For decades, the UN has been a forum for anti-Israel bias and symbolic gestures. This week’s General Assembly drama — mass recognition of a Palestinian state, lectures about ceasefires, and leaders publicly abandoning hope in the institution — only confirms that the world no longer relies on a body built for moral posturing rather than practical action.

The UN was born to prevent genocide and keep the peace. Yet this week’s General Assembly laid bare how far the institution has drifted from that founding purpose.

World leaders poured into New York to declaim, condemn, and recognize; the headlines were dominated less by meaningful enforcement than by theatrical denunciations and symbolic recognitions. Several European governments used the UN stage to formally recognize a Palestinian state — an outraged diplomatic rebuke to Israel that, while loud, offers no practical mechanism to stop terrorism against Israel or feed the starving. The actions by countries to recognize a state of “Palestine” are real and consequential as a political signal, but they are not a solution to the operational realities on the ground. 

What the General Assembly specializes in is moral theater. Speeches this week ranged from calls for immediate ceasefires and humanitarian corridors, to scathing rebukes of Israel’s campaign against Hamas.

Spain’s king and many other leaders pressed for an immediate halt to the fighting; others used the platform to assert global values and moral outrage. At the same time, US President Donald Trump used his podium to excoriate the institution itself and to make clear that Washington will not allow the UN to dictate a policy that weakens the Western moral order, or Israel’s right of self-defense. The cacophony played out on live television; the result was clarity, not consensus: the UN can supply rhetoric, not remediation. 

The practical consequences of the UN’s paralysis have been obvious for months. The Security Council — the only UN organ able to issue binding measures — has increasingly been reduced to spectacle, as members trade accusations and resort to vetoes. This week’s special council sessions underlined the growing isolation of the US position and the paralysis of the council. Many states demanded immediate steps to halt Israel’s operations, while Washington insisted that any meaningful move must condemn Hamas and protect the chance of a ceasefire-for-hostages deal. 

The UN’s failure is not merely rhetorical — it extends to the world body’s humanitarian role. We have now seen governments and publics lose confidence in the UN’s ability to prevent aid from being diverted and weaponized. The controversies over aid distribution in Gaza — including the UN Office of Project Services tracking that many aid consignments have not reached their intended destinations and US officials pointing to extremely high interception figures — have fed a crisis of credibility. Washington and Jerusalem’s response was to back new mechanisms to deliver life-saving assistance outside the UN framework; critics call these moves dangerous and partial, but they are a pragmatic response to a broken distribution system. The dispute over how much aid has been diverted, and by whom, is contested; what is not contested is the loss of public trust in the UN’s delivery capabilities. 

If the UN cannot be trusted to apply its own neutrality standards, safeguard aid, or protect civilians impartially, then it ceases to be the practical instrument the world needs. This week’s events show something more uncomfortable: large parts of the international community prefer symbolic condemnation to hard enforcement. Countries can — and increasingly do — act through coalitions, bilateral arrangements, and ad-hoc institutions when lives are on the line. The rush to recognize a Palestinian state at the General Assembly is an example of symbolism substituting for the painstaking, security-first work required to disarm terrorists, free hostages, and then build lasting institutions.

For Israel, the lesson is blunt: survival cannot be outsourced to an assembly of speeches and resolutions. When Hamas masterminds mass murder and holds hundreds hostage, a world that treats that barbarism as merely another item for debate is failing the very cause the UN was created to defend. Israel has thus acted — and, in doing so, exposes the UN’s limited role. Some will call that action unilateral or ugly; others will call it the only realistic choice left in a world where the most binding international body is paralyzed by politics. Either way, this week’s General Assembly demonstrated that the UN provides a stage, not a strategy.

The UN may survive as a diplomatic forum. It can still host conferences, deliver statements, and register condemnations. But its transformation from an authority that organizes collective security into a global soapbox is now complete. If the international order is to be more than rhetoric, democratic states must stop pretending that a broken multilateral institution can substitute for decisive leadership and accountable coalitions capable of both providing aid and stopping terror. The UN’s obsolescence is no tragedy — it is an invitation for effective, moral action to migrate from podiums to policy.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx