UN Resolution Without Claws

The vote by the United Nations General Assembly on a resolution preventing the displacement and starvation of civilians in Gaza was not just a fleeting event in the record of UN resolutions; it was a revealing moment of a deeper malfunction in the international system itself. When 139 countries vote in favor of a resolution that explicitly relies on commitments under international humanitarian law and orders issued by the International Court of Justice, and yet the resolution remains without any practical effect on the ground, the question shifts less towards Israel and more towards the international community.

The resolution, as stated, calls upon the occupying power to allow the immediate entry of humanitarian aid, to not obstruct the work of relief agencies, and to ensure the provision of food, water, medicine, and shelter to the residents of the Gaza Strip, reaffirming the essential role of UNRWA.

These are not political demands but a minimum of legal obligations imposed on any occupying power under the Geneva Conventions. Yet they continue to be presented as "moral appeals" rather than binding rules.

In form, the resolution can be seen as a Palestinian diplomatic victory, and a clear message that the Israeli narrative can no longer muster international support as it once did. But in essence, the resolution reproduces the same dilemma: high international legitimacy, and almost nonexistent executive ability.

The General Assembly, unlike the Security Council, lacks enforcement tools, and its decisions remain hostage to "moral pressure," which has proven limited against a military and political apparatus that recognizes only the balance of power. The most dangerous aspect of this scene is not just the ignoring of the resolution, but the normalization of this disregard. When decisions to prevent starvation and displacement become voting items, instead of red lines, international law itself is in a state of erosion.

Gaza today is not only testing the limits of human patience but also the credibility of the international system as a whole: is it still able to protect civilians? Or is it content with documenting its failure in elegantly legal language? Notably, the abstentions and votes against the resolution – despite the clarity of its humanitarian content – reveal that the issue is no longer a legal disagreement but a conscious political choice.

Refusing a resolution that prevents starvation can only be read as an implicit acceptance of its use as a tool of war. Here, silence becomes complicity, and neutrality an ethically non-neutral position.

From a Palestinian perspective, the importance of this resolution cannot be minimized, but it should not be exaggerated either. Its true value lies in its accumulation: as an additional document of condemnation, and as a legal reference that can be utilized in paths of international accountability, rather than as an immediate turning point. The real bet remains on transforming this numerical consensus into a real political and economic cost on the occupying state, which has not yet happened.

In conclusion, the General Assembly's resolution is not the end of the battle but a new indication of its asymmetric nature: a battle between law without power and power without law. In between, a people left to test the meaning of international justice while besieged by hunger and fire.