The death toll in Gaza since the latest round of violence began is nearing 200. Given the way Israel has regularly struck at several locations in Gaza since early Monday – hours after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signalled a fourth war with Hamas – it is incomprehensible how Israel can call it self defence in the 21st Century armed. How the UNSC members can fail to produce a consensus resolution is equally amazing.

Encouraged by the lack of agreement at the UNSC to condemn Israeli air raids and by recent accords with some Arab countries, Netanyahu has not only resumed a barrage of air strikes but also expanded the target areas. The military operation against Hamas in Gaza, he has announced, will continue “with full force.” Adding, “we are acting now, for as long as necessary, to restore calm.” Once again, alarm and questions are being raised about the ineffectiveness of the UN as a peace builder and why it is reluctant to enforce an immediate ceasefire and de-escalation of violence.

China has regretted that the US blocked consensus at the UNSC meeting on May 16. The UN secretary general, has issued a strong statement calling on Israel and Palestine to end the “senseless cycle of bloodshed, terror and destruction” and return to negotiations for a two-state solution to the conflict. His words describing “the current hostilities utterly appalling,” perpetuating “the cycles of death, destruction and despair,” however, could not persuade the UNSC to issue an agreed statement. As pointed out by Guterres, “any hopes of co-existence and peace,” have been pushed farther. If unchecked, the conflict, which many analysts have describe as genocide akin to the notorious Nazi acts, would only increase radicalisation and extremism in the region, exposing futility of the widely touted Abraham Accords signed between Israel and the UAE in 2020 as a precursor to future Arab-Israel peacemaking.

The hope that the Arab hostility towards Israel and support for the Palestinian cause, albeit mostly rhetorical, would serve as the new norm or framework for Arab-Israel normalisation has been dealt a near deathblow. Instead, the Arab states stand further divided on the Palestine issue, particularly on retaliatory measures taken by the Hamas. President Vladimir Putin has demanded that Israel stop indiscriminate airstrikes on civilians. Egypt and Qatar have reportedly initiated diplomatic efforts for de-escalation, but to no avail, so far. The UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia find themselves in a difficult situation. Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari has called the ongoing Israeli violence on Palestine a massacre by an “occupation power.” Foreign Minister Qureshi has demanded immediate end to ‘senseless’ Israeli aggression. The Turkish envoy to UN has criticised the Security Council’s failure to issue a statement. The Saudi foreign minister has called on the international community to take “urgent action” to halt the Israeli military operation and to revive peace talks aimed at securing a two-state solution.

The OIC statement, similar to the previous ones issued by the group, only refers to its support for the Palestinians to have their own nation with East Jerusalem as its capital. The OIC has not failed to disappoint those who still think that the Muslim Ummah can unite against Israel in support of the Palestinian cause. For record, a unanimous OIC resolution has demanded complete and immediate end to Israeli attacks. The resolution has also called for international legal action through specialised international courts and various UN agencies to compel Israel, the occupying power, and to pay the necessary material and moral reparations for the damages inflicted on the Palestinian infrastructure as well as public and private properties. Moreover, the OIC has agreed to move urgently and carry out necessary contacts to implement the resolution and convey its contents to all relevant parties. The banality of rhetoric at the OIC meeting could not have been more apparent. The recent normalisation deals between Israel and some nations in the group and concerns about Hamas might have blocked a short but action-packed resolution.

Perhaps, all claims to unity are exaggerated. Significant economic assistance has not been announced for victims. What is missing? Not many people realise that diplomacy has its limits, especially when the peace brokers are not honest. Looking back from a contemporary vantage point, one can detect many similarities in the thought patterns and behaviors of the ancient world and the modern world represented and controlled by veto wielding powers. Though they construct their own ideas of shared values like human rights they rarely ignore material factors. The silence of President Joe Biden’s administration and its blind adherence to his predecessors’ policy with regard to Palestine is understandable in the light of the above argument. As long as the US bipartisan support remains solid for Israel, Biden may not see “the occupation itself — and what has flowed from it.” The victim is being projected as the aggressor and the criminal as the victim.

Morality does not count for much in international relations. There are always some who are more equal than others. It is up to the most powerful to undo injustice. Currently, it has few incentives and there is hardly any pressure to play an honest broker, offering any worthwhile concessions to the weaker party - the Palestinians. The wider geopolitical and economic concerns of the United States will continue to undermine peace in the Middle East. The tragedy is that many OIC members are willing US allies in this. There is no real hope for a two state solution as long as the US keeps using its veto and prefers to mediate the conflict outside the UN system.

The writer is a former ambassador and advisor to CRSS, and

Islamabad-based think tank.   

He can be reached at mian.sana@gmail.com