UN resolutions on Gaza and the Golan: Global legitimacy under pressure, but no path to real peace

The two recent United Nations resolutions one calling for an end to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and another reaffirming Syria’s sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights have been celebrated in parts of the international community as signs of a shifting global conscience. Yet what they truly reveal is something deeper: international institutions are responding to unprecedented global public pressure, not to a strategic shift among major powers. These resolutions emerged at a moment when the UN’s own legitimacy has become entangled with its willingness to acknowledge, at least symbolically, the realities of occupation, displacement and structural violence. For the UN, doing nothing had become more damaging than doing something symbolic.

The voting patterns themselves illustrate this transformation. A large majority of states supported the resolution demanding Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 line in the Golan Heights, as recorded in the UN’s official documents (UNGA record). Similar margins were seen in the resolutions addressing Gaza’s humanitarian collapse. News agencies such as Anadolu reported wide international consensus and detailed the vote counts that underscored Israel’s growing diplomatic isolation (Anadolu report). 

But this surge of diplomatic activity at the UN does not mean the world is on the brink of a meaningful peace process. These resolutions, while morally and politically significant, do not reflect a structural change in the international balance of power. They are, instead, the product of global public mobilization from campus protests to mass demonstrations across Western capitals that made silence untenable for international institutions. The UN acted because the cost of inaction to its legitimacy had become too high.

Yet none of this addresses the core reality that defines the Palestine question: Israel is not one party in a symmetrical conflict. It is an occupying power. Palestinians are not combatants in a conventional war; they are an indigenous population subjected to military rule, displacement and systematic denial of political rights. As long as this asymmetry remains intact, resolutions no matter how strongly worded cannot produce durable change.

READ: Damascus says the Golan is Syrian land and must be fully restored

Still, the psychological and political impact of these resolutions should not be underestimated. They affirm what millions worldwide have long asserted: that Israel’s conduct in Gaza constitutes grave violations of international law, and that the continued occupation from the West Bank to East Jerusalem to the Golan Heights is fundamentally incompatible with the norms of a rules-based order. For Palestinians, this moment offers rare international acknowledgment of their lived reality. For Israel, it marks the gradual erosion of global legitimacy, a process that historically precedes deeper political consequences.

The resolution concerning the Golan Heights further underscores this point. Its reaffirmation of Syrian sovereignty is consistent with decades of international legal consensus, as echoed by independent Syrian and regional outlets such as Enab Baladi, which reported on the diplomatic implications of the vote (Enab Baladi). Yet the resolution alters nothing on the ground. Israel’s military control remains entrenched, and the strategic importance of the Golan for Israeli security doctrine ensures that symbolic recognition alone will not shift its stance. The United States, which under previous administrations even recognized Israel’s annexation, has not meaningfully reversed its position. Thus the legal clarity of the resolution does not translate into political enforceability.

The same is true for Gaza. While global consensus has shifted dramatically, especially as documented in regional reports like those from Palinfo that track both diplomatic positions and humanitarian concerns (Palinfo), the mechanisms capable of altering Israel’s behavior remain absent. Israel has a long history of ignoring UN resolutions, and its military operations have rarely been constrained by international opinion. The United States continues to serve as a diplomatic shield, ensuring that Israel faces no binding consequences for its actions.

This is why these resolutions, despite their symbolic power, cannot deliver peace. Peace cannot emerge from acknowledgments alone; it must be built on dismantling the structures that produce violence. There is a fundamental difference between crisis management a paradigm the international community is comfortable with and conflict resolution, which requires confronting political realities that many states prefer to avoid. The current international response once again reflects crisis management: temporary ceasefire proposals, humanitarian mechanisms, and discussions of international monitoring. None of these address the root cause, which is a regime of occupation that generates systematic instability.

READ: Israeli prime minister says he expects Syria ‘to establish demilitarized buffer zone up to Golan’

Yet these resolutions matter because they signal a shift in global discourse. They expose the widening gap between public opinion and state policy, particularly in Western democracies where governments remain cautious even as their populations increasingly oppose the occupation. They also embolden actors civil society groups, international legal institutions, and states outside the Western alliance to challenge the normalization of occupation in new ways.

For the Palestinian resistance, these shifts carry strategic implications. While resolutions do not halt military campaigns, they reshape the international environment in which political struggles unfold. They delegitimize the occupation, generate diplomatic costs, and influence long-term political calculations. Resistance movements understand that legitimacy is a battlefield of its own; and in this arena, the international tide is moving, however slowly, in their favor.

But the structural reality remains: as long as the occupation persists, political resistance will persist. The Golan Heights will not be returned through symbolic gestures, and Gaza will not achieve dignity or security through temporary humanitarian provisions. Justice not crisis management is the prerequisite for peace.

These resolutions, then, are not solutions; they are indicators. They show where global opinion is moving, where legitimacy is eroding, and where the foundations of the current status quo are cracking. Symbolism does not liberate territory, but it reshapes the terrain on which the struggle for liberation unfolds. And in the long arc of political change, such shifts can prove decisive.

OPINION: Why the new UN resolution on Gaza signals a US-led trusteeship, not a path to peace

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.