Dmitry Polyansky, serving as the Deputy Head of Russia’s Permanent Representation to the United Nations, criticized Brazil’s draft resolution on Israel as lacking balance in a public update circulated through the ministry’s channels. The statement noted on the delegation’s website and its Telegram channel emphasized that the text does not equally address all sides of the conflict, raising questions about its impartiality and its potential to influence ongoing diplomacy at the UN. The message suggested that the draft could be interpreted as leaning toward one narrative and missed opportunities to invite constructive engagement from multiple stakeholders in search of a sustainable path forward.
In his assessment, Polyansky highlighted two key concerns. First, he pointed to language that seems to condemn Hamas without equally naming or condemning the Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza, arguing that such wording risks turning the document into a political instrument rather than a sober call for de-escalation. Second, he criticized the absence of a clear demand for an immediate ceasefire, arguing that a balance of accountability and humanitarian consideration should be reflected in any resolution to avoid further casualties and stretches of violence. According to the deputy head, these gaps could render the proposal unstable as a framework for international action, potentially undermining confidence in UN processes aimed at ending hostilities and protecting civilians on both sides.
Earlier, the United Nations Security Council did not approve draft language from the Russian Federation that urged a halt to fighting in the Gaza Strip and called for conditions that would enable a ceasefire. The rejection underscored the heightened sensitivity surrounding proposals that attempt to set parameters for offensive actions, humanitarian corridors, and the protection of non-combatants. The debate reflected a broader disagreement among member states about the most effective sequence and mechanisms for reducing tension, ensuring aid access, and paving the way for negotiations that can lead to a durable ceasefire and a return to political dialogue.
On 7 October, Hamas launched a large-scale operation, firing thousands of rockets toward targets inside Israel and declaring the initiation of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Militants breached several facilities and engaged in clashes across multiple fronts, seizing military equipment and taking captives. In response, Israeli authorities declared a state of war and mobilized the defense establishment to confront the immediate threat. The scale and pace of the attacks prompted discussions about the security challenges facing Israel and the broader region, as well as the risks of spillover into neighboring countries and flashpoints that could destabilize already fragile political arrangements in the area.
The Israeli Defense Forces announced a major operation named Iron Swords, with explicit objectives centered on dismantling the Hamas network and restoring security to the communities affected by the violence. The Israeli Air Force conducted intensive airstrikes against targets in the Gaza Strip, targeting command centers, weapons depots, and infrastructure believed to support militant activities. In parallel, the National Security Council in Israel instructed measures to restrict the flow of essential resources into Gaza, including water, food, electricity, and fuel, with the intent of pressing Hamas to end hostilities while humanitarian considerations remained a priority for international actors observing the crisis. By mid-October, reports from the UN and other humanitarian agencies warned of heavy civilian displacement, with calls for safe passages and durable humanitarian corridors as the fighting intensified and a potential ground operation loomed. The UN and associated bodies urged steps to minimize harm to civilians and to provide aid to those in need as the situation evolved, reflecting the urgent moral and legal obligations faced by all parties in a conflict zone.
Lebanese Hezbollah later proclaimed October 18 as a “day of wrath” against Israel, signaling another layer of regional tension that could influence strategic calculations and external responses. The declaration added to the complexity of the security landscape, prompting international observers to monitor potential escalations and the possible involvement of allied movements. While such statements heighten concerns about broader regional spillover, many policymakers emphasized the necessity of measured diplomatic engagement, verification of violations, and adherence to international humanitarian law as the situation developed and concrete steps toward de-escalation remained a global imperative.