Page 1 of 15
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 6
Publication Date: June 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.116.17203.
Mbah, R. E., Mbah, D. E., & Hultquist, L. (2024). The Role of the United Nations and Its Agencies in the Israel-Hamas War. Advances
in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(6). 311-325.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Role of the United Nations and Its Agencies in the Israel- Hamas War
Ruth Endam Mbah
Department of Business Administration, McPherson College, KS, USA
Drusilla Engonwei Mbah
Divisional Delegation of Secondary Education Wouri, Douala, Cameroon
Laura Hultquist
Department of Criminal Justice, Bethany College, KS, USA
ABSTRACT
Institutional Liberalism, an International Relations theory argues that
international institutions play a significant role in influencing cooperation and
peace among nations. Although criticized by some as unrealistic, the tenets of
Liberal Institutionalism have contributed to the rising interest in the capabilities of
international organizations like the United Nations (UN) in ensuring long-lasting
international relations and peace among countries after the Cold War Era. This is
due to their mediation ability that provides a ‘common ground’ for discussions
among states while maintaining the common interest of each state actor. It is
considering this tenet of Institutional Liberalism that we explore the role of the UN
and some of its agencies in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war of 2023. The involvement
of the UN in the Israeli-Palestinian tension dates back to November 29, 1947, when
the UN General Assembly voted to divide Palestine into Jewish and Arab states with
Jerusalem as its international city (Resolution 181- Partition Plan). However, the
focus of this article is limited to the October 7, 2023, Israel-Hamas war, as the role
of the UN and its agencies have been active in mediating international relations in a
manner supported by the theory of Liberal Institutionalism. The agencies under
consideration in this article include the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council,
International Court of Justice, UNHCR, UNRWA, UNESCO, UNICEF, and WFP. This
article is, however, limited to a few UN agencies and, as such, gives room for further
research as to the role of unexamined UN agencies as well as other international
institutions in the ongoing 2023 Israel-Hamas war.
Keywords: Israel-Hamas War, Liberal Institutionalism, UN General Assembly, UN
Security Council, International Court of Justice, UNHCR, UNRWA, UNESCO, UNICEF, WFP
INTRODUCTION
The role of the United Nations (UN) in the tension between Israel and Palestine dates to
November 29, 1947, when the UN General Assembly voted to divide Palestine into Jewish and
Arab states with Jerusalem as its international city (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023; BBC,
2024). In 1922, the League of Nations, commonly referred to as the ‘predecessor’ of the UN,
positioned Palestine under the United Kingdom’s (UK) administration. The British Mandate
later incorporated the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, (a 67-word letter by Arthur
C:\Users\PMLS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.MSO\91144577.tmp
Page 2 of 15
312
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 6, June-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Balfour to Lionel Walter Rothschild) supporting the as0.sertion to make Palestine a “national
home” for the Jews (Alsaafin, 2023; McGreal, 2023). This declaration led to a huge inflow of
Jews into the region of Palestine, mostly from Eastern Europe, between 1922 and 1947 (United
Nations, n.d.). Arabs resisted the massive immigration of the Jewish people and demanded
independence or self-determination (Bazelon, 2024), leading to a rebellion in 1937. The UK,
being unable to bring independence to a land now plagued by violence, turned the Palestine
challenge over to the UN (United Nations, n.d.).
The UN investigated several alternative ways to manage the ethnic challenges in Palestine and
decided to end the British Mandate by dividing Palestine into two distinct states (Palestine Arab
and Jewish). This division of the land was known as Resolution 181- Partition Plan (Center for
Preventive Action, 2024). While the Jewish leaders welcomed the plan, their Arab counterparts
disapproved of the plan and did not implement it since it gave the Jewish state about 55% of
Palestine, including the fertile coastal region (Alsaafin, 2023). Britain, being unable to resolve
this dispute, withdrew from the area in 1948, resulting in the creation of the State of Israel by
the Jewish leaders (BBC, 2024). The creation of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, triggered
the first Israeli-Arab war as armed forces from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt launched
an attack on Israel (Bubola, 2023) that ended in 1949 with Israel emerging victorious. However,
this conflict caused the displacement of about 750,000 Palestine often called the “Nakba, or
catastrophe” (Bazelon, 2024), and the UN General Assembly in December 1948 passed
Resolution 194 that gave the Palestine refugees the right to return (Alsaafin, 2023).
Furthermore, Resolution 194 led to the partitioning of the area into three territories: the Gaza
Strip, the West Bank, and the State of Israel. In the decades that followed, the relationship
between Israel and Palestine has degraded (Center for Preventive Action, 2024; Mbah et al.,
2024).
This article is focused on the recent Israel-Hamas war that began on October 7, 2023. The
government of Israel announced that without warning, Hamas executed a multi-faceted attack
on Israel towns, an open-air music festival, and armed forces bases, causing the death of
approximately 1,200 Israeli people and 240 hostages (including infants) taken by Hamas (Livni
& Gupta, 2023, Mbah et al., 2024). This attack caused Israel to retaliate by means of air, sea, and
ground, sparking a war that has led to thousands of deaths and an unbearable humanitarian
catastrophe in Gaza (Ebrahim, 2024). As of February 29th, 2024, the Palestinian Ministry of
Health proclaimed that the war had killed at least 30,000 persons, 70% being women and
children. Additionally, about 70,000 persons have been wounded and 1.7 million (80% of the
population) have been displaced (Smith & Da Silva, 2024). As of June 4, 2024, a total of
approximately 36,479 Palestinians have died and 82,777 have been wounded. During the same
timeframe, approximately 1,139 deaths have been reported in the Israeli camp, including a
dozen Israeli captives held by Hamas in Gaza (Rowlands & McCready, 2024). The devastating
humanitarian situation in Gaza has attracted the attention of aid groups, Arab nations, and the
UN, with the UN continuing to insist on a ceasefire to permit the delivery of necessities of life
like water and medical supplies (Ebrahim, 2024).
The Theory of Liberal Institutionalism, which emphasizes the role of international institutions
in fostering international relations (peace) between nations, will be used to review the role of
the UN and some of its agencies in the Israel-Hamas war of 2023. The agencies include the UN
General Assembly, UN Security Council, International Court of Justice, United Nations High
Page 3 of 15
313
Mbah, R. E., Mbah, D. E., & Hultquist, L. (2024). The Role of the United Nations and Its Agencies in the Israel-Hamas War. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(6). 311-325.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.116.17203
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF),
and United Nations World Food Programme (WFP).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THEORY OF LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM
There has been an ongoing debate between proponents of realism and neoliberalism over the
capability of international institutions to maintain collaboration between states (Nuruzzaman,
2006). Although Liberal Institutionalism or Internationalism seems to be the topic of greater
interest to scholars, media debates, and socio-political disputes; it has a history of generating
heated debates in the 1970s about its validity as an alternative to Realism (Devitt, 2011).
Moravcsik (1992) and Johnson and Heiss (2018) consider Liberal Institutionalism and Realism
as theories based on political assumptions in International Relations whose relevance has
caused ongoing disputes for any of the countries that adopt them.
Liberal Institutionalism is considered a significant challenge to realism which suggests a
pessimistic evaluation of the role of international institutions in ensuring international
cooperation. Institutional Liberalism, unlike realism, postulates that international institutions
can aid states to cooperate and is optimistic about their capability/ability to achieve such
cooperation (Grieco, 1988, p. 486). It is a theory that postulates the necessity for institutional
arrangements to initiate and preserve relations between states. In other words, it “presumes
that domestic and international institutions play central roles in facilitating cooperation and
peace between nation-states” (Johnson & Heiss, 2018, p.1). Liberal Institutionalism is one of the
reasons why there has been an increased interest in the ability and potentiality of international
institutions, especially the UN, to ensure sustainable international relations and peace in the
aftermath of the Cold War era. Although this aspect of theory has been criticized by realistic
theorists like John Mearsheimer as a “false promise” (Mearsheimer, 1994), several liberal
international relations proponents uphold the significant role of international institutions in
advancing international partnerships or liaisons. This is due to their influence as mediators in
providing a ‘common ground’ for discussions between states while maintaining the common
interest of each state actor (Nuruzzaman, 2008).
Moravcsik (1992), in his book “Liberalism and International Theory,” views Liberal
Institutionalism through three arguments. In the first argument, he stipulates that the central
insight distinguishing liberal international relations theory is based on the idea that states are
part of both domestic and international civil societies. He calls that “an aggregation of individual
and voluntary groups.” This basic insight is the expression of three assumptions common to
liberal writings on international relations: the fundamental actors in world politics are
individuals and privately constituted groups with autonomous preferences; governments
represent the same subset of domestic social actors; and interstate behavior is shaped
primarily by the pattern of state preferences, not state power. Andrew Moravesik's second
argument is based on the fact that liberal assumptions are used to derive a wide range of
otherwise apparently unrelated hypotheses in international relations and comparative politics,
including classical Liberal claims about the effects of democracy, equality, and commerce, neo- functionalism theories of integration and institutions, second-image reserved approaches to
domestic policy formation, hypothetical connections between nationalism and war and
hypotheses linking social equality and foreign policy. He considers these Liberal theory variants