While Antonio Guterres was in Israel for his maiden visit as UN Secretary-General, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a defiant speech that should have caused the entire visit to explode. “There will be no more uprooting of settlements in the land of Israel,” announced Netanyahu at an event celebrating fifty years of settlement in the West Bank. “We are here to stay forever.” In a veiled reference to Guterres, just hours after their meeting, Netanyahu said he warns all visiting foreign leaders that if the forces of radical Islam were to take over the West Bank after an Israeli withdrawal, this would endanger the entire Middle East.

But this extraordinarily mistimed intercession caused no visible diplomatic damage. The following day, Guterres met Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah in Ramallah, and repeated his and the UN’s “total commitment” to the two-state solution. He said that settlement activity—which he called illegal under international law—is an “obstacle that needs to be removed” for that solution to be realized. Guterres repeated longstanding UN policy, with nothing to suggest the speech had been amended at the last minute to serve as an explicit rebuttal of Netanyahu. Guterres had clearly chosen to avoid a frontal collision with the Israeli Prime Minister—and what could have been an embarrassing diplomatic incident was deftly swept under the rug.

In the course of his three-day visit, Guterres ably positioned himself as the friendliest Secretary-General Israel could realistically hope for. While he faithfully reaffirmed the UN’s support for Palestinian statehood and opposition to closures on the Gaza Strip—positions at odds with the Israeli government—he almost went out of his way to avoid clashing with Israel, in contrast to his predecessor, who did so all too often.

Consider the crisis in the Gaza Strip. Guterres called the situation there “one of the most dramatic humanitarian crises” that he had seen in many years—but notably avoided pointing the finger at Israel (or at the Palestinian government, which has been slashing electricity payments and medical budgets for Gaza in a bid to squeeze Hamas to relinquish power). Guterres indeed said that “it is important to open the closures,” which the UN opposes despite Israeli arguments that they are necessary to prevent Hamas from acquiring war materiel. But there was a notable shift in tone from predecessor, Ban Ki-moon, who in his final trip there said the Israeli closure of Gaza “suffocates its people,” calling it “collective punishment for which there must be accountability.”

In his remarks, Guterres explicitly promised Israel impartiality—a key demand from Jerusalem, which complains that the UN harbors a systemic bias against it and obsession with it. Speaking alongside both President Rivlin and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Guterres highlighted his personal commitment to impartiality and to the equality of states. In doing so, he picked up the baton from Ban Ki-moon, who confessed in his farewell remarks that the UN’s “disproportionate” focus on Israel has foiled its ability to fulfill its role properly. But in a major departure from Ban, Guterres also affirmed that calls for Israel’s destruction amount to a modern form of anti-Semitism—adding his voice to a growing chorus of world leaders who say so.

Indeed, Guterres has already signaled in his short time in office that he is committed to steering the United Nations in a more impartial direction. He has on several occasions drawn fire for sticking his neck out in support of Israel. In his first month, he provoked demands for an apology from Palestinian officials for stating the historical fact that there was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem two millennia ago. Soon after, the head of the UN’s West Asia commission resigned in protest after Guterres demanded she withdraw a report accusing Israel of apartheid. He also publicly distanced himself from the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People’s commemoration of “fifty years of the Israeli occupation” due to the participation of listed terror groups Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Guterres now returns to Turtle Bay having hit the reset button between the UN Secretariat and Israel. As Secretary-General, Guterres cannot greatly influence the voting behavior of countries in the General Assembly, Human Rights Council, UNESCO, or other bodies—the moves that so often provoke outrage in Israel. But he has reopened the doors of his good offices for engagement with Israel, cultivating the opportunity for cooperation. Whether that goodwill can be sustained under pressure during the next crisis, diplomats are sure to discover sooner rather than later.