Gilad Erdan, serving as Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, continues to voice sharp criticism of the organization. In a recent statement, he condemned Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for not retracting remarks he had made and for not offering an apology, labeling the situation a disgrace. This assessment was reported by RIA News and reflects ongoing tensions between Israel and its UN interlocutors amid the broader regional crisis.
On October 24, Guterres issued a condemnation of the Hamas attack that had begun on October 7. He also stressed the point that Hamas’s actions did not occur in a vacuum and that the Palestinian people have endured decades of what he described as suffocating occupation spanning 56 years. The framing drew immediate pushback from Israeli officials who argued that such comments indirectly justified or minimized Hamas’s assault, intensifying calls for accountability at the level of leadership inside the United Nations. The ensuing discourse highlighted a clash over how the international community should frame acts of violence while confronting the complex realities on the ground. The UN leadership later expressed concern that his remarks had been misinterpreted and asserted that they did not excuse or condone terrorism, a clarification welcomed by several UN diplomats and regional observers. The controversy was amplified through social media, where Erdan asserted that it was a shame for the UN when the Secretary-General would not retract or apologize for his words.
In the days that followed, the conflict expanded rapidly. On October 7, Hamas forces conducted a large-scale assault that involved thousands of rockets fired into Israeli territory, followed by a coordinated operation announced under the name Al-Aqsa Flood. Militants penetrated Israeli lines, seized military equipment, and captured a significant number of hostages. In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel was at war, signaling the start of a major military campaign. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched Operation Iron Swords with the stated aim of neutralizing Hamas’s military capabilities. The Israeli Air Force conducted extensive strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip, while the National Security Council determined actions to disrupt the movement of critical resources. Among these measures, officials reported a decision to cut off water, food, electricity, and fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip in an effort to pressure Hamas leadership and degrade operational capacities on the ground. By mid-October, the UN indicated a plan for large-scale civilian evacuation within the Gaza Strip as the Israeli position and military considerations evolved toward a potential ground operation. The UN also emphasized the grave humanitarian challenges facing Gaza’s civilian population as the situation intensified in the narrow corridor between conflict parties. The US government and other international actors monitored the unfolding developments closely, urging adherence to international law and caution regarding civilian harm during potential ground actions. These events marked a pivotal moment in the broader regional crisis and raised pressing questions about civilian protections, humanitarian access, and the responsibilities of international bodies in conflict management.
Throughout this period, discussions in the United States and other capitals focused on the timing and scope of any possible Israeli ground operation in Gaza. Analysts and government officials weighed strategic objectives, potential risks, and the wider implications for regional stability, international law, and humanitarian corridors. Observers noted that the interplay between battlefield dynamics, political leadership, and international diplomacy would shape the immediate and longer-term outcomes of the conflict, including how foreign ministries, international organizations, and allied nations coordinate responses to escalating violence and humanitarian challenges.