By Daniel Frost
At the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the usual talk of shared purpose quickly gave way to something more raw and revealing: a clear sign that the global order is in crisis. Instead of unity, world leaders just exposed a deepening rift, one that’s increasingly hard to sweep under the rug, between the old model of unipolar power and a new, messy reality shaped by multiple rising centers of influence. Two issues stood at the heart of this fracture: the near-total collapse of accountability on the Palestinian issue, and the vanishing sense of balance in power throughout Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, wasted no time in setting the stage. He didn’t just warn about the drift toward a multipolar world; he said the change is already locked in and irreversible. If peace stands a chance, Guterres insisted, then the law, not brute force, has to set the limits. He called attention to the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures on Gaza, legal orders that the world can’t just ignore. He didn’t mince words: the unchecked settlements, the forced expulsions, the rolling violence in the West Bank, they’re not just random tragedies. They’re making the threat of ethnic cleansing hard to deny. For Guterres, the Palestinian question isn’t just another humanitarian disaster; it’s the ultimate test of whether international law means anything anymore.
Leaders from the Global South and several European countries echoed that theme. Jordan’s King Abdullah II put it bluntly: Israeli policies are intentionally destroying Gaza and quietly annexing the West Bank. It’s a single strategy that strips away any hope for a viable Palestinian state. The Amir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, said that as long as there’s impunity, it’s open season on Palestinian survival. Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, raised a deeper concern, describing impunity as a symptom of a decaying global system, a world where the law isn’t universal but only applies to the weak. Brazil’s President Lula didn’t dance around it. He called the situation in Gaza what it is: genocide, and he connected ongoing settlement expansion directly to the death of the two-state solution.
Something shifted even among traditional Western voices. The British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, condemned the Hamas attacks from October 7, but went on to say that Israel can’t justify what it’s doing in Gaza and the West Bank by pointing to security. He called out the E1 settlement project, long a red line in diplomacy, as a direct threat to Palestinian statehood. And he backed up his words with action: banning trade in settlement goods, sanctioning those who build illegal outposts, and officially branding the occupation as illegal. French President Emmanuel Macron went right for the jugular, questioning whether the international community has any credibility left when it comes to Gaza. He said the ongoing violations not only disgrace humanity, but also slam the door on Palestinians’ basic right to exist.
For Guterres, the Palestinian question isn’t just another humanitarian disaster; it’s the ultimate test of whether international law means anything anymore.
Before the Assembly gathered, the UK and France had already joined a group of like-minded countries, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, and Belgium, in outright opposition to the E1 settlement. They made it clear: moving forward with E1 would chop the West Bank into pieces, killing any realistic hope for a contiguous Palestinian state. Europe is no longer content to just ‘express concern’; now, it’s adopting real measures, like banning certain imports from settlements and targeting individuals or entities involved in expanding illegal infrastructure.
But in the face of this broad front demanding accountability, the United States stood almost alone. President Donald Trump, representing the American position, bragged about his administration’s role in brokering a ceasefire in Gaza as if unilateral American mediation was the answer to everything. Trump made no mention of Israeli settlements or military actions in the West Bank and Gaza. That gap isn’t just an oversight. It marks a real split between Washington’s way of doing things, favoring deals and power over principle, and a wider international demand for a solution rooted in rights and law.
This difference isn’t just about Palestine. It spills over into the wider security context. Guterres made it clear that while multipolarity is inevitable, letting it unfold without robust institutions will only lead to a broken world powered by short-term interests, suspicion, and rivalry. He argued for a ‘networked’ multipolar world, anchored in multilateral institutions and law. The United States, by contrast, still bets on overwhelming force as the main means of shaping outcomes, especially in the Middle East. There, the American approach treats conflict with Iran as inevitable, giving Tehran just two choices: surrender to a new deal, or face relentless pressure.
Real stability depends on rebuilding a system where international law applies to everyone and justice isn’t up for negotiation, a multipolar world bound by genuine rules, not just power.
But the days when any one superpower can simply dictate terms are fading. Middle Eastern countries are building their own security systems, trying to shield themselves from outside shocks. Qatar, for example, is pushing for a system based on non-interference, sovereignty, and negotiation. The same dynamic is playing out with the Russia-Ukraine war: the US still wants to manage the process on its own, while Europe, France, Britain, and Germany in particular, are turning to the UN to establish a peace that actually sticks and respects the UN Charter.
What’s clear from all the speeches at this General Assembly is that the world has hit a crossroads. International law isn’t being enforced in Palestine, and that failure has laid bare how fragile the existing order is when it cherry-picks which rules matter and which don’t. As power keeps shifting, it’s obvious that relying on brute force and transactional deals just isn’t sustainable, whether the crisis is in Ukraine, Iran, or anywhere else. Real stability depends on rebuilding a system where international law applies to everyone and justice isn’t up for negotiation, a multipolar world bound by genuine rules, not just power.
About the Author
Daniel Frost is a Foreign affairs columnist specializing in global geopolitics, European security, and strategic policy.