The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Wednesday (June 4) failed to pass a resolution calling for “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza”, after a veto by the United States, with all other members voting in favour.
The death toll in Gaza has reached almost 55,000 as Israel has continued its renewed ground offensive, launched on May 17, in the Palestinian enclave. Also, the distribution of humanitarian aid, by a US- and Israel-backed NGO, in the Strip has been marred with chaos, confusion, and numerous shooting deaths.
How have past international efforts to end Israel’s war in Gaza fared? How have international views on Gaza changed over time? What explains Israel’s actions?
How have past international efforts to end Israel’s war in Gaza fared?
Between October 2023 (when the war began) and June 2025, international efforts to end Israel’s war in Gaza focused on three principal fronts – a ceasefire, rebuilding Gaza, and the delivery of humanitarian aid. The objectives of diverse stakeholders across these efforts have all effectively failed.
Efforts towards a ceasefire have been made both within and outside of the UN framework. At least seven UNSC Resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza have failed, with Russia and China vetoing two, and the US vetoing five.
The UNSC’s March 2024 resolution calling for a ceasefire also failed due to Israeli rejections, despite Hamas acceptance. Hamas agreed to release hostages in exchange for Israel releasing Palestinian prisoners. Israel called the UN “shameless”, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled a then-scheduled trip to the Biden White House.
The Trump White House, which prefers to work outside the UN framework, focused on implementing a three-phased ceasefire by January 2025. This too broke down by March, with Phase I only partially complete and Israel violating the agreement to resume operations in Gaza.
Story continues below this ad
Amidst ceasefire efforts, both the US and Arab stakeholders have also proposed long-term visions for rebuilding Gaza. For instance, President Donald Trump proposed a plan to forcefully displace Palestinians from Gaza to build a “riviera”. The Arab League endorsed an Egyptian initiative to rebuild Gaza for Palestinians.
While Israel and the US maintain maximalist positions, calling for a complete elimination of Hamas from Gaza, Arab states sidestep the long-term question, restricting their efforts to mediating a ceasefire.
The ‘Hamas question’ has also become complicated, given its continued potency in Gaza, despite significant losses to Israeli action. Even before the October 2023 attack, the international community struggled to reconcile its acceptance of Hamas’ position in Palestine as a legitimate actor with the condemnation of its use of terrorism.
The effort to ensure humanitarian aid to Gaza’s 2.1 million civilians — 100% of whom are on the brink of starvation according to the UN — has fallen disastrously short. Israel’s complete rejection of the UN as a legitimate avenue has disabled aid delivery, especially since March.
Story continues below this ad
Israel banned the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA) last October, and both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli settlers actively prevented most aid trucks from reaching designated destinations in Gaza, citing security risks vis-à-vis Hamas.
Even when Israel did allow limited aid delivery in May, the UN deemed it insufficient for the scale of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. Rather, Israel prefers aid delivery with a heavily militarised approach, through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which the UN Secretary General has deemed incompatible with international law.
What has changed?
First, the Trump administration’s policy in the broader Middle East has been detrimental to Israel’s stated interests.
In the last three months, Washington has engaged with and legitimised Syria’s Ahmed Al-Sharaa (who Israel opposes) and concluded a ceasefire with the Houthis in exchange for a cessation of attacks on international shipping (attacks on Israel and Israel-linked shipping have continued).
Story continues below this ad
The US also circumvented Israel entirely to negotiate directly with Hamas (in Qatar) for the release of an Israeli American hostage in May.
The Trump administration has continued negotiations with Iran to potentially reach a nuclear deal — another policy anathema to Israel.
Second, the critical position of Arab states (including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco which recognised Israel with the signing of the 2020 Abraham Accords) has hardened further as Israel expands its war. Israel also drew the ire of Arab states after it ‘banned’ a five-country Arab delegation (including Saudi Arabia and UAE) from visiting the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank in early June.
Internationally, the Arab effort has focused on garnering greater recognition for the Palestinian state. Saudi Arabia, along with France, is set to jointly host a UN conference on the two-state solution later this month.
Story continues below this ad
Third, European states have grown increasingly critical of Israel, primarily due to Israel’s blocking of aid delivery. In May, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom issued a rare and categorical rebuke of Israel’s actions and committed to “recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to achieving a two-state solution”.
Both Israel and the US have warned European states against recognising Palestine, even as Spain, Norway, and Ireland formally recognised the State of Palestine on May 28.
The evolution of the United Kingdom’s position is a case in point. Compared to the UNSC’s failed October 2023 resolution calling for a ceasefire, where the UK abstained, it now consistently votes in favour of such resolutions even without condemnations of Hamas. Explaining its June 2025 vote in favour, the UK deemed Israel’s new operation “unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive”.
What explains Israel’s actions?
The growing international (non-American) pressure has led Israel to expand and intensify its operations in Gaza (and settlement activity in the West Bank), rather than disabling them.
Story continues below this ad
For instance, a week prior to Trump’s Middle East tour in May, the Israeli cabinet officially approved a plan to “capture” Gaza and hold territory through an expanded operation (Op Gideon’s Chariot). This operation in turn has cemented the failure of international efforts towards a ceasefire and aid delivery, and has been the key trigger for adverse international reactions towards Israel, and greater recognition of Palestinian sovereignty.
Note that while US policy towards the Middle East has pushed against Israel’s interests, Washington has compensated by backing Israeli actions in Palestine through continuing diplomatic and military support. “Trump restrains Netanyahu’s regional ambitions but gives him a free hand with the Palestinians,” Aluff Benn, the Editor in Chief of Israel’s Haaretz newspaper recently said. Effectively, this has emboldened Netanyahu to push for Israel’s indefinite occupation of Gaza.
For Netanyahu, occupying Gaza is not a new objective to push back against mounting international pressure, but is rather a historic endeavour. In 2005, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew Israel’s illegal settlements from the Strip, Netanyahu had resigned from Sharon’s government to oppose the move.
That Israel has now been further emboldened was evident in Netanyahu declaring on Thursday (June 5) that Israel was arming a number of criminal gangs in Gaza to fight Hamas. This was the first such confirmation from the Israeli government and a tactic similar to Netanyahu’s preference of tacitly “partnering” with Hamas in past decades to undercut the possibility of a unified Palestinian leadership.
Story continues below this ad
As the IDF’s recent call for over 400,000 reservists to active duty shows, Israel is gearing up towards a large-scale occupation of Gaza. For the current Israeli Prime Minister, the overt American support and the unwillingness of Arab and European states to sanction Israel or undertake substantial punitive measures are sufficient to press forward with occupation, and further disable the possibility of a Palestinian state.
As is a recurring theme in Palestine, global support for Palestinian statehood occurs alongside Israel’s physical erosion of its possibility.