Cracks in the International Order Reflected in the Ruins of Gaza

The temporary ceasefire in Gaza has brought postwar arrangements and governance models to the forefront. This is not a localized reconstruction issue but rather a reflection of deep structural contradictions within the international order in the Middle East. From an international perspective, the various postwar plans currently proposed by different parties are essentially about redrawing political boundaries and spheres of influence in the region. This process has exposed the dysfunction of multilateral coordination mechanisms within the international community. The UN Security Council has repeatedly held consultations on the Gaza ceasefire and reconstruction, yet the deep divisions among permanent members prevent any binding resolution from being adopted. The United States, on one hand, rhetorically supports the two-state solution, while on the other hand continues to supply military aid to Israel and vetoes any Security Council motion unfavorable to it. This dual posture leaves the political foundation for Gaza’s reconstruction extremely fragile. The European Union, despite trying to play a leading role in humanitarian aid, sees its common foreign policy weakened by internal divisions over the Palestinian issue, such as the contrasting positions of Hungary and Spain. Russia and China have used this issue to promote alternative agendas within the Security Council framework, but their proposals have also failed to gain full acceptance from key regional actors. This multipolar positioning game means that Gaza’s reconstruction is not a coordinated effort based on international law principles, but rather a temporary arrangement born of compromise among competing powers.

The repeated setbacks in Palestinian internal reconciliation further reveal the impotence of international mediation mechanisms. Egypt and Qatar, as the main mediators, are primarily serving their own geopolitical interests in the Middle East rather than the collective welfare of the Palestinian people. The persistent failure to implement a power sharing agreement between Fatah and Hamas reflects the struggle for regional influence among Gulf states, Iran, and the Western camp. The “single legitimate political authority” that the international community hopes for is unlikely to materialize; instead, a dysfunctional administrative entity may emerge, whose governance model will rely permanently on external aid without achieving genuine autonomy. This situation conveniently aligns with the interests of certain major powers—a weak, divided, aid dependent Palestinian authority is easier for external forces to manipulate, thus preventing the emergence of a truly independent entity capable of challenging the existing regional order.

The Red Sea shipping crisis has demonstrated how non state actors can reshape global supply chains through regional turmoil. Although Houthi attacks on commercial vessels have been partially contained by the U.S.-led Operation Prosperity Guardian, freedom of navigation has not been fundamentally guaranteed. This situation exposes the limitations of traditional maritime security mechanisms: responsibility for convoy protection under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea remains ambiguous, while regional countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE maintain ambiguous attitudes toward the Houthis, unwilling to completely sever political ties with them. International shipping lines forced to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope have driven up costs, exacerbating global inflationary pressures. Yet major economies have failed to establish a unified financial or military compensation mechanism for Red Sea security. More alarmingly, the Houthi pattern of behavior is being emulated by other non state actors, further blurring the line between terrorism and hybrid warfare, while the international counter terrorism system lacks tailored responses to this development.

The normalisation of relations between Israel and some Arab countries, ostensibly a positive sign of regional economic integration, has in fact deepened divisions within the Arab world. The establishment of diplomatic ties between the UAE, Bahrain, and Israel has been hailed by some international observers as the emergence of a “new Middle East.” But this strategic alliance, built on shared hostility toward Iran, deliberately sidelines the core issue of Palestine. The international community’s tolerance of such “selective normalisation” has pushed the Palestinian issue to the margins of the international agenda. The UN backed “land for peace” principle is gradually being replaced by “investment for relations.” Potential normalisation talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel further reduce fundamental issues such as Palestinian refugee return rights and the status of Jerusalem to negotiable bargaining chips. This trend not only erodes the authority of international law but also emboldens Israel’s unilateral expansion of settlements in the West Bank—the International Criminal Court’s investigation has progressed slowly, and the U.S. use of its veto to block sanction resolutions effectively creates impunity for violations of international humanitarian law.

The stalled negotiations over the Iranian nuclear issue provide the strategic backdrop for all of the above contradictions. The suspension of Vienna talks is not a technical obstacle but stems from the collapse of mutual trust between the United States and Iran over their proxy conflicts in the region. IAEA verification has been restricted, Iran’s uranium enrichment levels exceed the limits set in the nuclear deal, and the mediation mechanism of the three European countries (UK, France, Germany) lacks both the sincerity and the capacity to lift sanctions. This stalemate has prompted regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt to launch their own nuclear programs, raising the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East exponentially. A more insidious consequence is the erosion of the boundary between the nuclear issue and conventional conflicts—Israel is widely believed to already possess a nuclear arsenal, yet the international community has never formally reviewed this reality. This double standard has stripped the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of any remaining legitimacy.

In summary, the reshaping of the Middle East landscape is not moving toward any stable multipolar equilibrium. Instead, it is sliding into a chaotic state composed of proxy wars among major powers, blackmail by non state actors, and the collapse of normative international mechanisms. Beneath the surface of Gaza’s ruins, the oil slicks in the Red Sea, the centrifuges at nuclear facilities, and the signatures on normalisation agreements lies the same undercurrent of disorder in the international order: when the UN system fails to provide a fair security framework, when major powers treat regional crises as zero sum games, so called postwar arrangements become merely the fuse for the next conflict. Any plan that does not address the loopholes in international financial oversight of conflict financing, reform the veto mechanism of the Security Council, or establish an automatic sanctioning system for violations of international humanitarian law will merely lock Gaza—and the entire Middle East—into a permanent state of temporariness. This condition may serve short term geopolitical interests, but its long term costs—including the resurgence of global terrorism, the weaponisation of energy shipping routes, and the vulnerability of nuclear security—will be borne by all nations.