On October 30, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution urging Israel to rectify recent misconduct toward UN-mandated institutions. This included a call from all 15 member states, including the United States, for Israel to reverse its decision to shut down the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The resolution emphasized that UNRWA plays a “crucial role in all humanitarian efforts in Gaza” and provides “life-saving humanitarian aid” along with education, health, and social services in the occupied Palestinian territories, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
This development indicates that Israel’s confrontation with the UN has escalated to a point of acute tension, placing it in an increasingly isolated position. Even the United States, which has historically supported Israel, strongly opposes its expansion and escalation of what can be called the “eighth front,” exacerbating its relations with the UN.
On October 28, the Israeli parliament passed two laws banning UNRWA’s activities in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories on grounds of alleged support for terrorism. UNRWA was established by UN General Assembly Resolution 302 on December 8, 1948, to provide aid to Palestinian refugees. Following the 1967 war, the agency’s humanitarian mandate was expanded to Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. The wars of 1948 and 1967 displaced approximately 800,000 and 1,000,000 Palestinians, respectively, most of whom sought refuge in neighboring Arab countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, resulting in the world’s largest and longest-standing political refugee crisis.
On October 5, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lamented that his country was engaged in conflict on “seven fronts.” However, I argue that Israel’s conflict extends beyond these seven fronts, encompassing an “eighth front” that involves broader soft confrontations and localized hard conflicts with the United Nations. Many readers may be unaware of the origins and nature of Israel’s “eight fronts,” making it necessary to provide a systematic explanation.
Netanyahu’s “seven fronts” include: Gaza and the West Bank in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The “eighth front,” as defined by me, is Israel’s confrontation with the United Nations, spanning from the UN General Assembly to the Security Council, from UN headquarters in New York and Geneva to UNRWA in Gaza and UN peacekeeping camps along the Israel-Lebanon border. This front has included verbal assaults on the UN and its leaders, as well as acts of violence, including gunfire and shelling directed at UN forces and the occupation of peacekeeping camps. Israel’s current posture reflects an unprecedented level of defiance, characterized by audacity and recklessness—seemingly challenging the international community at large while disregarding who conferred its legitimacy as a sovereign state.
On November 29, 1947, the second session of the UN General Assembly, despite opposition from Arab nations, forcefully adopted Resolution 181 to partition Palestine. This resolution allocated 52% of the land to Jewish inhabitants, who constituted only one-third of the local population, while 48% was designated for the indigenous Arab population—now known as “Palestinians”—who represented two-thirds of the population. Sovereignty over Jerusalem was placed under the UN. The Arab world’s resistance to this resolution, which shifted the burden of Europe’s anti-Semitic and genocidal history to the indigenous Palestinian people, ignited the Arab-Israeli conflict and resulted in further illegal annexation of Palestinian land by Israel, laying the groundwork for subsequent wars between Israel and its neighboring states.
Over the course of more than half a century, various Palestinian factions have increasingly faced the reality of their situation and reached a consensus: they now only aspire to reclaim Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem—territories constituting merely 23% of pre-partition Palestine. In stark contrast, figures such as Prime Minister Netanyahu and other proponents of “Greater Israel” seek the total annexation of Palestinian lands, extending their ambitions to parts of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, justified solely on the basis that their ancestors once resided there, even if only as refugees rather than rulers or native inhabitants.
The United Nations, having conferred legitimacy upon Israel’s sovereignty at the expense of Palestinian rights, can be considered the “mother” of Israel under international law. However, under the prolonged protection of the United States, the vast majority of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions concerning Israel have been vetoed, fostering a climate of impunity and defiance. Today, Israel’s actions betray an unprecedented disregard for international norms, positioning it as a “Middle Eastern Oedipus,” engaging in reckless behavior that exacerbates current conflicts and severely depletes the global sympathy once extended due to historical persecution.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres faced severe criticism from Israel for his measured statement, “Hamas’s attack on Israel did not occur in a vacuum,” highlighting the tragedy and suffering imposed on the Palestinian people through over 70 years of occupation. Israel responded by challenging Guterres’ legitimacy, persistently calling for his resignation, ultimately designating him a persona non grata, and denying him a visa.
Amid mounting censure from both the UN General Assembly and Security Council, Israel has provocatively labeled the UN a “terrorist organization” or an enabler of terrorism, prohibiting UNRWA from fulfilling its humanitarian mandate. In an even more aggressive move, Israeli forces, despite international condemnation, have repeatedly targeted UN peacekeeping troops stationed at the Israel-Lebanon border to monitor ceasefire agreements, aiming to drive them from their posts.
Gaza and the West Bank represent Israel’s first and second fronts of conflict and are the catalysts for broader regional tensions. Although Israeli forces and settlers withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Israel still maintains control over its territorial waters, airspace, and border crossings. Consequently, Gaza remains an occupied territory, often referred to as the “world’s largest open-air prison,” and continues to be an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories. Thus, the relationship between Israel and Gaza is one of occupier and occupied; between Israel and Hamas, it is one of occupier and armed resistance. Israel’s narrative framing of the “Israel-Hamas war” seeks to isolate Hamas from the broader Palestinian resistance, obscuring the fundamental nature of the “Israel-Palestine conflict.”
The West Bank, covering over 6,000 square kilometers, is separated from the 360-square-kilometer Gaza Strip by a narrow strip of Israeli territory less than 100 kilometers wide. For a long time, the West Bank was the stronghold of Hamas’s political rival, Fatah. However, in recent years, the West Bank has become progressively “Hamas-ized,” resembling a second Gaza or “Hamastan,” as more Palestinians in the West Bank have abandoned the decades-long moderate approach and turned toward Hamas.
During my tenure as an Xinhua correspondent in Gaza from 1999 to 2002, public support for Hamas was around 30%, and its influence and activities were largely confined to Gaza. In the major 2004 Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the main battleground was the West Bank, where Fatah was Israel’s principal adversary, while Hamas maintained a more passive role in Gaza.
Since Hamas’s electoral victory in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, the political balance in Palestine has shifted dramatically. Subsequent Israeli-Palestinian conflicts have centered around Gaza, with Hamas and even more radical factions such as Islamic Jihad and militant Salafi groups taking the lead. No elections have been held in Palestine for years, as every poll predicts a Hamas victory. Even high-ranking Fatah officials, imprisoned by Israel for over a decade, have joined Hamas upon their release. The increasing influence of Hamas in the West Bank has prompted Israel to deploy major forces there to suppress violent resistance, inadvertently enabling Hamas to orchestrate a surprise assault from Gaza, causing significant Israeli casualties. The geographical and social “Hamas-ization” of the occupied Palestinian territories is, in part, the outcome of Netanyahu’s “mowing the grass” strategy, which has deliberately fostered a dual power structure among Palestinians.
The rationale is straightforward: although Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, it continues to control strategically significant but limited areas, such as the Shebaa Farms, providing Hezbollah with a basis for attacking Israel under international law. Hezbollah, a Shia militant group supported and funded by Iran, has also been embroiled in both overt and covert conflicts with Lebanon’s Christian factions and Sunni Muslims. While it has undeniably brought waves of conflict upon Lebanon, Hezbollah originated as a product of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Notably, no Lebanese political party has openly challenged Hezbollah’s national right to reclaim occupied territories.
Since the loss of the 1,200-square-kilometer Golan Heights after the failed counteroffensive during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Syria has maintained a state of cold peace with Israel. The onset of the 2011 Arab Spring destabilized Syria, leading to the intervention of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Shia militias, and Hezbollah under the pretext of fighting the Islamic State (ISIS), thereby presenting a direct threat to Israel. Over the past decade, Israel has persistently targeted sites within Syria—not to destroy the Syrian government forces but to expel Iranian and Hezbollah forces from the region. The Syrian government, unable to reclaim the Golan Heights, has leveraged external actors to pressure Israel, transforming its territory into a proxy battleground.
Iraq has been engaged in hostilities against Israel since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. After the 1958 revolution that toppled the monarchy and Saddam Hussein’s ascent to power a decade later, Iraq became a prominent base and financier for the Palestinian resistance for nearly half a century. Following the Shiite ascendency post-2003, Iraq’s policy toward Israel, heavily influenced by Iran, remained unchanged. The subsequent emergence of the Shia militia “Popular Mobilization Forces” (PMF) under the banner of anti-terrorism marked a new phase.
During the current conflict, the PMF has, for the first time, embraced the mantle of Arab nationalism, engaging in attacks on Israeli and U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria and earning the label “Iraq’s Hezbollah.” This development has plunged Iraq back into direct confrontation with Israel for the first time since the Gulf War, turning Iraqi airspace and territory into a proxy battlefield, vulnerable to incursions by Iranian missiles, drones, and Israeli jets. The PMF, under the pretext of liberating Palestine, has opened a front against Israel, motivated by Iranian influence, Shia solidarity, and its own bid for political dominance within Iraq.
The Houthi movement, which models itself after Iran’s Islamic Republic, maintains intricate ties with both Iran and Hezbollah, often coordinating actions in concert. Despite not having previously positioned itself as an advocate for the Palestinian cause, the Houthi’s sudden, significant involvement in the current conflict is perceived as “opportunistic overreach.” This maneuver reflects its efforts to consolidate power in Yemen, drape itself in the rhetoric of Arab nationalism, push for the withdrawal of Saudi and other foreign forces, and gain recognition from neighboring states as Yemen’s legitimate government in place of the now largely defunct exiled administration.
Historically, 2,500 years ago, Cyrus the Great of Persia was celebrated as a “Messiah” in the Bible for rescuing the ancestors of the Israelites. However, since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has been an unwavering opponent of Zionism and Israel’s expansionist policies, framing its involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian and broader Arab-Israeli conflicts as part of its Islamic duties and leveraging these engagements to assert itself as a regional power. Consequently, both Israel and the United States view Iran as the primary instigator of regional instability.
Israel and Iran have long engaged in proxy and covert warfare, which has now become more overt, evolving into direct confrontation. The conventional paradigm of Arab states waging war against Israel, which persisted until the end of the 1982 Lebanon War, has shifted. The new geopolitical landscape is defined by an “Axis of Resistance,” led by Iran and comprising sovereign Syria and non-state actors from Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq.
Israel has seldom stood alone; whether within the United Nations or in Middle Eastern conflicts, the U.S. has been its stalwart ally. Over the past year, the U.S. has vetoed five Security Council resolutions aimed at establishing a ceasefire in Gaza, provided Israel with continuous military support, and shared in some military operations. This assistance includes deploying carrier strike groups, positioning the THAAD missile defense system to protect Israel, intercepting Iranian missile and drone attacks, applauding the elimination of Hamas leaders, and conducting airstrikes on Houthi and PMF bases. Consequently, Israel’s engagement on its “eight fronts” is largely conducted with U.S. backing, symbolizing their alignment in the same strategic trench.
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.
