can the UN bring peace to the Gaza Strip?

Since the Hamas attacks on October 7, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been at the heart of discussions at the United Nations. On several occasions, the UN General Assembly and the Security Council have tried to find a way out of the crisis. In vain. A brief humanitarian truce was certainly able to come into force at the end of November, in order to exchange hostages for Palestinian prisoners, but following an agreement between the belligerents, without the assistance of the United Nations. Has the UN organization become a “thing”, as Charles De Gaulle nicknamed it? Seventy-eight years after its creation, how can we explain this apparent powerlessness?

A battle of formulations

After more than two months of war, the UN Security Council has still failed to impose a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The only body capable of voting on binding decisions, the Council is made up of five permanent members – Russia, the United States, China, France and the United Kingdom – and ten members elected for two years by the United Nations General Assembly. To be adopted, a resolution must be voted on by at least nine members, without any veto from the permanent members.

After the Hamas attacks, the main differences revolved around the wording of the text. Russia presented a project calling for a “immediate ceasefire”, but without naming Hamas, which it does not recognize as a terrorist organization. In response, the United States, Israel’s ally, insisted on mentioning the “heinous terrorist acts”. Brazil, a non-permanent member, then presented a new text including the word “terrorism”, but without registering “Israel’s right to defend itself”, leading to Washington’s veto. In less than two weeks, four draft resolutions were rejected.

At the UN platform, the tone was also raised. Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan hung a yellow star on his chest, ensuring he would wear it until the court condemns “the atrocities” of Hamas. When UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the attacks were not “not produced outside of any context”, the Israeli diplomat loudly demanded his resignation. It took a month for the Security Council to finally agree on a call for “humanitarian breaks”on November 16, in a vote in which the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia abstained.

The impossible consensus on Palestine

This imbroglio is far from new. Over the past decades, the UN has always struggled to speak with one voice on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Since 1970, the Americans have vetoed a resolution on this subject 35 times, out of 39 in total, recalls AFP. On the other hand, the General Assembly has always voted more broadly in favor of the Palestinian territories. This body, which brings together 193 member states, can make recommendations, which are however not binding. Since October 7, she has voted several times for a ceasefire or a humanitarian truce in Gaza, going against the Security Council.

In the history of the United Nations, it is also at the General Assembly that fundamental positions for the Palestinian territories were taken, recall Romuald Sciora and Anne-Cécile Robert in their book Who wants the death of the UN?. In 1947, she voted in favor of the plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. In 1974, it voted by a large majority to recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and sovereignty. In 2012, it granted Palestine the status of “non-member state”, allowing it to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court or sign treaties.

“At Over the past decades, discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the UN have followed the same fundamental dynamicsummarizes Richard Gowan, UN specialist at the NGO Crisis Group. US uses veto to block criticism of Israel, while Arab countries rally developing nations to defend Palestinianshe writes in the specialized journal Foreign Affairs.

A situation that makes the UN for “notaine on the international political scene”, advance Romuald Sciora. In its founding charter of 1945, the United Nations stated the aim of “maintain international peace and security”, “but, in fact, the UN no longer has this influence nor the means to impose any ceasefire”criticize this UN specialist, associate researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Iris).

Repeated failures since the 1990s

Any ceasefire in the Gaza Strip therefore depends on the approval of the United States. But Washington is a historic partner of Israel. Many Jewish Holocaust survivors came to the United States after World War II, and the two countries maintain strong economic relations. According to a report from the American Congress published in March, the Jewish state is the country which has received the most American funds with approximately 260 billion dollars (238 billion euros) in aid since 1946. After the attacks of October 7, US President Joe Biden continued to provide support “unshakeable” to Israel. A position that he has, however, begun to change, as Israeli action in the Gaza Strip has aroused criticism, including in American public opinion.

“Support for Israel creates controversy within Democrats, part of the American Jewish community protests against strikes in Gaza, and the country enters an election period” with the 2024 presidential election, explains Yves Doutriaux, former deputy permanent representative of France to the UN. “It is not excluded that over time, the United States will exert even greater pressure on Israel”, he believes. To the point of breaking away? The question remains. Regardless, for the former diplomat, if the permanent members of the Security Council are unable to agree because of their divergent alliances, it is not the fault of the UN.

“When nations are disunited, it is not the organism that is to blame, but the nations themselves.”

Yves Doutriaux, former French diplomat

at franceinfo

This inability to build peace is not specific to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, continues Romuald Sciora. Since the 1990s, “the UN has rarely contributed to the direct resolution of a conflict”, underlines the researcher. The end of the Cold War and the East-West blocs had opened a promising space for multilateralism, this system of international relations favoring cooperation between States. “But the 1990s marked a turning point, with the United States in particular intending to broaden the conditions for entering the war under a ‘duty to interfere'”he illustrates.

During this decade, and until now, “whether in Rwanda, Syria or in Kosovo”, “the organization failed to keep the peace”, observes the researcher. The five permanent members of the Security Council themselves have weakened the organization by abusing their right of veto or by illegally using force, he recalls, citing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 or the tensions in the China Sea caused by Beijing.

Leaders have also shown in recent years “their preference for bodies like the G20 or the G7, marginalizing the UN”, adds Romuald Sciora. During the last session of the United Nations General Assembly in September, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak did not attend. “VSis the entire multilateral system which is in decline”, believes Romuald Sciora.

Towards better representation?

Faced with this observation, voices are calling for change in UN institutions. “The world has changed. Our institutions have not. We cannot effectively deal with the problems as they are if the institutions do not reflect the world as it is.”, declared Antonio Guterres during the UN General Assembly in September. States are calling for the expansion of the Security Council, which has brought together the victors of the Second World War since its creation. “France is very favorable to it, in particular to include Germany, Brazil, Japan, a large African country… And to better represent the world as it is”points out Yves Doutriaux.

In 2022, Liechtenstein supported a resolution to force states that have drawn a veto to come and explain themselves to the General Assembly. A UN “future summit” is notably planned for 2024, to address the future of institutions and multilateralism. If the UN no longer seems to some to be the main framework for political negotiations to preserve peace, the fact remains that its agencies, such as the Palestinian Refugee Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, carry out humanitarian work. “outstanding” on the ground and working for peace, recalls Romuald Sciora. To this day, the UN General Assembly also remains the only body in the world where almost all the states of the world are brought together, and where each country, rich or poor, has the same weight.