The Rationales Behind Global Inaction on Alleged Genocide in Gaza

Abstract

Despite mounting evidence and a recent United Nations Commission of Inquiry concluding that Israel has committed four of the five acts defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention in Gaza, the international community has largely failed to take decisive action. This abstract examines the historical, political, and strategic rationales that underpin this inaction.

Key factors include:

• Geopolitical Alliances and Strategic Interests
  Israel remains a key ally of powerful Western nations, particularly the United States. Its strategic role in the Middle East—especially in counterterrorism, intelligence sharing, and regional stability—has led many governments to prioritize diplomatic ties over human rights enforcement.
• Narrative Control and Media Framing
  The framing of the conflict often centers on Israel’s right to self-defense following Hamas-led attacks, such as the October 7, 2023 incident that killed 1,200 Israelis. This narrative has been used to justify military campaigns, overshadowing the humanitarian toll in Gaza.
• Legal and Institutional Limitations
  Bodies like the UN Human Rights Council and International Criminal Court lack enforcement power. While they can issue reports and recommendations, actual prosecution or sanctions require political will from member states—often absent due to competing interests.
• Accusations of Antisemitism and Political Weaponization
  Critics of Israel’s actions are frequently accused of antisemitism, which complicates discourse and deters governments from engaging in open condemnation. Some argue that genocide allegations are politically motivated or biased.
• Fragmented Global Consensus
  While human rights organizations and some states have called for accountability, others reject the UN findings as “distorted and false”. This lack of unified response dilutes pressure and enables continued impunity.

This abstract argues that the failure to act is not due to ignorance but rather a calculated balance of moral compromise, strategic calculus, and institutional inertia. The consequences of this inaction—both for Palestinians and for the credibility of international law—are profound and enduring.

Read More...