At the United Nations on October 24, the world's calls for a ceasefire in Gaza met a wall of refusal, as Israel's foreign minister declared the destruction of Hamas not merely a right but a sacred obligation. Behind the diplomatic collision lay two catastrophic tallies: 1,400 Israelis killed in Hamas's October 7 assault, and more than 5,700 Palestinians killed in the weeks that followed. When the UN Secretary-General named what he saw as violations of humanitarian law, Israel's ambassador answered not with argument but with a demand for his resignation — a sign of how completely the language o
Israel rejects ceasefire calls, vows to destroy Hamas as Gaza death toll hits 5,700
Over 5,700 Palestinians killed in Gaza according to Health Ministry; 1,400 Israelis killed in October 7 attacks.
Total destruction, down to the last one of Hamas
Mark
So the UN Secretary-General raised concerns about violations of international law, and Israel's response was to call for his resignation? That seems like a dodge.
Mimi
It does read that way. But from Israel's perspective, Guterres was framing the conflict in a way that delegitimized their military response. By calling for his removal, they were rejecting the entire premise—that there's a proportionality question to answer at all.
Luke
Right, but we should be clear about what we know and don't know here. The source tells us Israel's ambassador called for the resignation. It doesn't tell us whether that was an isolated statement or part of a coordinated position. And when Cohen talks about proportionality, he's making a moral argument, not a legal one.
Mimi
That's fair. He's saying the October 7 attacks were so extreme that normal rules don't apply. The 1,400 Israeli deaths versus 5,700 Palestinian deaths—he's rejecting that as a relevant comparison.
Mark
But 5,700 is a figure from Gaza's Health Ministry. Do we know if that's been independently verified?
Luke
The source attributes it to Gaza's Health Ministry. That's what we have. Independent verification of casualty figures in active conflict zones is notoriously difficult, and different organizations often report different numbers. The source doesn't claim to have verified it independently.
Mimi
The real tension is that Cohen is saying there's no number that would be "too many" as long as Hamas exists. He's not arguing about the count—he's arguing that the count is irrelevant to the decision.
Mark
So where does this leave the ceasefire question?
Luke
Dead, at least for now. Israel rejected it flatly. But we should note: the source shows Israel's position on October 24. It doesn't tell us whether that position was immovable or whether there was any internal debate about it.
Mimi
And it doesn't tell us what happens next—whether the international pressure continues, whether other countries join Israel's stance, whether the fighting intensifies or shifts.
The Pulse
- The death toll in Gaza surpassed 5,700 as Israel's military campaign entered its third week, with no sign of slowing.
- A high-level UN meeting became a flashpoint when Israel's ambassador called for Secretary-General Guterres to resign after he criticized Israeli operations.
- Foreign Minister Eli Cohen rejected ceasefire demands outright, framing the war as an existential duty — not a political choice subject to international pressure.
- The ratio of deaths — roughly four Palestinians for every Israeli killed — became the central, contested measure of proportionality that Israel flatly refused to accept.
- The international community pushed for negotiation while Israel insisted that negotiating with Hamas was a contradiction in terms, leaving the diplomatic process at a complete standstill.
At the United Nations on October 24, the world's calls for a ceasefire in Gaza met a wall of refusal, as Israel's foreign minister declared the destruction of Hamas not merely a right but a sacred obligation. Behind the diplomatic collision lay two catastrophic tallies: 1,400 Israelis killed in Hamas's October 7 assault, and more than 5,700 Palestinians killed in the weeks that followed. When the UN Secretary-General named what he saw as violations of humanitarian law, Israel's ambassador answered not with argument but with a demand for his resignation — a sign of how completely the language of negotiation had broken down.
On October 24, the United Nations convened a high-level meeting with a straightforward plea: stop the fighting, protect civilians, negotiate. Secretary-General António Guterres spoke with unusual directness, describing what he saw as clear breaches of international humanitarian law unfolding in Gaza. Israel's response was not a rebuttal — it was a demand that Guterres resign.
Foreign Minister Eli Cohen addressed the Security Council and rejected ceasefire calls without qualification. He described Israel's campaign against Hamas as both a right and a duty — an obligation that could not be weighed against international opinion or casualty ratios. When the question of proportionality arose, Cohen answered with the horrors of October 7: babies killed, women burned, a child beheaded. He asked the room what proportionate response could possibly look like, and then answered his own question: total destruction of Hamas, down to its last member.
The numbers framing this standoff were brutal in their simplicity. Hamas's October 7 assault had killed 1,400 people in Israel. In the three weeks since, more than 5,700 Palestinians had died in Gaza according to the territory's Health Ministry. That four-to-one ratio was precisely what alarmed the international community — and precisely what Israel rejected as a meaningful measure. In Cohen's framing, no calculus applied. Victory meant the complete elimination of Hamas as a military and political force, and nothing short of that would end the campaign.
What the UN meeting revealed was not a negotiation stalled but a conversation that had ceased to exist. One side spoke the language of restraint and humanitarian law; the other spoke the language of survival and annihilation. The gap between them, like the gap in the death tolls, showed no sign of closing.
At the United Nations, Secretary-General António Guterres spoke plainly about what he was witnessing in Gaza. The scale of civilian harm troubled him deeply. He named it directly: clear breaches of international humanitarian law were unfolding in real time. But when Israel's representative heard those words, the response was swift and unforgiving. The ambassador did not debate the facts. He called for Guterres himself to step down.
This collision happened on October 24, as the death toll in Gaza climbed past 5,700 according to the territory's Health Ministry. The international community had gathered at a high-level UN meeting to make a simple request: stop fighting, negotiate, let civilians live. The Palestinians made the case. Many countries echoed it. The United Nations itself pressed the point. Israel's answer was no.
Foreign Minister Eli Cohen stood before the Security Council and rejected the ceasefire calls outright. He reframed the entire conflict in terms of right and duty. Israel, he said, had not merely the right to destroy Hamas—it had an obligation to do so. When pressed on the question of proportionality, whether the scale of response matched the scale of provocation, Cohen responded with a catalog of atrocities. He listed the dead from October 7: babies killed, women raped and burned, a child beheaded. Then he posed a question back to the room: what response could possibly be proportionate to such acts? How could any nation agree to a ceasefire with an enemy sworn to its annihilation?
Cohen's language hardened as he continued. He called Hamas "the new Nazis" and described the required response in absolute terms: total destruction, down to the last member. This was not negotiable, he suggested. This was existential. The proportionate answer to massacre was obliteration.
The numbers behind this rhetoric were stark. Hamas's surprise assault on October 7 had killed 1,400 people inside Israel. In the three weeks since, Israel's military campaign in Gaza had resulted in more than 5,700 Palestinian deaths, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. The gap between the two figures—a ratio of roughly four to one—was precisely what the international community found alarming. It was also precisely what Cohen was rejecting as a valid measure of anything. In his framing, there was no calculus that could apply. The only answer was victory, defined as the complete elimination of Hamas as a fighting force and political entity.
The moment captured a fundamental deadlock. One side was calling for restraint, for negotiation, for an end to the killing. The other side was saying that restraint was a luxury it could not afford, that negotiation with Hamas was a contradiction in terms, and that the killing would continue until a specific military objective was achieved. Guterres had named the humanitarian crisis. Israel had responded by questioning whether the man naming it deserved his job. The conversation, such as it was, had broken down entirely.
Notable Quotes
It is not only Israel's right to destroy Hamas. It's our duty.— Foreign Minister Eli Cohen
I'm deeply concerned about the clear violations of international humanitarian law that we are witnessing.— UN Secretary-General António Guterres
Want the full story?
Read the original at Sky News ↗
War & Conflict