A Chorus of Condemnation: How UN Leaders Redefined Israel’s War in Gaza
From Bogotá to Dakar, accusations once confined to Tehran and Damascus now echo across democratic capitals, marking a profound diplomatic shift
For decades, debates at the United Nations General Assembly followed predictable lines. Iran and Syria accused Israel of crimes against humanity, while most democracies called for a two-state solution, careful to balance sympathy for Palestinians with recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The war in Gaza, now in its twenty-third month, has upended that pattern.
In an exhaustive review of nearly 50 speeches delivered at the 80th United Nations General Assembly, The Media Line found a striking number of leaders accusing Israel of “genocide” or demanding criminal accountability for its leaders — rhetoric that in the past was confined to Israel’s harshest adversaries.
No voice startled the chamber more than that of Colombian President Gustavo Petro. He moved beyond the language of ceasefires and humanitarian aid to an explicit call for confrontation: “If we must defend Palestine, then we must defend it militarily.” The remark landed like a thunderclap — a democratically elected leader suggesting that war against Israel may be justified. Until recently, Colombia maintained pragmatic security ties with Israel; Petro’s declaration in New York represented a historic break and placed Bogotá rhetorically alongside Tehran.
From the Southern Cone of Latin America came a different but equally striking escalation. Chile’s Gabriel Boric abandoned the cautious formulas of his predecessors and demanded criminal prosecution of Israel’s prime minister: “Netanyahu must be held accountable before international tribunals.” Santiago has long been a strong advocate of Palestinian statehood, but its relationship with Israel remained steady even during heated domestic debates. Boric’s appeal to international justice crossed a new threshold, turning criticism into an attempt to delegitimize Israeli leadership itself.
It is typical of progressive circles that easily identify with what they see as a victim — in this case the Palestinians — and just as easily demonize the alleged perpetrator from a safe distance
Speaking to The Media Line, Mario Sznajder, professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explained that this radical rhetoric is not merely a product of the Gaza war. “The anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian position of leaders like Boric and Petro existed long before October 7, 2023. It is typical of progressive circles that easily identify with what they see as a victim — in this case the Palestinians — and just as easily demonize the alleged perpetrator from a safe distance.”
The term “genocide,” Sznajder added, is used as a political weapon. “According to the definition by Rafael Lemkin and the 1948 UN convention, what is happening in Gaza is not genocide. There are war crimes, yes, but genocide does not apply. The word is used because it is absolutely derogatory. In the case of Israel, it serves to equate the Jewish state with Nazi Germany, and ultimately to argue that just as Nazi Germany had no right to exist after 1945, Israel has no right to exist.”
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
African leaders gave the narrative institutional weight. South Africa used its turn at the podium to reinforce its case before the International Court of Justice, insisting that “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” Dakar, usually described as a careful mediator, abandoned restraint. President Bassirou Diomaye Faye described Gaza as “hell for thousands of souls of all ages trapped in an open-air prison,” highlighting Senegal’s transformation from cautious chair of the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People into one of Israel’s most strident critics.
The Middle East unsurprisingly produced some of the sharpest lines, yet what matters is how familiar rhetoric now reverberates beyond the region. Iran’s envoy rejected what he called “the weaponization of antisemitism” and accused Israel of “heinous atrocities and continuing genocide in Gaza.” Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, told the Assembly: “We stand firmly with the people of Gaza, its children and women … We call for an immediate end to the war.” That Damascus and Tehran would denounce Israel is no surprise; the novelty lies in the fact that similar wording was echoed by presidents in Santiago, Bogotá, and Dakar.
Europe’s voices revealed a subtler but equally important recalibration. Spain’s King Felipe VI placed unusual emphasis on Palestinian suffering, a departure from Madrid’s more balanced tones in past assemblies. France, historically eager to mediate, tilted closer to open criticism of Israel’s military campaign, though avoiding the explosive term “genocide.” In Central Europe, Slovakia offered nuance: “The thin line between legitimate defense and unacceptable suffering is being painfully tested,” President Peter Pellegrini warned, reminding delegates that Bratislava had recognized Palestine three decades earlier.
Even Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation and a state that does not recognize Israel, struck a different note. While reiterating its unwavering support for Palestinian statehood, Jakarta acknowledged that the roots of the conflict cannot be addressed without security guarantees for Israelis. The Indonesian delegate argued that “if Israel were secure, the problem would look very different,” a striking admission from a country long seen as a stalwart of the Palestinian cause.
Before this Assembly even convened, 142 countries already recognized Palestine. This was not accidental; it was the product of sustained political work.
For Sznajder, this convergence reflects not only wartime outrage but also a long-term Palestinian strategy. “Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority invested enormous effort in legitimizing the Palestinian state and delegitimizing Israel. That is why, before this Assembly even convened, 142 countries already recognized Palestine. This was not accidental; it was the product of sustained political work.”
Smaller states added their voices in varying registers. Lebanon condemned Israeli actions in uncompromising terms. Jordan’s King Abdullah pressed for recognition of Palestinian statehood, while Türkiye’s president portrayed Gaza as a litmus test for global morality. Angola, Mozambique, and Guyana insisted that Palestinian suffering be placed at the center of the Assembly’s conscience.
Not every country joined in the storm of condemnation. Paraguay’s President Santiago Peña stood out by defending Israel without qualification: “Israel has the legitimate right to defend itself. The terrorist attacks on the 7th of October 2023 against Israeli civilians were grotesque acts of barbarity which no cause can justify.” He explicitly rejected attempts to equate Israel’s government with Hamas. From Washington, President Donald Trump reaffirmed America’s commitment to Israel’s security, dismissing genocide accusations as slander. Switzerland and Uruguay struck a different balance, expressing concern for civilians in Gaza while refusing to join the language of criminalization. Even Slovakia, despite acknowledging Palestinian aspirations, underlined that hostages must be released and Israel retains the right to self-defense.
Europe, Sznajder noted, remains deeply divided. “The EU does not speak with one voice on this issue. Hungary is fully aligned with Israel, while Spain under Sánchez is firmly pro-Palestinian. Most others would support ending the war and moving toward negotiations for a two-state solution, but there is no common policy.”
The broader meaning is unmistakable. The accusation of genocide, once confined to Israel’s most hostile foes, now defines the discourse of democracies that historically navigated a middle ground. The convergence is striking: words once heard from Tehran and Damascus are now repeated in Bogotá, Santiago, Dakar, and Madrid.
Not even the United States can be taken for granted … Israel must generate its own political responses
Can Israel still count on traditional Western democracies as stable allies? “No,” Sznajder cautioned. “Not even the United States can be taken for granted, as we saw with Italy’s shift under domestic pressure. Israel must generate its own political responses. This wave of delegitimization will not disappear entirely, but it will diminish if Israel itself takes serious steps to address Gaza and the West Bank. That is what could improve Israel’s international standing.”
For Israel, the implications go beyond diplomacy. This is a battle over legitimacy in the world’s most visible forum, a contest where narratives harden into legal cases, trade embargoes, and the erosion of public support in Western societies. For its allies, the question is whether this rhetorical surge will dissipate once the war ends or whether it represents a structural realignment in how the world perceives Israel.
