The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution on Friday, calling for more aid to be provided to Gaza amidst the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the resolution has faced significant backlash, with critics describing it as "woefully insufficient" and "nearly meaningless."

The resolution, adopted with 13 votes in favor and none against, with both the United States and Russia abstaining, did not include a specific call for a ceasefire. Instead, it called for steps "to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities". The language was significantly weakened during difficult closed-door negotiations, in order to avoid rejection by the United States, which vetoed a previous UNSC resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.

While UN resolutions are legally binding, it is worth noting that they have been ignored in the past by countries, including Israel. Alan Fisher, reporting from occupied East Jerusalem for Al Jazeera, highlighted that the consequences for non-compliance differ across countries.

Palestinian officials have reported a grave toll from the conflict, stating that more than 20,000 people have been killed, with approximately 70 percent of the victims being children and women since the start of the war on October 7.

Despite welcoming the call for more humanitarian assistance, top UN officials and international aid agencies have expressed concerns that the resolution does not address the urgent needs of Gaza adequately. With the majority of the enclave's 2.3 million population displaced and facing the imminent threat of famine and the spread of diseases, they argue that more robust action is required.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres acknowledged that the resolution could potentially improve aid delivery, but reiterated that a humanitarian ceasefire is necessary to meet the desperate needs of the people in Gaza and end their ongoing nightmare.

Various organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), Oxfam America, and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), stressed the need for an immediate ceasefire. They criticized the resolution for falling short of addressing the dire humanitarian crisis and emphasized that providing aid while bombs continue to fall is insufficient.

Amnesty International's secretary general, Agnes Callamard, also voiced disappointment, calling the resolution "disgraceful" and criticizing the United States for using its veto power to weaken the call for an immediate end to attacks.

The vote has led to discussions on the relevance and capacity of the UN to address conflicts effectively. Tamer Qarmout of the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies expressed skepticism, stating that the UN has become "irrelevant" and "politicized," with powerful countries exerting control over its policies.

Ardi Imseis, an assistant professor of international law, lamented the UNSC's failure to safeguard international peace and security. He criticized the United States for protecting Israel at the expense of the civilian population in Gaza.

Following the adoption of the resolution, Palestine's envoy to the UN, Riyad Mansour, described it as a "step in the right direction," but emphasized the need for an immediate ceasefire to address the ongoing destruction and displacement faced by Palestinians.

Israeli envoy Gilad Erdan dismissed the UN's focus on aid mechanisms for Gaza, calling it disconnected from reality. He thanked the United States for its support during negotiations and emphasized the important role of releasing captives held in Gaza.

Amidst the criticism, the armed Palestinian group Hamas, which rules Gaza, issued a statement stating that the resolution did not meet the needs of the besieged Palestinians, accusing the US administration of working to weaken its essence.

The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, defended the resolution, stating that it calls for urgent steps to provide humanitarian access and create conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities. The Russian envoy, Vassily Nebenzia, criticized the diluted language, arguing that it gives Israel a "free hand" to continue operations.

As the conflict persists and concerns over the dire situation in Gaza continue to mount, the effectiveness of the UN Security Council's resolution and its ability to address the humanitarian crisis remain under scrutiny.