The International System is Dying: Gaza as Witness and Martyr

In an international moment where hotspots of conflict are expanding from Gaza to Sudan, and from Syria and Yemen to Ukraine, the world seems to be entering a phase of simultaneous explosions of crises, not as separate events, but as a direct result of the collapse of the conflict management system that was established after World War II. At the heart of this troubled scene, Washington, with the return of Donald Trump to the White House, is reintroducing the idea of a "Peace Council" as a new tool for managing conflicts, starting with Gaza, with increasing signals pointing to its potential application to other international issues, such as Ukraine and perhaps Venezuela. However, the essential question is no longer related to the ability of this mechanism to achieve a breakthrough in any specific file, but has become deeper and more urgent: Can the United States re-engineer global conflict management unilaterally, without real coordination with influential international and regional powers, or without integrating the forces that are actually involved in these conflicts, as if the international system has succumbed, or should succumb, to its will alone? "Peace Council"… Is it a Circumvention of the United Nations or an Acknowledgment of its Failure? The simultaneous explosion of regional crises is not an incidental event, but a reflection of a historical moment where the paralysis of international system institutions, the waning effectiveness of international law, and the return of the logic of bare power as the governing reference for international relations intersect. Today, the United Nations seems unable to fulfill its role, not only due to divisions within the Security Council, but because the great powers themselves no longer see international law as a binding constraint, but as a political burden that can be circumvented whenever it conflicts with their interests. Conversely, the United States returns to the international stage with greater weight, but without a universal comprehensive project, preferring to manage crises rather than resolve them, and temporary deals over long political processes. Here lies the essence of the impasse: managing a fragmented world with unilateral tools at a time when unipolarity has ended. Gaza as a Testing Point for the Collapse of International Law At the heart of this scene stands Gaza, not as the most complex of crises, but as the most revealing of the blatant failure of international efforts. Despite the heavy media presence, there is no real ceasefire, no political horizon, and no legal accountability. The tragedy is managed as a humanitarian issue isolated from its political roots, as if the problem lies in relief rather than in occupation, and in alleviating suffering rather than ending it. In Gaza, the international system reveals its clearest forms: occupation without accountability, aggression without responsibility, and international silence that is nearly turning into complicity. In this context, the "Peace Council" proposed by Washington emerges as a new framework for managing the post-war phase in Gaza, with powers that exceed in some aspects the traditional role of the United Nations. However, the danger of this proposal lies not only in its Gaza-specific nature but also in what it hints at regarding the possibility of transforming it into a model applicable to other international conflicts. This suggests an attempt to build parallel mechanisms to the existing international system, surpassing the frameworks of the United Nations under the pretext of their slowness and incapacity, but essentially reproducing the same approach that led to this collapse. American Uniqueness in a Multipolar World However, this bet clashes with solid limits. No stability can be imposed from outside the real balances of conflicts. In Ukraine, Russia cannot be overlooked. In Syria, interlocking regional and international interests cannot be bypassed. In Venezuela, the political weight of Latin American forces and their internal dynamics cannot be ignored. As for Gaza, the political and social reality cannot be erased, nor can the Palestinian national rights be bypassed, regardless of the changing names or frameworks. Moreover, despite the U.S. possessing military and economic pressure tools, it currently lacks the moral and political legitimacy necessary to lead a new global system. The stark biases, double standards, and the dismissal of international law whenever it conflicts with American or Israeli interests undermine any claim to leadership or mediation. Imposing solutions from outside international agreements, as if the world is a playground for American management, does not produce peace but deepens chaos. History Warns: No Peace Can be Imposed from the Outside This is not the first time an upper solution to complex conflicts has been proposed. From Sykes-Picot, which was presented as an arrangement for stability that sowed a century of conflicts, to the Dayton Agreement that ended the war in Bosnia but froze the conflict within a dysfunctional political structure, not to mention the management post-Iraq invasion that created institutions without national consensus, ultimately destabilizing the state instead of saving it. Even humanitarian intervention models, as seen in Kosovo and Libya, have proven that toppling regimes is much easier than building sustainable peace. The common denominator among these experiences is that solutions crafted outside communities, and without involving real actors, may succeed in temporarily suspending conflict, but they fail to address its roots. If this approach failed at a time of American dominance, its failure today in a multipolar world seems more probable and less concealable. Managing Chaos instead of a New Global Order The problem does not lie in the absence of ideas or tools, but in the insistence on an approach of uniqueness, sidelining international law, and treating the global system as if it were submissive to the will of a single power. Neither a Gaza Peace Council mechanism, nor an international mechanism for Ukraine or Venezuela, can succeed within this logic. What is being proposed today is not peace, but a temporary management of chaos, until it erupts again, perhaps on a broader and more violent scale, with a heavy humanitarian and political cost. In the face of this universal chaos and the absence of law in the region, the real danger lies in the insistence on sidelining peoples and excluding sincere leaders and visionaries. At that point, the debris of the people seeps in to dictate the course of the populace, and mediocrity is presented as an inescapable fate. Confronting this reality in our Palestinian context does not begin with slogans or waiting for external transformations but by restoring national political action, prioritizing unity, accountability, and genuine representation, in protection of the community before the cause, and preserving the sacrifices of a people paying costs beyond their capacity.