SECURITY COUNCIL PARALYSIS AND THE LIMIT OF UNITED NATIONS CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: A REALIST ANALYSIS OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CRISIS (2023-2025)

Abstract

This paper examines how the United Nations handled the Israel-Palestine conflict
between 2023 and 2025, focusing on the Security Council's inaction in the wake of the Hamas
attacks on October 7, 2023, and Israel's subsequent military action. Anchored on the Realist
International Relations theory, this study offers descriptive explanations of institutional weakness
and thus views the Security Council’s paralysis as a strategic result of great-power interest
alignment rather than a multilateralist procedural failure. The study illustrates how conflicting
geopolitical interests among permanent members systematically limited ceasefire initiatives,
humanitarian protection, and accountability mechanisms through qualitative analysis of Security
Council resolutions, veto patterns, official debates, and policy reports. To connect theory to current
practice, the paper empirically traces how realist power politics functioned within the Security
Council during a conflict. The study highlights the structural limitations of UN peace efforts in
highly polarised conflicts and challenges normative assumptions about collective security by
placing UN conflict management within an emerging multipolar context. It concludes that reforms
intended to improve UN effectiveness in conflict management are unlikely to produce significant
results unless veto-driven strategic behaviour is confronted.