Photo by Dawn Bernardo ‘25.
Students on a Weissman Center trip last month gathered in front of the U.N. on Saturday, Oct.. 7.
By Liliana Stinson ’27
Contributing Writer
Content warning: This article discusses mass death and state-sanctioned violence.
For those who, like myself, are interested in geopolitics, an opportunity to walk through the Headquarters of the United Nations is remarkable in and of itself. Therefore, as someone who has researched the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, witnessing the U.N. General Assembly debate a call for a ceasefire in Gaza, even for just a few seconds, is a moment I’ll never forget.
Twenty long days after the attacks of Oct. 7, the General Assembly made its first formal response to the ongoing violence in Israel and Gaza. After two days of discussion and debate, the General Assembly accepted a resolution introduced by Jordan that called for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce” in a final vote of 121 to 14, with 44 abstentions.
This consequential vote happened to correspond with the Weissman Center’s Lynk on the Road Careers in Public Policy trip to the U.N. on Oct. 27. A friend and I only realized how significant the timing of our visit was when we were about an hour away from the U.N. Headquarters.
Though we were uncertain of whether or not we’d get anywhere close to the General Assembly, we recognized just how exceptional it was that we could say we were there that day.
As our tour came to a close, the tour guide told us we only had one stop left: the General Assembly Hall. Since there was a debate occurring, we couldn’t go into the parts of the Assembly that were in use, but we were led to a section that overlooked the entire hall.
As Elle Rood ’27 noted, “It was … very impactful to be on a balcony in the room of the General Assembly while they were holding discussions on a resolution to call for a ceasefire … it was certainly a very historic day to be at the U.N.”
At about 4 p.m. later that day, the results of the vote were finalized: The Jordanian resolution titled “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” was accepted by well over a two-thirds majority, as abstentions are not counted as votes.
Crucially, this resolution expresses “grave concern at the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,” condemns “all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians” and “demands that all parties immediately and fully comply with their obligations under international law.” It staunchly focuses on the protection of civilians, repeatedly expressing again and again the necessity for humanitarian aid in the area.
Markedly, the resolution is absent of the word “hostage” or language condemning the attacks of Hamas. The United States and Canada spoke out harshly against such “omissions of evil” and attempted to add a condemnation of the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas to the resolution via a Canadian–sponsored amendment. However, this amendment failed to receive a two-thirds majority, and accordingly, the United States voted against the resolution while Canada abstained.
This fierce declaration for a ceasefire is significant. As Professor and Chair of the Mount Holyoke College International Relations Department, Sohail Hashmi explained, “If you value the will of the majority of our … world community, then the General Assembly is the closest thing we have now to a voice of humanity at the global level.”
This “voice of humanity” is especially important as the number of reported casualties continues to rise, and the conditions in Gaza worsen into what U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres has called “a humanitarian catastrophe … unfolding in front of our eyes.”
As of Nov. 5, estimates provided by AP News — sourced from officials in both Gaza and Israel, as well as international observers — place Palestinian deaths at over 9,800 and Israeli deaths at 1,400, as well as noting over 27,000 injured Gazans and 5,400 injured Israelis. Notably, the vast majority of these casualties — both Israeli and Palestinian — are civilians who “have borne the brunt of the current fighting from the outset,” per an Oct. 31 letter from Secretary-General Guterres.
Despite the General Assembly’s vehement condemnation of any continued violence, this resolution is ultimately not legally binding — no resolution of the General Assembly is. In fact, Israel has staunchly rejected the resolution. After the vote, the Ambassador of Israel to the U.N., Gilad Erdan, stated that Oct. 27 was “a day that will go down in infamy.”
That same day, Israel both intensified its airstrikes and expanded its ground activity in Gaza during an internet blackout that Israel may or may not have caused.
Since then, Israel has further intensified its ground operations, sent troops and tanks to close in on the densely populated Gaza City, destroyed the residential area containing the largest refugee camp in Gaza and flattened another residential block nearby.
Despite this display of violence, the Israeli government has continued to defend its actions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a news conference on Oct. 30 that “we’re going out of our way to prevent civilian casualties,” citing warnings telling Gazans to move south. Ultimately, as the Ambassador of Israel declared to the U.N., Israel’s goal is to “completely eradicate Hamas’ capabilities, and we will use every means at our disposal to accomplish this.”
As it becomes increasingly obvious that Israel has no plans to heed the call for a ceasefire, the symbolic power of the General Assembly falls incredibly short.
In a powerful statement, the former Director of the New York Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, called out the ineffectiveness of U.N. measures in his Oct. 28 resignation letter, saying, “Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it.”
Much of this powerlessness comes from the fact that the U.N. Security Council — which can issue legally binding resolutions — has continually been unable to address the crisis. Since Oct. 7, there have been four failed resolutions on the situation — each failing due to a veto from at least one of the Council’s five permanent members.
Particularly, conflict has emerged between Russia and China, which have both called for a ceasefire, and the United States, which has advocated for “humanitarian pauses.” The United States resolution was vetoed by China and Russia, while the Russian resolution would have been vetoed by the United States and United Kingdom had it received 9 out of 15 votes.
Despite fundamental disagreements, in the wake of the U.N. General Assembly resolution, the Security Council has renewed its negotiating efforts. Significantly, 11 of the 15 Security Council members voted in favor of the General Assembly’s resolution for a ceasefire, with three abstaining and one voting against — that one vote being the United States.
While the United States moves to urge the Israeli government to allow brief humanitarian pauses, it remains staunchly against a ceasefire, as the Biden Administration believes these pauses would ultimately benefit Hamas combatants by allowing them respite from Israeli bombardment.
Given this American opposition, it is unlikely that the Security Council will be able to issue a resolution in support of a ceasefire. As Hashmi noted, “The only way there’s ever been progress in any past peace movements is by strong international pressure — and more than anything else, pressure [from] the United States of America.” Yet, he continued, “the U.S. has consistently wielded veto power to shield Israel from just about [any] criticism … So it’s not at all unexpected.”
He added that “it’s not necessarily irrational either, because the country that votes the most with the U.S. in the entire U.N. is the state of Israel … there’s a strong … nexus between these two countries.” Given this, Hashmi explained that a consensus from the Security Council would take “a revolution in … American foreign policy making.”
On Oct. 30, the Security Council heard briefings on the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza from key U.N. humanitarian agencies, as well as pleas for support from both the Permanent Representative of Israel and the Permanent Observer of Palestine. It is yet to be seen if the Security Council will be able to unite on the issue.