Palestine’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, voiced a clear call for urgent action at the Security Council. He argued that immediate steps are needed to halt the bloodshed in Gaza and urged the council to move decisively toward a ceasefire. The diplomat underscored that the UN Security Council has a responsibility to act now to prevent further civilian suffering and to create space for negotiations that reflect the political dimensions of the conflict. This perspective aligns with a longstanding position that international diplomacy must prioritize saving lives and stabilizing a volatile region, rather than allowing the fighting to continue unchecked. The dialogue emphasized that a ceasefire is not merely a pause in hostilities but a critical foundation for renewed political diplomacy and humanitarian access, which many observers argue is essential for any lasting settlement. In presenting this view, Mansour reiterated that the path to peace must be anchored in international norms and the principle of coexistence, with both Palestinian and Israeli communities living side by side in security and dignity under a framework of law and mutual recognition. The aim, he suggested, is to shift the focus from military confrontation to political engagement that addresses core grievances and secures a durable peace in line with universal standards — a goal he described as achievable if the parties commit to measured, principled steps toward de-escalation and dialogue. — TASS
Gilad Erdan, Israel’s permanent representative to the UN, expressed a contrasting but equally pointed view about how the conflict could come to an end. He asserted that a definitive resolution would be possible if the armed factions within Hamas ceased all violence, released every hostage, and surrendered those capabilities that allow the group to continue waging war. Erdan framed the scenario as a hinge point: if Hamas were to lay down weapons and demonstrate a genuine commitment to abandoning hostilities, the cycle of conflict could be halted, potentially paving the way for broader regional considerations. He also emphasized the humanitarian and security implications of ongoing fighting, arguing that a decisive change in Hamas’s posture would significantly alter the strategic calculus in Jerusalem and beyond. The remark reflects a longstanding Israeli position that a durable peace must emerge from a credible end to violence and a clear commitment to accountability and security assurances for Israel. — TASS
Michael McCaul, a senior U.S. policymaker, commented on the legislative direction in Washington regarding the evolving crisis. He noted that the House of Representatives was preparing a measure to authorize the use of military force should the fighting between Israel and Hamas expand into a broader confrontation, potentially drawing in regional actors such as Iran. The potential bill signals a willingness in Congress to prepare for a range of worst-case scenarios, including broader military engagement if diplomacy fails and escalation risk rises. McCaul stressed that the United States would evaluate options within a framework that prioritizes the safety of civilians, the stability of the region, and the preservation of strategic interests. The discussion underscores how the U.S. congressional debate currently interlocks with the broader international security landscape, highlighting the complexity of balancing immediate humanitarian needs with longer-term strategic deterrence and alliance commitments. — TASS
Yoav Galant, the Israeli Defense Minister, asserted that the response to the Gaza Strip has been unprecedented and would be remembered for decades. He characterized the measures taken as a decisive and historically significant action aimed at restoring security and preventing further attacks. The minister’s remarks reflect a determination to sustain pressure on hostile armed groups while maintaining a clear objective of protecting Israeli civilians and rebuilding deterrence in a volatile security environment. The rhetoric points to a belief that the current approach, though heavy, could deter future aggressions and ultimately support a political process that preserves Israel’s security interests. Critics, however, warn about the humanitarian toll and the risk of entrenching cycles of violence, stressing the need for urgent steps to protect civilians and open channels for negotiation. — TASS