As the Middle East plunges deeper into conflict, the weakness of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the body charged with maintaining international peace and security, is being starkly exposed. Entrusted with the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,” the UNSC has been paralyzed by the veto power wielded by each of its five permanent members, who often prioritize national interests and alliances over collective global responsibility.
Nowhere is this failure more evident than in the present escalating violence between Israeli forces and Hezbollah militants across Lebanon’s southern Blue Line, and in the conflict in Gaza which preceded it.
On September 25, the day after the opening of the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA), UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned the Security Council that “hell is breaking loose in Lebanon.” He urged the Security Council to work “in lock-step” to prevent further catastrophe, highlighting the conflict’s growing “scope, depth, and intensity.” Despite this plea, the Security Council did not act, although 500,000 people have already been displaced in Lebanon, with the death toll mounting daily.
This failure to act prompted French President Emmanuel Macron to voice his frustration. Speaking to the General Assembly, he lamented the deepening divisions among nations and underscored the urgent need for effective multilateralism to rebuild trust and tackle crises. Macron went further, acknowledging that the Security Council itself, of which France is a permanent member, requires reform. He called for a change in the body’s working methods, proposing limitations on the right of veto in cases of mass atrocities and greater attention to operational decisions needed for peacekeeping.
By contrast, while the Security Council indulges in inconclusive debates, held hostage to narrow self-interested positions, the UN General Assembly has demonstrated the grave concern of the majority of UN member states regarding the Middle East crisis.
On September 18, the General Assembly adopted a historic resolution demanding that Israel end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory within 12 months. The vote, with 124 nations in favour, 14 against, and 43 abstaining, reflects the growing global impatience with Israel’s occupation.
This vote is more than just another UN resolution; it is historic for two reasons. First, it is the first time the General Assembly has explicitly condemned Israel’s apartheid regime. Second, it is the first time in 42 years that the UN has called for sanctions to end the illegal occupation, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its July ruling. Human rights experts have pointed out that international law now hangs “on a knife’s edge,” with most states failing to take meaningful steps to comply with their legal obligations.
The Israel-Palestine conflict, complex as it is, remains a story of missed opportunities and broken promises. At its heart lies the failure of powerful governments, which emerged from the Second World War, to create a Palestinian state alongside Israel, as they promised in 1948. The ongoing violence since then is a tragic consequence of the refusal by major powers to engage on this question in a fair and balanced manner that acknowledges the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, both Muslim and Christian who lived in Palestine until they were driven out in 1948.
In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has remained belligerent, rejecting calls for a ceasefire with Hezbollah and continuing his aggressive military campaign. Since October 7, when Hamas launched a stupid and inhumane targeted assault on Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking over 200 hostages, over 41,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s retaliatory strikes, many of which were indiscriminate.
Netanyahu’s intransigence, despite mounting international pressure – including now from Israel’s closest ally, the United States – has deepened the possibility of a full-scale regional war.
For decades, the U.S. has shielded Israel from international censure by using its veto power to block Security Council resolutions. But as the violence escalates and Netanyahu’s refusal to heed American advice becomes more pronounced, cracks in this long-standing relationship are emerging. The U.S. now faces a delicate balancing act: maintaining its commitment to Israel’s security while addressing growing frustration among Arab states and the majority of other nations.
Supporting Netanyahu’s policies serves no interest except his own and those of the ultranationalist and ultra-religious factions in Israel, upon whom his political survival depends. His actions not only deepen the conflict, but also jeopardize long-term regional stability.
The two-state solution, once a distant hope, is now an urgent necessity. Stability in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the security of the Israeli people, can only be achieved through a peaceful, negotiated settlement. The overwhelming majority of UN member states have expressed support for this path. It is time for the Security Council to move beyond its divisions and take decisive action. A binding resolution that enshrines the commitment to a two-state solution is not just a moral imperative—it is a practical one.
The United States, with its unique influence over both Israelis and Palestinians, is the only country capable of brokering peace, if it sheds all double standards, and applies objective and fair criteria to its approach. The rest of the world must encourage and support U.S. leadership in this context. The survival of countless lives and the future of peace in the region depend on it. So, too does, any confidence in the UN Security Council that may still exist.
(The writer is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS. The views expressed are entirely his own. Responses and previous commentaries: www.sirronaldsanders.com)