Russia asserts that the United Nations Security Council should take decisive steps toward a sustainable solution in the Middle East. This was outlined in a statement by Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, released on the foreign policy department’s website. The message reflects Moscow’s belief that international governance and diplomacy must guide any response to the Gaza crisis, and it places weight on the Security Council as the forum where a coordinated course of action can be forged among major powers and regional stakeholders alike.
The report notes a surprising element: the decision did not compel Israel to halt hostilities or withdraw troops from Gaza up front. Instead, it suggests that the court’s preliminary considerations focus on the profound humanitarian toll—the scale of suffering among Gaza’s civilian population—potentially raising questions about genocide under international law. This framing underscores the gravity of civilian harm and the international community’s obligation to examine legal remedies when civilians are exposed to mass violence.
Zakharova remarked that the development reinforces Russia’s view: violence must stop immediately, and diplomacy must take the lead. Her comments emphasize that Russia seeks a path grounded in widely recognized norms of international law and shared moral responsibility, aiming to reduce casualties while preserving prospects for a negotiated settlement.
The spokesperson added that Moscow continues to rely on the UN Security Council to catalyze appropriate measures and to steer diplomatic efforts back onto a framework compatible with international law. The core aim is to move from rhetoric to concrete steps that can, with the broad support of the international community, address the root causes of the current crisis and safeguard civilian lives.
Separately, the International Court of Justice has been examining South Africa’s genocide-related claims against Israel in relation to the Gaza situation. Pretoria has called for an immediate halt to ground operations in the area and for measures to prevent genocide, while Israel has rejected the genocide allegations and argues that its actions are aimed at defense and security for its own population. Israel’s permanent representative to the UN has criticized the UN system as biased in favor of Hamas, urging the organization to address the violence with impartial scrutiny and accountability.
On January 26, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki welcomed the ICJ’s decision that Israel should take all necessary steps to prevent genocide in Gaza, signaling a rare moment of alignment with the court’s genocide concerns. The development has prompted broader international conversation about the responsibilities of states under the Genocide Convention and the role of international judicial bodies in crisis scenarios. The framing of the ICJ’s responsibilities continues to influence diplomatic calculations and regional responses across the Middle East and beyond.
Previous discussions in France also engaged with South Africa’s challenge to Israel’s actions at the UN tribunal, highlighting the wide spectrum of international opinion and the varying interpretations of legality, sovereignty, and humanitarian protection in modern conflicts. The ongoing legal and diplomatic debates illustrate how states leverage international mechanisms to pressure for restraint, accountability, and, ideally, a path toward peace that minimizes civilian harm and addresses long-standing grievances in the region.