This article explores the international dynamics of the Gaza war, focusing on how global powers align, intervene, and utilize international aid as a strategic instrument. It examines the positions of key countries that support either Israel or Palestine, analyzing their actions through the lens of Realism, with supplementary insights from Anarchism. The study argues that while states publicly justify their involvement through humanitarian or legal principles, their actions are largely influenced by geopolitical interests, historical narratives, domestic pressures, and strategic alliances. Countries such as the United States, and the United Kingdom provide military and diplomatic backing to Israel to maintain regional dominance and economic leverage. The research further discusses how international organizations, including the UN and ICC, play both active and symbolic roles in shaping the discourse, often constrained by great power politics. By mapping the political gains pursued through aid, diplomacy, and international alignments, the thesis provides a comprehensive understanding of how the Gaza conflict has become a global arena of competing interests, identity-driven agendas, and contested norms of international order. Through a Realist lens (Morgenthau 1948; Waltz 1979), this article analyzes the Gaza War (2023–present) as a global power contest where states prioritize strategic interests over humanitarian or legal principles. Evidence—including U. S. military aid (3. 8B/year + Elbit contracts; International institutions (UN, ICC) are neutered by vetoes or selective enforcement, while neutral states (e. g. , India) prioritize arms deals over ethics. The article concludes that coercive measures (arms embargoes, grassroots governance) must raise occupation costs to force compromise.
Qaisar Ali (Wed,) studied this question.