In a recent address at the National Press Club of Australia, Professor Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism, emphasized the United Nations' critical role in providing “genuinely legitimate international oversight” for any future plan concerning Gaza, the besieged Palestinian enclave. His remarks came in response to questions about Palestinian statehood and a newly unveiled cease-fire proposal for Gaza by U.S. President Donald Trump, in which former British Prime Minister Tony Blair plays a prominent role. Saul’s comments underscored the UN’s unique position as a globally representative body capable of managing complex international crises, while he expressed skepticism about the efficacy of Trump’s plan and highlighted Australia’s evolving stance on Palestinian statehood.
Saul, who holds the Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney, critiqued the historical ineffectiveness of initiatives like the Quartet on the Middle East, which included the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States. Formed in 2002 to mediate the Middle East Peace Process, the Quartet failed to produce significant progress, a point Saul highlighted when discussing Tony Blair’s involvement. “Tony Blair was involved in the Quartet process, which went nowhere. So, there isn’t a positive track record there,” Saul remarked, according to video footage of the event. His critique suggests a cautious approach to relying on individuals or frameworks with limited success in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Instead, Saul advocated for the United Nations to take a central role in overseeing Gaza’s future. “If you want a genuinely legitimate international oversight of a future plan in Gaza, use the United Nations,” he stated. He emphasized the UN’s foundational purpose, noting, “That’s what it is for. It’s what it’s always been there for.” The UN, in Saul’s view, offers a level of legitimacy derived from its broad membership and collective decision-making processes, distinguishing it from unilateral or selective initiatives like Trump’s proposed plan. Saul’s comments reflect a broader call for multilateral cooperation in addressing Gaza’s ongoing crisis, rather than solutions driven by individual leaders or exclusive coalitions.
Saul also expressed deep frustration with Australia’s response to Israel’s military actions in Gaza, describing his feelings as “bitter disappointment.” He pointed to the significant public pressure that influenced Australia’s eventual recognition of Palestine as an independent state during the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2025. “We only recognize Palestine after… 100,000 Australians marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge and finally gave a shove to the politicians to have some spine,” Saul remarked. This acknowledgment highlights the role of grassroots movements in shaping national policy and underscores the growing international support for Palestinian statehood.
Trump’s 20-point cease-fire plan, unveiled alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, proposes an end to hostilities, the release of hostages, and the establishment of a transitional authority to govern Gaza. Central to the plan is the creation of a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” overseen by a new entity called the Board of Peace, chaired by Trump himself and featuring prominent international figures, including Tony Blair. Saul criticized this structure, arguing that it risks being subject to the “whim of Donald Trump” rather than reflecting a broadly supported international consensus. He contrasted this with the UN’s inclusive framework, which he believes ensures greater accountability and impartiality.
The ongoing war in Gaza, which has persisted since October 7, 2023, has drawn significant international attention due to its devastating impact. Australian human rights law expert Chris Sidoti described the conflict as “most unique” due to the extreme constraints faced by Gaza’s population. Unlike other conflicts where civilians can flee to safety, Sidoti noted that Palestinians in Gaza “have no means of escape.” He highlighted the staggering toll of the conflict, with over 66,000 Palestinians killed, the majority being women and children, as a result of Israel’s bombardment. Sidoti, a former commissioner of the Australian Law Reform Commission, drew comparisons to other global crises but emphasized Gaza’s unparalleled severity.
“In every other conflict in decades and probably in my lifetime, so that’s almost 75 years, there has been the capacity for people to get away,” Sidoti explained. He referenced the mass exodus of millions of Ukrainians to Poland, Germany, and other parts of Western Europe during the early months of the Ukraine war, as well as the situation in Sudan, where people can cross borders to escape violence and starvation. In contrast, Gaza’s two million residents are confined to an area half the size of Canberra, Australia’s capital, with no viable escape routes. “The people in Gaza are captured. They can’t go anywhere,” Sidoti said, underscoring the enclave’s dire circumstances.
Sidoti further condemned the Israeli authorities’ approach, describing their operation as one of “total destruction.” He highlighted the compounded suffering caused by saturation bombing, starvation, and the denial of essential resources such as medicines, medical equipment, and access to hospitals and schools. This combination of factors, coupled with the inability to flee, makes the situation in Gaza uniquely horrific, according to Sidoti. His remarks draw attention to the humanitarian crisis in the enclave, where basic necessities and infrastructure have been systematically targeted or restricted.
The UN’s potential role in Gaza, as advocated by Saul, aligns with its historical mandate to address global conflicts and humanitarian crises. The organization’s General Assembly and Security Council have frequently debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with varying degrees of success in implementing resolutions. Saul’s call for UN oversight reflects a belief that the organization’s multilateral structure, despite its imperfections, offers a more balanced and representative approach than unilateral initiatives. The UN’s ability to convene diverse stakeholders and enforce international law positions it as a critical player in any future governance or reconstruction efforts in Gaza.
Australia’s recognition of Palestine as an independent state marks a significant shift in its foreign policy, aligning it with a growing number of countries that have taken similar steps. This decision, influenced by public demonstrations and advocacy, reflects broader international momentum toward acknowledging Palestinian statehood. However, the practical implications of this recognition remain uncertain, particularly in light of ongoing violence and the complex political dynamics in the region.
Trump’s cease-fire plan, while ambitious, faces skepticism not only from Saul but also from other observers who question its feasibility and impartiality. The inclusion of high-profile figures like Tony Blair may lend the plan visibility, but Saul’s reference to the Quartet’s failures suggests that past involvement in the peace process does not guarantee success. Moreover, the plan’s reliance on a “technocratic, apolitical” Palestinian committee raises questions about its ability to address the deeply political nature of the conflict and the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
The situation in Gaza remains a focal point of global concern, with the humanitarian crisis worsening daily. The combination of military operations, restricted access to resources, and the inability of civilians to flee has created a catastrophic environment. International calls for a cease-fire and a sustainable resolution continue to grow, with figures like Saul and Sidoti emphasizing the need for a coordinated, legitimate response. The UN, despite its challenges, remains a key institution for facilitating dialogue and implementing solutions.
As the international community grapples with the complexities of the Gaza crisis, the debate over oversight and governance will likely intensify. Saul’s advocacy for UN leadership reflects a broader desire for inclusive, multilateral approaches to conflict resolution. Whether Trump’s plan or a UN-led initiative ultimately shapes Gaza’s future, the urgency of addressing the enclave’s humanitarian and political challenges cannot be overstated. The world watches as Gaza endures unprecedented suffering, with hopes pinned on a solution that prioritizes peace, justice, and human dignity.
In conclusion, Professor Ben Saul’s remarks at the National Press Club of Australia highlight the critical need for legitimate, international oversight in addressing the Gaza crisis. By advocating for the United Nations as the primary mechanism for managing any future plan, Saul underscores the importance of inclusivity and accountability. Meanwhile, Chris Sidoti’s description of Gaza’s unique plight serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of the conflict. As global leaders propose solutions, the path forward remains fraught with challenges, but the call for a just and sustainable resolution grows louder.
