How international powers focus on Gaza while avoiding accountability for the state driving regional instability
For years, global powers have treated Gaza as a problem to manage rather than a people to protect. Yet the reality is clear. Israel, the state that carried out the destruction of the Strip and dismantled every form of local stability, continues to be shielded from meaningful accountability.
More than seventy thousand Palestinians were killed during two years of bombardment, and entire neighborhoods were turned into rubble. Governments that moved quickly to stop other regional conflicts responded to Gaza with little more than statements and symbolic measures. Instead of pressure that could have saved lives, the world delivered warnings and temporary arrangements that brought almost no relief.
Now, after promoting another so-called ceasefire that has changed little on the ground, these same actors claim they are planning long-term stability for Gaza. Their attention, however, is already misplaced. They continue to frame Gaza as the side in need of stabilising, while ignoring the role of Israel, the state that produced the instability in the first place.
Global powers, led by the United States, say they want to deliver new forms of security to Gaza through structures of monitoring and control. These efforts involve the same military that devastated the territory and continue to be built in coordination with it. The result is a new model of oversight that treats Gaza as a place to be managed from a distance rather than a community to be supported.
A symbol of this approach is the US-led Civil-Military Coordination Center, located near what is now called Kiryat Gat. Dozens of countries and organisations operate inside this hub, described as a first step toward stabilising Gaza. Yet its mission is carried out from outside the territory and alongside Israeli military officials. If the architects of stability are committed to Gaza’s future, why not enter and engage directly with its people? Their reluctance speaks loudly about whose safety they prioritise.
This is not a new pattern. Over the years, international forces have arrived with promises of peace but often became observers rather than protectors. Many residents once believed that peacekeeping missions symbolised hope. Growing up changed that perception. The world saw that some missions lacked the ability or willingness to defend civilians, even as violence intensified around them.
The United States has previously launched programmes in Gaza under the banner of humanitarian assistance, yet these initiatives sometimes reinforced the hardships they claimed to address. When Israel restricted food deliveries, international efforts were meant to fill the gap. Instead, the situation deteriorated and Gaza witnessed deadly scenes where people seeking food were killed. The involvement of foreign actors did not prevent the catastrophe.
Today, Washington returns with partners and new language promising an International Stabilisation Force. The mission claims to combine aid delivery with long-term security. In practice, it risks becoming another project shaped by external priorities rather than local needs. What Gaza requires is not an experiment in post-conflict management but relief from the conditions that fuel instability: blockade, displacement and ongoing military attacks.
Any remaining sense of security in Gaza has disappeared. Local leaders who once tried to maintain order have been targeted and replaced with figures who serve outside interests. This has created a manufactured chaos, where basic goods like flour have become scarce and survival depends on navigating a system that was never designed to help Gaza rebuild.
There can be no real stability when food, water and medical care remain restricted. International planners debate how to manage aid delivery even as the blockade persists, leaving daily life unpredictable and unsafe. Stability cannot exist in a place where people must prove they are worthy of basic necessities.
Despite a recent ceasefire, Israeli attacks have continued, taking more Palestinian lives while international observers remain largely silent. This silence deepens the sense of dehumanisation. Gaza’s residents feel watched but not protected, studied but not supported.
Israel stands accused on the world stage of grave violations. Despite this, it continues to act with impunity while global powers discuss ways to contain Gaza. The imbalance is clear. Forces are being positioned to monitor Palestinians fetching water under siege, yet the military responsible for the instability continues without restriction.
After years of collective punishment, Gaza now faces a new era that feels like an extension of the crisis rather than a step toward peace. The same hands that blocked efforts to end the destruction at the United Nations now claim the role of peacebuilders. Real stability requires confronting the source of instability, not reshaping Gaza into an isolated zone divided from the rest of Palestine.
Gaza is inseparable from the Palestinian people and their land. Any future that treats it as an experimental zone managed from abroad will fail. Justice cannot be achieved when consequences for the oppressor become additional burdens for the oppressed.
Stability will only become possible when the world addresses the violence driving this conflict, not the people trying to survive it.