Over 43,000 Killed In Gaza. How Much Longer Will The World Turn A Blind Eye? Is International Aid Complicit In Prolonging The Suffering?

As bombs begin to fall and lives get lost, the world witnesses it all, waiting desperately for some form of action, but many have observed that the response from around the world, especially on the part of international establishments, especially the United Nations, has been quite less and insufficient. The emergency throws up a number of important questions regarding accountability along with the effectiveness of organisations such as the United Nations and the real human costs of continued and seemingly intractable conflict.

The Role of the United Nations: A Historical Context

Founded in the aftermath of the devastation that was World War II, a world quaking at the unthinkable loss and devastation, the United Nations was formed in 1945. Its mandate was both ambitious but very deep to prevent another war that would have the capability of leaving human loss unprecedented on the international stage.

The founders of the United Nations wanted to create a community that would establish and implement peace, advance respect for human rights, and increase international cooperation in facing and solving common problems across its member states. The UN worked for decades in the most tragic areas of conflict zones, natural disaster sites, and some of the world’s most impoverished regions to offer aid and hope when there was little hope.

There were three main goals to govern the UN’s work:

• To prevent another global war through peaceful dialogue and international cooperation.
• To plead for essential rights and justice for everyone, especially those involved in conflicts or subjugated by their own governments.
• This includes helping the victims of people in war, famine and natural disaster by various agencies UNICEF, World Food Programme and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East commonly known as UNRWA.

Although such goals were ambitious and even idealistic, UN history has often been criticised, especially in the Middle East. The UN never managed to avoid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a long-standing, complex, and deeply entrenched crisis wherein neither side appears willing to give up its position. This has been an ongoing battle that has stretched the UN’s capabilities and exposed the weaknesses of the organisation in dealing with highly entrenched political and cultural divisions.

UNRWA: An Organization Born to Serve Palestinian Refugees

UNRWA is short for United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, created in 1949.As its mandate would clearly depict, it was formed to provide basic assistance to Palestinians who were displaced during this war and ensure that education, health, and any other basic services reached the refugees. 

UNRWA became a lifeline for Palestinian communities, especially in Gaza, where the reality of overcrowding and poverty, together with this instability, has worsened for families. With insufficient infrastructure and disruption that is frequent because of conflict in the region, UNRWA filled gaps, from operating schools and clinics to the running of relief programs. For decades, the agency has been the only viable provider of these basic necessities to a population that feels almost invisible and often overlooked within the broader international community.

However, the work of UNRWA has not been controversy-free. The Israeli government has accused the agency of using some UNRWA facilities as operational bases for Hamas and other militant groups. Still, some UNRWA personnel have been under suspicion and thus, Israel has accused a certain number of its workers. Several claims have brought the firm to terminate personnel who previously had links with armed teams as it has denied then countered the claim on one instance after the other.

The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: A Glimpse of Pain

In October 2023, a very brutal and quite surprising attack by Hamas opened up a new round of violence against Israel.The response was swift and intense: Israel responded to it with a massive sweep through military operations targeting strongholds of Hamas within Gaza. The reaction was not merely swift, relentless, or overwhelming in its consequences, but while the officially proclaimed objective for the military operation of Israel was that Hamas capabilities were dismantled, strikes have also unleashed severe havoc among the civilian population in Gaza.

The result was a humanitarian catastrophe. Most of Gaza’s hospitals that were already under-equipped could hardly deal with the flood of wounded civilians. Resources for medical supplies are increasingly scarce, and the professionals are working continuously, albeit without the simplest amenities-including clean water, electricity supply, and necessary medical gears. According to the current reports, over 100,000 have been admitted with injuries to healthcare structures.

Apart from the immediate casualty and loss of life, the present conflict has caused more than 1.9 million Palestinians internally displaced within Gaza. Most of them have nowhere to go since they are locked in a highly populated area with no safe zones and very few places to seek refuge. Gaza has turned into a crucible of suffering with acute shortages of food, water, and medicine. Gaza infrastructure is crumbling under this continued onslaught. Children, older adults, and families are all dying miserably.

New Israeli Legislative Steps against UNRWA

A new development by the Israeli parliament has brought grave concern to the human rights organisations and Israel’s international partners. That in itself might mean changing the capacity of the agency to work in areas that are under Israel’s control. The first law shall be a total prohibition against UNRWA carrying out any activity or the provision of services on Israeli soil; the second law is going to represent a break of diplomatic ties with this agency; it actually implies cutting off UNRWA’s official relations with Israel.

At a time when the role of UNRWA has never been more crucial, such legislative changes reflect long-standing suspicion and hostility on the part of some factions in Israel toward the agency. Critics of UNRWA within Israel say that it has morphed into an “aid agency for Hamas,” said the country’s lawmaker Boaz Bismuth, who co-sponsored one of the bills. Behind those laws is not only a spirit of restriction but also a larger accusation that UNRWA enables, directly or indirectly, the presence of armed groups in Gaza, by providing what’s described as a cover or support mechanism for their operations.

The response from UNRWA has been a concerned and condemnatory stance. The head of the agency, Philippe Lazzarini, branded the laws as a “dangerous precedent” and will exacerbate the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It still insists that it has already lost more than 200 staff members to the conflict and that it doesn’t harbour militants knowingly; in fact, it said that it takes steps to make sure that its services are strictly for humanitarian purposes.

United Nations Fight to Stay Relevant in Gaza

The United Nations was constituted to stand as the authoritative body for peacekeeping worldwide and as a humanitarian haven during any crisis. Sadly, as things continue to deteriorate in the Gaza Strip, nobody really would be able to deny that the United Nations really can’t do anything in terms of solving such a problem.

In places like Gaza, where decades of conflict and complicated politics seem to blur most decisions, the UN looks slow-moving, bureaucratic, and unable to act with decisive speed when really needed. There should be structures related to the stability in the international relationships that could curb such a dilemma as deep-seated in religious and territorial ideas. Political stalemates and weakness of the security council.

The Security Council forms the core of problems within the UN because it holds the responsibility for international peace and security. It is entitled to make resolutions which can demand action, impose sanctions, or even authorise military interventions. More to the point, however, are the five permanent veto-possessing members on the council, which make up the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom. Whatever the will of the people, should a resolution happen to get opposition from only one of the five member states, the resolution then fails.

It is said, in this context, in the case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that the United States has supported Israel over time and its veto was more than usual in opposition of resolutions in favour of anything perceived contrary to Israel’s interests. This becomes a major obstacle for the UN whenever it tries to intervene or affect the tide of the conflict, as any resolution that would make Israel stop military operations, allow completely unimpeded humanitarian assistance, or examine allegations of human rights violations is likely to be vetoed by the United States.

Thin Resources and Growing Necessity

In addition to the political battles, the UN needs more resources. Humanitarian expeditions are extremely expensive financially and in terms of materials, and the global body needs to be more consistent in terms of funding commitments to the agencies. For example, international funding into UNRWA has been largely inconsistent for the past years. Cuts that are usually politically motivated in nature put a strain on the capabilities of UNRWA in sustaining its operations and subsequently reduce its ability to feed, medicate, or educate Palestinian refugees. 

The deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza casts increasing demands on the United Nations and its agencies, with access to resources far out of reach.rs open, the lack of resources from the UN literally becomes a matter of life or death. In Gaza, this means an interminable wait for help that may never come, in the face of the greatest humanitarian organisation on earth faltering to fulfil its guarantees in the light of countless needs and paltry contributions.

Accusations and Credibility Issues

The problems facing the UN in Gaza are more than funding and politics because the credibility of the organisation has also been questioned. Israel has often accused UNRWA of harbouring militants or allowing its facilities to be used for military purposes. These accusations have led a number of international donors to withhold or withdraw funding from the agency, which exacerbates the problems.

Although UNRWA denied the accusations of actually abetting armed groups, and it took measures to fire any employee connected with militant organisations, these concerns persisted and weakened the operations of UNRWA so that it could not do its work without any restrictions, and it lost support in a manner in which it enjoyed previously.

For many Palestinians, the UN is an agency of hope, while others, Israeli politicians and people, see it as another institution that unfairly targets Israel. Such a perception gap in the UN reduces its strength to act as a reasonable mediator and weakens influence on the ground.  It makes things complicated, even impossible, for the UN to work on peace or offer relief when it does not have the trust of either party.

Casualties of the Civilians: A Crushing Casualty and Collective Responsibility

Human casualty in Gaza is alarming. Over 43,000 lives have been claimed so far, and every passing day adds more numbers to this list. It is in the open: entire families killed by one air attack, neighbourhoods completely raked through, and those who survive are left to dig out the debris that was once their homes.

The two major factors which cause civilian casualties include the tactics used by Hamas within Gaza and the military strategies employed by Israel. In other words, it is a case of equal responsibility between the two sides for the disastrous outcome when it comes to non-combatants.

Role of Hamas in Civilian Risk

Way back, Hamas’ waging war tactics had already been in controversy. Many have accused this group of using civilian zones, especially hospitals, schools, and also highly populated areas, to help them hide from military confrontations. 

Launching rockets from residential zones or storing supplies of weapons close to civilian infrastructure also places Hamas in a position where any retaliatory measures taken by Israel would by necessity end up placing civilians’ lives at risk. Known under the language of international law to be illegal and having been widely condemned by all branches of human rights, human shielding places civilians squarely on the receiving end and even complicates the already strained moral calculus of this fight.

But, however, the actions of Hamas cannot excuse Israel for killings of civilians. Even when Hamas uses civilians as a cover, international humanitarian law obliges both parties in conflict to distinguish between the combatants and non-combatants and take all possible precautions to avoid civilians’ harm. We reach Israel’s role and how its military strategies affect Gaza’s population.

Analysis on the military strategy of Israel and its implications

Israel has accepted a campaign of demolishing the militant group’s military power following the first strikes by Hamas. According to Israel, the bombing raids, ground attacks, and blockades are acts that are essential for the national security of Israel, which began after the October 2023 massacre by the militant group Hamas. Despite military tactics used, a significant number of the civilian casualties has brought concerns on whether Israel is observing its duties in international humanitarian law.

Israel claims that it takes measures to minimise civilian casualties, including issuing warnings prior to attacking and attempting to target only locations with perceived connections to Hamas. Still, the level of devastation in Gaza suggests that measures taken were insufficient. Residential blocks, schools, hospitals, and even UNRWA facilities were targeted, thereby causing extreme destruction. One can argue that a practice followed by Israel primarily in the form of intense air bombing in densely populated neighborhoods is a form of abdication of civilian lives.

The death toll and humanitarian fallout reveal that a more restrained approach, or at least the targeting, can save people’s lives. World community, even human rights nongovernmental organizations like Amnesty International, urge Israel to take a better look at their tactics against Hamas and respect the rule of war. But Israel’s government defends the tactics as a defence effort against an organization that has vowed openly to destroy the state of Israel.

What Needs to Happen? Processes to Mitigate suffering and Accountability

In the midst of such slaughter, however, an international community and belligerent parties are given an opportunity to lessen suffering and yet take another step closer toward accountability: it has to be done today, and it has to be done decisively and urgently-for human life against political purpose.

One of the most immediate needs is a ceasefire. It will stop the violence, at least for a time, and open space for humanitarian aid to be delivered to those who are suffering and a respite for weary, traumatized civilians. A ceasefire could give an opportunity for negotiators to enter into dialogues that attempt to prevent further escalation and in beginning to address the causes of the conflict.

The fact that a ceasefire remains a complex and difficult undertaking makes it highly dependent on international mediators—the nations or organizations perceived to be impartial. The United Nations and those countries, such as Egypt and Qatar, with good relations with both parties will be vital in encouraging both sides to talk to each other. Success, however, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

If a ceasefire agreement cannot be reached, there is at least a justification for humanitarian access. Aid delivery to Gaza is badly restricted by humanitarian organizations currently. There is an urgent need in Gaza for medical supplies and food, clean water, as well as shelter materials but blockades and security apprehensions stand in the way of the free flow of these resources.

The UN and other coalition nations can further threaten to withdraw or scale down aid unless Israel allows or reduces its restrictions on the delivery of humanitarian supplies. Although security can be the rationale behind withholding the arms from the militants, ways can be conceived in which the benefit from the aid would accrue solely to the civilian population. International observers or monitors may be placed at different levels of distribution so that no resources would find their way to being used for military purposes.

Accountability to Violations of International Law

Meaningful end accountability will only be achieved through the end of this cycle of violence and a holding responsible of each entity for the violation of international law. Accountability can best be addressed through an impartial investigation led by a neutral body such as the ICC. This may be problematic in that Israel is not a signatory to the ICC, and Hamas is not a recognized state entity; however, sometimes international pressure can elicit cooperation.

Without accountability, any ceasefire or peace agreement will be fleeting because the problems and grievances deeply rooted remain unsolved. The accountability in the war crimes or breaches of humanitarian law can give justice to victims as well as deter any future breach by either of the parties involved in a conflict.

Psychological Impacts on the People of Gaza: Trauma of Generations

War costs people more than physical destruction—it invades the minds and spirits of the survivors. People in Gaza, particularly young people, are growing up in a land of war and uncertainty, and all aspects of their lives are involved. This continuous warfare impacts mental health severely. The children of Gaza live amidst the shadow of trauma-the loss of their family, friends, or homes-as many have grown up within such a constant environment of trauma.

These children constantly witness death and destruction everywhere around them and live a life interrupted by airstrikes and sirens, and there’s nowhere to escape to either. According to research done by organizations like Doctors Without Borders and UNICEF, children of Gaza have extremely high incidences of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression-all of which occur years after the incidents.

There is nothing that occurs daily in a place where life is threatened on a daily basis, going through military checkpoints, experiencing destruction, and living through the threat of the next attack that does not compound trauma with each and every event. This state of fear is constant, penetrating every stratum of society: children cannot concentrate in school, adults cannot find and retain jobs, and families are rent asunder by loss and deprivation.

With little access to mental health care-an area that is frequently neglected in humanitarian aid-the people of Gaza are left to manage these deep psychological wounds themselves. In time, this repeated exposure to trauma can result in societal scarring where hopelessness and anger are imprinted on the collective psyche, thus perpetuating cycles of despair and violence.

These mental health issues are usually intergenerational; parents pass them on to children as they share the same instability and conflict. In the absence of peace, without access to the means to heal, each generation in Gaza inherits not only the trauma of the past but also the fear of a violent future.

Role of International Allies: Involvement Complex and Loyal to Whom?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most extraordinary in terms of the scale of the attention commanded. International allies in this matter play very active parts, often in support of military operations, funding humanitarian aid, or, in more creative terms, diplomatic interference on both sides. Their role, however, always adds complexity to the process.

For Israel, the United States is its most consistent friend, offering considerable military assistance as well as backup in international organizations such as the United Nations. For the U.S., it is both a strategic imperative in the Middle East and a moral obligation based on convergent democratic principles. But this has its costs. The U.S. has consistently vetoed UN resolutions calling for sanctions on Israel or an investigation of alleged war crimes. Such security also works in favour of Israel, but stands against the imposition of some measures internationally, which will prompt Israel to rethink Gaza-related strategies.

Moreover, a festering wound remains inside the US and within international relations between the nation with regard to its foreign relationship, particularly with any opposing nations in the country against it as well, thereby hardening the situation to an unbearable level at this stage within its masses to consider this humanitarian calamity in Gaza as of dire concern to them as well.

On the other hand, Iran and Qatar are the friends of Hamas. Iran considers Israel a regional competitor; Iran gives Hamas funds and weapons, hoping that this way it will be able to strengthen its position in the region and somehow balance the scale against Israel.

That enables Hamas to continue fighting even at the expense of civilians in Gaza. Turkey and Qatar vie to become intermediaries, themselves sending aid to Palestinians, but find themselves entangled in larger, knottier diplomatic relationships with Israel and its friends. These relationships are full of contradictions, for all the vital support they give to the people of Gaza, they also feed into the militarization of the conflict and into the violence, and they undermine peace efforts.

These international allies reflect the mesh of interests tangled in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Every nation has its own agendas and, while one brings needed aid and peace to cease fighting, another can pour gas on the flames and support further violence. Such complexity in the international scene further complicates matters as steps taken to back one party only fuel resentment by the other.

Potential Solutions and Peace Initiatives: The Way Ahead?

Despite the insurmountable challenges, year after year, a number of peace initiatives and solutions found their way into the spotlight. And in this, from two-state solutions to something as parochial as ceasefires and humanitarian corridors, almost nothing has been achieved, failed, and only a very few have ever been offered even the semblance of an opportunity to build upon future talks.

Two-State Solution: The Holy Grail of Failed Plans

The international community favours the two-state solution as the preferred end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is to be an independent Palestinian state and a state of Israel with mutually agreed borders between the two states. On paper, this would seem to give the Palestinians their right to self-determination, while at the same time securing the security of Israel. However, such entrenched issues as the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and rights of Palestinian refugees have impeded progress in this area.

The biggest obstacle to a two-state solution is lack of trust between the parties. For Palestinian leaders, including Hamas, the continuing settlement expansion by Israel suggests that it has no real interest in a two-state deal. Israeli leaders, in turn, say that with Hamas not recognizing the state of Israel and continuing its military approach, a two-state solution cannot be practically executed. Even the best-laid peace plans are susceptible to collapse at the first sign of tension if there is no trust.

Humanitarian Corridors and Temporary Ceasefires

Some of the advocates advance the call for humanitarian corridors to meet the urgent needs of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. No-go areas will ensure safe access for assistance to civilians unobstructed by hostile forces; thus, relief might only be temporary to those directly affected by the conflict. Unlike full ceasefires so intricately bargained over and demanded as concessions for both parties, humanitarian corridors can be settled upon a limited basis simply for providing relief to the suffering civil population.

Temporary ceasefires have also been tried. Often short-term and fragile, because the two sides are provocational or due to mishaps in enforcement, they can still open a narrow window for a short period of time to deliver some badly needed humanitarian aid.

But though these stopgaps were critical, they could only be stopgaps-not a substitute for a fair peace settlement. They represent only a short-term rescue, and very little prospects of getting at the causes of the trouble. While there is no political answer, the humanitarian response was merely sticking plasters to a wound; the short-run survival treatment does not replace the cure.

Accountability and Justice: The Case for Rule of Law

An important ingredient of any future resolution will have to be building accountability mechanisms to make sure that both sides live up to international laws. The International Criminal Court has, for example, expressed an interest in investigating possible war crimes in Gaza, though its jurisdiction and effectiveness remain limited by political realities.

Israel is not a part of the ICC and continues to contest its jurisdiction with regard to the military conduct, arguing it has all the internal means to provide an investigation on the abuses. The issue of ICC jurisdiction over the Hamas activity has also been complicated, since Hamas is an actor beyond the state entity.

However, these might be enough to nudge the government toward cooperation for independent investigations into alleged breaches of international law: inquiries by third parties or of the UN can document evidence of possible breaches and circulate it to the public. Investigation alone cannot necessarily force accountability on perpetrators, but documentation of abuse and violations can be an instrumental precursor to deterrence.

Legal oversight would indicate to both Israel and Hamas that their actions are under scrutiny. This cannot independently stop the violence, but it would put both under a magnifying glass: abuses would be pointed out, and adherence to humanitarian standards would be encouraged. Mechanisms of accountability have to be put in place for faith in the possibility of justice to be restored in the minds of those most affected, the civilians.

A Moral Imperative for Action

It has resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe for the people of Gaza. Loss, trauma, and destruction suffered by the people of Gaza require more than just temporary ceasefires or humanitarian band-aiding as a solution. What was exposed in this war reality was not only tragic but also the limit that the international institutions can carry for the vulnerable.

Founded on the notion of preventing the horrors committed, the United Nations becomes mired in political impasse and hobbled by its very frameworks. Meanwhile, international allies are necessary but also an obstacle, as they jockey with their respective competing interests and loyalties to prevent peace. It is, then, civilians who suffer most at the hands of unsustainable solutions.

The world cannot turn the page on the suffering in Gaza; human rights, justice, and peace require such more than an active, practical response, from an instantaneous humanitarian intervention to one made through long-term efforts. International organizations, large-scale powers, and the acting regional forces must move, cooperating with each other with all possible means to establish, in every way of effort, peace above and even before all political goals.

The road to peace is, however, challenging because these challenges require urgent attempts at justice. As the world watches what is happening in Gaza, no one should forget that it is the result of our collective failure to solve the conflict. The loss of each life, the severance of every family’s unity, and the emotional scarring of every child all speak to this failure to end the war. May their tragedies be the call that unites comforts all of us to respond differently-for to the suffering to stop for a future in which all people, whatever nation or faith they may bear, can live with dignity and hope.