The Futility of Foreign Intervention in the Israel-Gaza Conflict

By Ilsa Nawaz

Two years on from the October 7 Attacks, the Israel-Palestine genocide is one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes of the twenty first century. It parallels previous apartheid states, such as South Africa, but with violence on a much larger scale. 

Despite ceasefire negotiations, global outrage including protests, and a push towards resolutions, foreign intervention has failed to achieve any lasting peace. Instead, foreign intervention has been merely virtue signalling. The ongoing casualties, mass displacements and human rights violations highlight that foreign intervention is entirely insufficient. 

The disproportionate use of force by Israel is clear from the death toll, which stands at 67,000, and the fact that the UN and other international human rights agencies have described Gaza as “uninhabitable”. Israel’s actions have drawn accusations of war crimes and collective punishment, both of which are prohibited under international law. 

The main question is: what is the world doing to stop this? 

Foreign intervention has been a key feature in the history of Israel and Palestine. From pressure applied by the British colonial empire for the inception of Israel, to the recognition of the State of Palestine by several western states, including the UK, it has shaped in one way or another the narrative surrounding the conflict. Yet, intervention has lacked any meaningful action. Bombs are still being dropped, and the blockade prevents the Palestinians from having any resources or aid.  The International Criminal Court and United Nations have had many meetings over the past two years, being obstructed by vetos and competing political interests. 

Over the past two years, foreign intervention has been defined by contradiction. While countless world leaders have called for an end to the violence, many of these same governments have continued to supply Israel with weapons, intelligence, and political cover. Regional powers such as Egypt and Qatar have mediated temporary ceasefires, but their influence has been limited to short-term humanitarian pauses rather than lasting peace. The global protests, though large, have done little to shift government policy. This pattern exposes the deep hypocrisy within international diplomacy – where political interests override human morals, and do not reflect the views of the people.  

A key component of foreign intervention has been the position of the United States and Trump’s role in peace-brokering. The US is the biggest ally of Israel, with the US sending approximately $300 billion of economic and military assistance since Israel’s conception. 

However, Trump recently announced a 20-point plan to spearhead a ceasefire and the rebuilding of Gaza. This encompassed key issues, such as the returning of hostages and a plan to withdraw Israeli troops. However, it also takes the controversial position of pushing for the complete disarmament of Hamas. This particular point echoes how deeply politicised the plan is. The disarmament of Hamas and the rebuilding of Gaza can now be done in whatever manner Israel and the US pleases. It focuses less on the interests of the Palestinians, and more on pushing Western influence into the region. It seems that this foreign intervention is limited to protecting the interests of Israel, rather than supporting true peace in the region. 

With this most recent news of Trump’s involvement in creating a ceasefire, it will be interesting to see whether this foreign intervention leads to peace, or if it leads to further political and human rights issues.

Image: David Berkowitz/Flickr