The deadly Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 provided the Netanyahu government with the pretext it needed to unleash a vicious war on the land and people of Gaza.

Two years later, the United Nations is still struggling to take any steps that can feasibly bring an end to the catastrophe.

Just a few days ago, the US, for the sixth time, vetoed a Security Council resolution that simply called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages. All 14 other members voted for the resolution.

That the US, a longtime supporter of Israel’s colonial policies in Palestine and beyond, refuses to apply effective pressure on the Israeli Government comes as no surprise. Which raises the question: why has the UN General Assembly also fallen short of any meaningful pressure on Israel?

Yes, the General Assembly meeting in an emergency session in June overwhelmingly adopted a resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional and lasting ceasefire in Gaza. But there was no word as to what would happen in the likely event that Israel ignored the resolution.

Three months later, indiscriminate killing and wanton destruction remain the order of the day. The figures speak for themselves: some 65,000 dead, 164,000 injured, hundreds of thousands at risk of acute malnutrition, close to two million people displaced from their homes and nearly one million children in need of mental health and psycho-social support.

Faced with intransigent and indiscriminate Israeli aggression, the UN General Assembly has condemned and exhorted, but refrained from taking action largely because the major European powers and most of the Arab world have been unwilling to take the initiative.

This is the background to the recent decision of several European and other Western powers to move to recognise Palestinian statehood. First, came the statements of the UK, Portuguese, Canadian and Australian prime ministers and foreign ministers, each presenting the move as part of an international effort for a two-state solution, which they described as the only path to peace.

Each of the four governments was at pains to explain that all hostages would have to be released, and that Hamas would have no control in Gaza or outside it.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, among others, stressed that a Palestinian state would be demilitarised and led by the widely discredited Palestinian Authority. No explanation was given as to why Palestine should be demilitarised, while Israel remains armed to the teeth and in possession of some 90 nuclear warheads.

Then came the high-level summit ahead of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, co-convened by France and Saudi Arabia. All eyes were on President Macron and, to a lesser extent, on the Saudi foreign minister.

In sharp contrast to the prosaic statements delivered by leaders in the Anglosphere, Macron’s speech was in the tradition of carefully crafted French eloquence. “We have gathered here,” he declared, “because the time has come.” He went on, “It falls on us, this responsibility, to do everything in our power to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution.”

He went on at some length to outline a post-war framework for the creation of a Palestinian state. He too emphasised the need for such a state to be led by the Palestinian Authority, and proposed an International Stabilisation Force to be established once a ceasefire came into effect.

But neither Macron nor most of the other speakers at the Summit were able to explain how support for a two-state solution would soon bring the war to an end.

The current policy of enforced starvation, pursued by the Israeli state as part of a larger plan, which combines genocidal intent with territorial expansion, holds little promise of a timely cessation of hostilities, let alone the withdrawal of all Israeli military forces from Gaza.

Other leaders at the Summit were no more forthcoming. Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud offered the routine condemnation of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and repeated attacks on Arab and Muslim countries. But he studiously avoided giving any hint of what Saudi Arabia was prepared to do should “aggression and [their] brutal crimes” continue unchecked.

There was the odd exception. The most notable was the intervention of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. He described the conference as a milestone but “only a beginning”. He called for the State of Palestine to be accepted without delay as a full member of the United Nations. Importantly, he called for “ immediate measures to stop the barbarism and make peace possible".

This was not idle talk on Sanchez’s part. Spain had imposed several sanctions on Israel as far back as October 2023, and had strongly supported intervention by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

In early September, Spain announced a raft of new measures. These included: a legal and permanent ban on the purchase and sale of arms to Israel; a ban on transit through Spanish ports of ships carrying fuel for the Israeli armed forces; a denial of entry into Spanish airspace to all aircraft transporting military equipment to Israel; and a ban on access to Spanish territory by anyone involved in genocide, human rights violations and war crimes in Gaza.

It should now be clear why the General Assembly has been long on rhetoric and short on action. Few member states with the requisite muscle, notably the UK, Germany, France, Egypt and the Gulf states, have been willing to follow the Spanish lead, or even to pronounce the simple word “genocide”.

Apart from the not negligible pressure applied by the US and the Zionist lobby in much of the Western world, a range of financial, industrial and strategic interests in the West, China and even Russia and the Arab world have successfully stymied any concerted national, let alone multilateral, action against the state of Israel.

In this trade plays a significant role. The main importers of Israeli products, other than the US, included China, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Belgium, France and Italy. In 2024, the main exporters to Israel were China (US$19 billion), the United States (US$9.4 billion) and Germany (US$5.6 billion).

In all this, the arms trade looms large. While the US is far and away Israel’s largest weapons supplier (accounting for 65.6% of Israel’s military imports), other significant suppliers include Germany (29.7%) and Italy (4.7%). In 2023, European arms exports to Israel amounted to US$361 million, a 10-fold increase compared with 2022, most of which occurred after the 7 October attacks.

Last year’s General Assembly gave Israel one year to comply with its legal obligations in the Occupied Palestinian territories. That deadline has now expired.

It is now up to the General Assembly to respond. There is much it can do to bring pressure to bear on Israel. A non-binding UNGA resolution could invite member states to pledge to take any number of measures, including imposing economic sanctions and, importantly, a complete arms embargo.

Other options include a Uniting for Peace resolution that provides armed protection to humanitarian aid workers, or naval relief convoys, or establishing a peacekeeping or stabilisation operation. To this end, the UNGA could act in concert with one or more regional organisations or an appropriate multilateral coalition.

Will any of this come to pass in September 2025? Hope springs eternal.

Read part 1 of this three-part series.

Read part 2 of this three-part series.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.