensive Security Council reform remains politically challenging, existing mechanisms can be better utilized. The “Uniting for Peace” framework offers a pathway for collective action when the Security Council is paralyzed. Giving greater political and operational weight to consensus-based General Assembly resolutions—especially those supported by an overwhelming majority—would help close the gap between moral judgment and practical response.
- Third, accountability mechanisms must be reinforced. International judicial bodies such as the ICJ and the International Criminal Court require stronger political backing, adequate resources, and protection from political intimidation. Independent investigations into violations of international humanitarian law should trigger automatic consequences, not prolonged diplomatic bargaining. Accountability should be a principle, not a privilege.
- Fourth, humanitarian access must be depoliticized. Aid should never be contingent on the approval of an occupying power accused of creating the humanitarian crisis in the first place. Internationally supervised humanitarian corridors, protected by multilateral guarantees, are essential to ensure that assistance reaches civilians without obstruction or manipulation.
Ultimately, these reforms are not abstract institutional debates. They are about human survival. Every delayed resolution, every veto, every diluted statement translates into more lives lost in Gaza. Children dying from hunger and preventable disease, patients undergoing surgery without anesthesia, families buried beneath collapsed buildings—these are not statistics. They are human beings failed by a system that pledged, after the horrors of the twentieth century, that such suffering would never again be tolerated.
The General Assembly’s vote is a powerful reminder that the world has not lost its moral compass. A clear majority of nations recognize the injustice unfolding in Gaza and have chosen to stand on the side of international law and human dignity. What remains is the political courage to ensure that this consensus carries weight.
Israel must be compelled to halt policies that result in mass civilian harm—not through rhetorical condemnation alone, but through sustained international pressure, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. The credibility of the United Nations, the integrity of the international legal order, and the lives of millions of Palestinians depend on it. Gaza is not merely a test of Israel’s conduct; it is a test of the world’s conscience. This time, failure would not be a matter of ignorance—but of choice.
