Table of Contents
Q.6: Palestine Conflict Is a Long-Standing One on the United Nations Table. Discuss Its Recent Escalation Since October 2023 and Critically Assess the Big Powers’ Reaction to It. (20 Marks)
Introduction
The Palestine issue remains one of the oldest unresolved conflicts on the agenda of the United Nations. Rooted in competing claims over land, identity, sovereignty, and self-determination, the conflict has repeatedly destabilized the Middle East and challenged international diplomacy. The latest and most severe escalation began on 7 October 2023, when Hamas launched a large-scale attack on Israel, triggering an extensive Israeli military response in Gaza. The ensuing conflict produced a devastating humanitarian crisis, revived debates on international law, and exposed deep divisions among major world powers regarding the handling of the crisis.
Escalation of the Conflict Since October 2023
Hamas Attack on Israel
On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on southern Israel, killing more than 1,200 people and taking over 250 hostages. The attack shocked Israel and the international community and marked one of the deadliest days in Israel’s history.
Israeli Military Response
In response, Israel launched a large-scale military campaign aimed at dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities. The operation involved extensive air strikes, ground offensives, and blockades across Gaza. The conflict rapidly evolved into one of the most destructive episodes in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza
The war resulted in massive civilian casualties, widespread displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and severe shortages of food, water, medicine, and fuel. International organizations repeatedly warned of a humanitarian catastrophe. The United Nations reported extensive damage to hospitals, schools, and civilian facilities, while humanitarian access remained a major challenge.
International Legal and Diplomatic Dimensions
The conflict also moved into international legal forums. Cases and investigations were pursued before international institutions, while debates intensified regarding alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both Hamas and Israel. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other UN bodies became increasingly involved in assessing legal and humanitarian issues arising from the war.
Reaction of Major Powers
United States
The United States strongly supported Israel’s right to self-defense following the Hamas attack. The Biden administration provided diplomatic, military, and political support to Israel while simultaneously urging measures to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance.
However, Washington faced criticism from many countries and human rights organizations for not exerting sufficient pressure on Israel to halt military operations. Critics argued that American support weakened international efforts for an immediate ceasefire. Supporters, on the other hand, maintained that Israel had the legitimate right to respond to terrorism and secure the release of hostages.
China
China adopted a more balanced diplomatic position and consistently called for an immediate ceasefire, humanitarian assistance, and a political settlement based on the two-state solution.
Beijing criticized the humanitarian consequences of the war and sought to portray itself as a supporter of international law and multilateral diplomacy. China’s stance also reflected its broader ambition to increase diplomatic influence in the Middle East.
Russia
Russia condemned violence against civilians but also criticized Western support for Israel. Moscow advocated ceasefire efforts and attempted to position itself as a mediator in the conflict.
Russia’s response was partly influenced by its broader rivalry with the United States and its desire to strengthen ties with Arab and Muslim countries. Nevertheless, Russia’s own international credibility on humanitarian issues remained contested due to its actions in other conflict zones.
European Union
The European response was not entirely unified. While many European countries condemned the Hamas attack and supported Israel’s security concerns, increasing civilian casualties in Gaza generated growing criticism of Israeli military actions.
Several European governments called for humanitarian pauses, greater aid access, and renewed efforts toward a two-state solution. Over time, public opinion in many European countries became increasingly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Muslim World
Most Muslim-majority countries strongly condemned Israeli military operations and demanded an immediate ceasefire. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Iran, Pakistan, and others highlighted Palestinian rights and called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Despite strong political rhetoric and diplomatic initiatives, the Muslim world remained divided in its practical approach and was unable to formulate a unified strategy capable of significantly altering the course of the conflict.
Critical Assessment of Big Powers’ Reactions
Selective Application of International Law
One of the most significant criticisms concerns the selective application of international law. Many observers argue that major powers often interpret international legal principles according to strategic interests rather than universal standards.
This perception has weakened confidence in international institutions and the rules-based international order.
Geopolitical Interests Over Humanitarian Concerns
The responses of major powers frequently reflected geopolitical calculations rather than purely humanitarian considerations. Strategic alliances, regional influence, security partnerships, and great-power competition often shaped policy decisions.
Consequently, humanitarian concerns sometimes appeared secondary to broader geopolitical objectives.
Weakness of the United Nations System
The conflict exposed limitations within the United Nations system, particularly regarding enforcement mechanisms. Although numerous resolutions, debates, and legal proceedings occurred, the UN struggled to stop the violence or ensure full compliance with international humanitarian law.
Growing Global Polarization
The war intensified divisions between Western and non-Western powers. While the United States largely aligned with Israel, countries such as China and Russia emphasized ceasefire diplomacy and criticism of Israeli military actions.
This polarization complicated efforts to build a unified international response.
Way Forward
A durable resolution requires:
- Immediate and sustained ceasefire arrangements.
- Protection of civilians in accordance with international humanitarian law.
- Unrestricted humanitarian access.
- Release of hostages.
- Revival of meaningful peace negotiations.
- Implementation of a viable two-state solution based on relevant UN resolutions.
Without addressing the underlying political causes of the conflict, periodic escalations are likely to continue.
Conclusion
The October 2023 escalation transformed the Palestine conflict into one of the most devastating crises of the twenty-first century. Triggered by the Hamas attack and followed by Israel’s extensive military campaign in Gaza, the conflict produced enormous human suffering and reignited global debates on international law, human rights, and geopolitical power politics. The reactions of major powers revealed significant divisions, with strategic interests often shaping policy responses. While the United States prioritized Israel’s security, China and Russia emphasized ceasefire diplomacy, and Europe struggled to maintain a unified position. Ultimately, the crisis demonstrated that lasting peace cannot be achieved through military means alone. A just and sustainable resolution requires renewed international commitment to diplomacy, humanitarian principles, and the realization of Palestinian self-determination alongside Israel’s legitimate security concerns.