The devastating violence in Gaza unfolded within an international system never designed to curb the geopolitical ambitions of great powers. To understand why the United Nations was able to mount such a limited response to what many see as a genocidal attack, we need to go back to the foundations of the post-World War II order and consider how its structures have long enabled impunity.
After World War II, the structure of a new international order based on respect for the United Nations Charter and international law was agreed upon as the normative basis for a peaceful future. Above all, the aim was to prevent World War III. These efforts were born out of the atrocities caused by global conflicts, the degrading of human dignity caused by the Nazi Holocaust, and public anxiety about nuclear weapons.
However, political imperatives to favor the victorious powers jeopardized these arrangements from the beginning. Tensions over world order priorities were calmed by giving the Security Council exclusive decision-making powers and further restricting the autonomy of the United Nations. Five countries, the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and China, were permanent members and each had veto power.
In practice, this placed much of the world’s security in the hands of these countries, maintaining their dominance. This would mean removing the strategic interests of geopolitical actors from the obligation to comply with legal constraints, and thereby weakening the capacity of the United Nations. The Soviet Union had a degree of legitimacy to protect itself from a Western-led voting majority, but like the three liberal democracies, the Soviet Union pragmatically used its veto power and demonstrated a negative approach to international law and human rights.
(In 1945, these governments were understood to simply be retaining the traditional freedom of maneuver exercised by so-called great powers. Britain and France, leading NATO members in the Western alliance, interpreted the future through the lens of a new confrontation with the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, China was embroiled in a civil war that lasted until 1949.
Three aspects of this postwar arrangement shape our current understanding.
First, there is the historical aspect. We can learn from the failure of the League of Nations, where the absence of influential states undermined the organization’s relevance to issues of war and peace. In 1945, it was thought better to recognize power differentials within the United Nations than to build a world organization based on democratic equality between sovereign states or population size.
Second, there is the ideological aspect. Political leaders in wealthier and more powerful countries placed far more faith in hard power militarism than in soft power legalism. Even nuclear weapons were absorbed into the logic of deterrence rather than compliance with Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires the honest pursuit of disarmament. International law was ignored whenever it conflicted with geopolitical interests.
Thirdly, there is the economic aspect. Arms races and the profitability of war have reinforced the pre-World War II pattern of lawless global politics, sustained by an alliance of geopolitical realism, corporate media, and private sector militarism.
Why couldn’t the UN protect Gaza?
Given this background, it is not surprising that the United Nations acted in a disappointing manner during more than two years of genocidal attacks on Gaza.
In many ways, the United Nations has done what it was intended to do in the post-October 7 chaos, but only fundamental reforms driven by the Global South and transnational civil society can change these structural limitations. What makes these events so alarming is Israel’s extreme disregard for international law, the Charter, and even basic morality.
At the same time, the United Nations acted more constructively than is generally acknowledged in exposing serious violations of international law and human rights by Israel. However, it fell short of what was legally possible, especially when the General Assembly failed to explore potential self-empowerment through resolutions of solidarity for peace and norms of responsibility to protect.
One of the United Nations’ most powerful contributions was the near-unanimous judicial outcome at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on genocide and occupation. Regarding genocide, the ICJ granted South Africa’s request for interim measures regarding genocidal violence and obstruction of humanitarian assistance in Gaza. A final decision is expected to be made in 2026 after further discussions.
Regarding the occupation, in response to the General Assembly’s request for clarification, the Court issued a historic advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, finding that Israel is in serious violation of its obligations under international humanitarian law in its administration of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. He ordered Israel to withdraw within one year. The General Assembly approved this opinion by a large majority.
Israel responded by denying or ignoring the court’s authority, backed by the US government’s extraordinary claim that filing a case with the ICJ had no legal merit.
The UN also provided far more reliable coverage of the Gaza massacre than the corporate media, which tended to amplify Israeli rationalizations and suppress Palestinian perspectives. For those seeking a reliable analysis of genocide allegations, the Human Rights Council provided the most convincing rebuttal to pro-Israel distortions. “A Moon Will Arise from this Darkness: Reports on Genocide in Palestine” contains Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s publicly filed report documenting and strongly supporting the findings of the genocide.
A further unheralded contribution came from UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees. Its services were essential to civilians facing severe insecurity, devastation, hunger, disease, and brutal combat tactics. Over the course of Israel’s actions over the past two years, some 281 personnel providing shelter, education, medical and psychological support to beleaguered Palestinians have been killed.
Instead of receiving the praise it deserved, UNRWA was accused by Israel of irresponsibility and of allowing its personnel to take part in the October 7 attacks without any credible evidence. Liberal democracies have made this worse by cutting funding, and Israel has banned international staff from entering Gaza. Despite this, UNRWA has continued its relief efforts to the best of its ability and courage.
Given these institutional deficiencies and partial successes, the implications for global governance become even more pronounced and set the stage for a broader assessment of legitimacy and accountability.
The moral and political costs of paralyzing the United Nations
The foregoing must be read in the context of the Palestinian ordeal, which continues despite numerous violations by Israel, with more than 350 Palestinians killed since the ceasefire was agreed on October 10, 2025.
Although international law does not seem to directly influence the actions of major government actors, it does influence perceptions of legitimacy. In this sense, the ICJ findings and the Special Rapporteur’s report, which take aspects of international law seriously, have the indirect effect of legitimizing various forms of civil society action in support of a genuine and just peace, premised on the realization of Palestinians’ fundamental rights, especially their inalienable right to self-determination.
The exclusion of Palestinians from the US-imposed Trump plan to shape Gaza’s political future is a sign that liberal democracies are stubbornly adhering to the untenable position of collusion with Israel.
Finally, the unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 2803, which unacceptablely endorses the Trump plan, fully aligns the UN with the United States and Israel, and is a demoralizing evasion and rejection of the UN’s own truth-telling process. It also establishes a most unfortunate precedent regarding the enforcement of international law and the accountability of perpetrators of international crimes.
In doing so, it deepens the crisis of trust in global governance and highlights the urgent need for meaningful UN reform if true peace and justice are to be achieved.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
