Controversy has stricken the United Nations in recent weeks, following intense reaction to their handling of the ongoing conflict in Israel. Israel’s retaliation to the Hamas terrorist attack earlier this month has so far cost the lives of around 8,000 Palestinians, according to local health authorities.

In light of this, the UN passed a resolution last Friday which called for the “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities.” The resolution was passed with 120 votes for, 14 against and 45 abstentions. 

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has continuously rejected calls for a ceasefire insisting that Israel will “reach victory” and that “there is a time for peace and a time for war. This is a time for war.”

Many figures in British politics have echoed this sentiment. Labour Party Leader, Keir Starmer, has now joined Prime Minister Sunak in stating that a ceasefire “is not the correct position now”, suggesting that a ceasefire would only benefit Hamas.

This resolution came after the controversial remarks of António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations. Mr. Guterres would attempt to outline that the attacks of October 7th ‘did not happen in a vacuum’, and that it was important to note that “The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.” Some Israeli government officials have suggested that in this statement Guterres attempts to justify Hamas’ attack on Israel earlier this month, an attack which left 1,400 dead in Israel, according to Al Jazeera.

Such officials include the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan. Mr. Erdan would accuse Guterres of “justifying terrorism” and would go on to call for his resignation. Mr. Guterres has since claimed that such accusations are ‘misinterpretations’ of his statement last week. A former United Nations peacekeeper, who will remain anonymous, told me that the UN is ‘finished’ and in its current state “it will be unable to survive.” They would use the “disturbing bias” exhibited by the UN rhetoric in recent weeks as evidence for its ‘decline’. He would say he was “saddened by the current state of the UN” because “it no longer provides a launchpad for global justice, which was a founding principle of the organisation.”