Once again, the United Nations Security Council has revealed its true nature: a forum of politics and prejudice, not a guardian of justice.

This week’s vote on a Gaza ceasefire saw the United States exercise its veto, defending Israel’s right to protect its citizens. The majority of the Council, however, overwhelmingly supported a ceasefire, portraying Israel as the aggressor rather than the nation under siege. No country can be expected to endure relentless rocket attacks on its civilians without the right to respond—and Israel is no exception.

Washington’s veto was not only predictable; it was necessary. Israel faces constant threats from armed groups in Gaza who deliberately target civilians. Any resolution demanding an immediate halt to hostilities, without addressing the source of these attacks, would have been one-sided and dangerous. By upholding Israel’s right to self-defense, the United States reaffirmed a principle too often ignored: no sovereign nation should be forced to forgo protecting its citizens in the face of terror.

Yet bias against Israel is nothing new. Historically, Israel has been disproportionately scrutinized in the UN. Between 1972 and 2022, Israel was the target of more General Assembly resolutions than any other nation, despite far graver humanitarian crises elsewhere.

In 1975, the UN infamously equated Zionism with racism—a measure that persisted for sixteen years. UNESCO resolutions have repeatedly denied the Jewish connection to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and Western Wall, framing Israel’s historical claims as invalid. Even within the Human Rights Council, Agenda Item 7 ensures Israel is discussed at every session, while atrocities in Syria, Yemen, or Myanmar go largely unmentioned.

During past Gaza conflicts, the Council and the Human Rights Council have focused disproportionately on Israel’s military actions while downplaying attacks by Hamas and other militant groups. The Goldstone Report following Operation Cast Lead in 2008–2009 illustrates this pattern: civilian casualties were highlighted, but the context of ongoing rocket fire into Israeli towns was largely ignored. These examples reveal a disturbing trend—an international double standard, sometimes tinged with anti-Semitism, that treats Israel uniquely harshly.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is tragic and must be addressed. Civilians suffer, infrastructure is destroyed, and lives are lost. But concern for Gaza’s population should not come at the cost of denying Israel the right to defend itself. Israel’s operations are defensive, aimed at preventing further attacks on its citizens. Demanding restraint from a nation under assault is to punish the victims while letting the aggressors operate with impunity—a dangerous precedent.

The Security Council’s structural flaws exacerbate the problem. With five permanent members wielding veto power, political and ideological biases frequently dictate outcomes. Countries with historical or political grievances against Israel often sponsor resolutions condemning its actions while ignoring worse abuses elsewhere. In this context, the US veto served as a moral counterweight, ensuring Israel’s security was not sacrificed to political calculation or prejudice.

History will judge the UN by the standards it upholds. Protecting human life is essential, but so is respecting the right of a nation to defend itself. Israel’s right to act in self-defense is non-negotiable. The Gaza conflict is a test of international resolve: the Council must act impartially, balancing humanitarian concern with Israel’s security needs, or risk perpetuating a cycle of biased condemnation.

For Israel, defending its citizens is an obligation, not a choice. For the Security Council, the choice is clear: uphold principles fairly—or allow double standards and historical prejudice to dictate international justice.

Main Image: By Wikiweeki – Own work, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=142048123