The war in Palestine is characterized by its effects on the civilian population. Civilian deaths, attacks on schools and medical centers, refugee camps and the displacement of millions of people, among others, are elements of the violence scenario. The UN reacted, but weakly. Its institutional architecture allows blockages that make it inoperative when there is strong political will.

The most important body of the UN is its Security Council, which is in charge of solving war problems. Their resolutions are binding and may even require the use of force which must be respected; However, its constitution dates back to the end of World War II. Five of the 15 countries that make it up, the winner of that competition, have the right to veto: USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain. They can stop any decision. In the last few weeks, four solutions have been stopped. The most notable of these was the one promoted by Brazil, which called for humanitarian breaks to help the civilian population. The USA vetoed it, and Russia abstained.

The Security Council theoretically has power, but it does not represent all the countries of the United Nations. The General Assembly, which gathers all members, does this, but its resolutions have no binding force. That body, for example, won the majority. The resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, the care of the civilian population, the application of international law in cases of war and the release of all captured civilians was approved with 120 votes in favor (including Ecuador), 14 against and 45 abstentions. This resolution, adopted by states that demographically represent the majority of the world’s population, and voted for by countries from all continents, is not binding and is nothing more than a declaration of goodwill in circumstances where the international community wants to act to save lives.

The world of the third decade of the 21st century is not the same as the fourth decade of the 20th century. The UN is an important organization, but it requires reform. In particular, the Security Council must be expanded. It needs permanent representatives from Latin America, Africa and India, for example. The veto power of its members cannot continue without minimum regulations governing it. The latest international crises prove this need. However, there is little chance of that happening in the foreseeable future. None of the permanent member states of the Council have explicitly expressed their willingness to waive or extend this privilege.

The international community, without exception, is concerned about what is happening in Palestine. Not only states, especially societies: there are huge mobilizations in all countries, but the instrument that was established almost eighty years ago to deal with these situations is not operational, it requires minimal democratic reform, however, the concentration of power expressed in its current structure prevents this. (OR)