The war in Gaza is not unfolding in isolation. It is taking
place within a global system where major powers supply weapons, veto ceasefire
resolutions, and delay the creation of any independent administrative or
security mechanism for Gaza.
This does not mean every nation is actively supporting the
killings, but the combination of strategic silence, diplomatic protection, and
ineffective humanitarian enforcement creates the impression that the world, by
action or inaction, has become a partner in allowing the destruction to
continue.
The United States and several European governments remain
Israel’s principal military and diplomatic supporters. Arms transfers,
intelligence sharing, and repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council have
blocked ceasefire initiatives or international investigations.
Although discussions were held about a transitional
authority or peacekeeping force for post-conflict Gaza, no structure has been
implemented. As a result, Israel continues to control borders, airspace, and
aid oversight.
Humanitarian aid pledges from international donors rarely
translate into consistent delivery. Bureaucratic inspections, restricted
crossings, and lack of secure corridors delay supplies.
Arab and Muslim governments issue statements but refrain
from economic sanctions, diplomatic withdrawal, or coordinated action through
the OIC or Arab League. Their responses remain political, not operational.
However, describing the entire world as a partner overlooks
visible resistance. Countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Ireland, Spain, and
Norway have openly condemned Israeli actions. South Africa has taken Israel to
the International Court of Justice on genocide charges. Humanitarian agencies —
UNRWA, WHO, Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières — continue to work despite
operational hazards and loss of staff.
Public resistance is also significant, with widespread
protests across Europe, the U.S., and Muslim-majority countries, including from
Jewish and academic groups. Some regional states like Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan
provide aid or mediate negotiations, although within limited parameters.
Therefore, global behavior reflects neither full complicity
nor decisive opposition. It is a landscape of selective engagement,
geopolitical caution, and lack of enforcement. The failure is not of words, but
of action.
