Gaza’s Ashes, The World’s Shame: Muslim Silence, Global Complicity and the Betrayal of a People
What is happening in Gaza constitutes a horrific humanitarian catastrophe that has shaken the conscience of the world. Independent hunger-monitoring organizations and UN-affiliated reports have repeatedly warned that Gaza is facing extreme food insecurity and famine-like conditions. The destruction of livelihoods, restrictions on movement and supplies, and the complete collapse of basic services have pushed millions toward hunger and malnutrition. At certain points, assessments have even indicated that famine was effectively present. Although limited aid access later led to slight, temporary improvements, Gaza is still classified under “emergency” levels of food insecurity—meaning the situation can deteriorate drastically again at any moment. From legal and moral perspectives, many states, human rights organizations, and international law experts have described Israel’s actions as “genocide.” Israel rejects this accusation, claiming it does not target civilians and that it facilitates humanitarian assistance. However, this dispute has now entered formal international legal arenas. Following a case filed by South Africa, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures against Israel, directing it to take steps to prevent acts that could amount to genocide and to ensure humanitarian assistance. These orders have become a central reference point in global debate.
In this context, allegations that some Middle Eastern countries—particularly Muslim-majority states—are engaged in military, financial, or strategic cooperation with Israel have generated deep anger and disappointment. When Palestinian civilians are suffering hunger, displacement, and destruction, such cooperation creates a sense of betrayal. At the same time, it is essential to remain careful and precise. Many claims circulate, but not all are equally verified. What is clearly established is that Israel’s arms exports reached record levels in 2024, and that defense cooperation with countries that have normalized relations with Israel has been openly discussed. While specific allegations have been raised regarding the role of countries such as the United Arab Emirates, these should not be treated as established facts without strong and independent verification. Even beyond disputed claims, however, a fundamental moral question remains: when Gaza’s civilians are facing such a brutal humanitarian catastrophe, how can governments of Muslim countries simultaneously deepen commercial and defense relations with Israel? This is not a matter of “Muslims versus Jews or Christians.” States are not religions, and it is wrong to blame entire religious communities for the decisions of governments. The reality is that many ruling elites prioritize regime survival, monarchy, and perceived security interests above all else. But the cost of this calculation is paid in moral credibility, public trust, and the unity of the Muslim world.
So, what should Muslim countries do?
First, they must use the real leverage and pressure mechanisms available to them. Symbolic statements and lavish conferences do not stop bombs or feed starving children. Countries that maintain diplomatic and economic relations with Israel should act in a coordinated manner to suspend military cooperation, strictly control the transit of dual-use goods, and ensure that ports, airspace, banking, and insurance systems are not used to facilitate arms transfers. Where there is a credible risk of violations of international humanitarian law, they should support restrictions and bans on arms and related assistance.
Second, Gaza must not be treated as a charity project, but as a political and humanitarian emergency. This requires coordinated diplomatic initiatives aimed at achieving a sustained ceasefire, guaranteeing unrestricted humanitarian access, protecting hospitals and medical infrastructure, and preventing aid from being used as a political weapon. At the same time, transparent and accountable support must be ensured for food, water, shelter, healthcare, and future reconstruction so that Palestinian civilians can survive and rebuild with dignity.
Third, supporting international legal accountability is not an optional choice or a matter of diplomatic convenience, it is a moral and political obligation, no matter how uncomfortable, sensitive, or contrary to short-term interests it may be. The International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and other UN-supported legal mechanisms do not exist only for powerful states; they were created to protect weak and oppressed populations. When these institutions issue directives or provisional orders, ignoring them does not merely undermine a single court—it weakens the entire framework of international law. The demand for implementing the directives of the International Court of Justice must be raised consistently, collectively, and publicly. It is not enough to issue a one-time statement and then fall silent. This issue must be repeatedly placed on the agenda in diplomatic forums, the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, regional alliances, and bilateral engagements. Muslim countries should not act individually but take a joint position, so that this demand is seen not as an isolated political message, but as a unified moral stance.
Accountability does not mean taking a position against any state, nation, or religion. It rises above simplistic and misleading binaries such as “Israel versus Palestine” or “Muslim versus non-Muslim.” Accountability means that any state, without exception—must be questioned when international humanitarian law is violated. If this principle is compromised today, the same logic will be used tomorrow against Muslim countries themselves. Standing up for the rule of law, therefore, is ultimately an act of self-protection for the future. Another critical issue is selective silence and double standards. When the Muslim world speaks of international law only when Muslims are the victims, but remains silent in other cases, its position loses credibility. If global respect is desired, consistency in principles is essential. The idea that the law applies equally to all must be demonstrated not only in words, but in actions.
If the Muslim world truly wishes to claim moral leadership, it must move away from the language of emotion and adopt the language of principle. It must speak not since identity, but since international law, humanitarian values, and justice. This may create short-term diplomatic discomfort or political pressure, but in the long run it is the only path to dignity, credibility, and moral strength. Fourth, equal importance must be given to resolving internal Palestinian political divisions. These divisions weaken the Palestinian struggle and complicate reconstruction, governance, and representation. Without a unified Palestinian political framework based on civilian protection and legitimate representation, no sustainable solution is possible.
What, then, should other powerful states of the world do?
The United States and major European powers have the greatest influence over Israel, and therefore they bear greater responsibility. This is not about ignoring Israel’s security concerns; rather, it is about ensuring that those security policies remain within the bounds of international humanitarian law, and that mass civilian suffering is not accepted as a normal or inevitable outcome. Conditioning military assistance, enforcing post-use monitoring, imposing targeted sanctions on individuals linked to human rights violations, and applying effective pressure to allow humanitarian access are all concrete measures. The United Nations and international donor agencies must also reform humanitarian aid mechanisms so that assistance is predictable, protected, and insulated from political obstruction. Experience has shown that when aid access increases, catastrophic outcomes can be partially averted—but such improvements are extremely fragile.
Finally, all influential powers—including China, Russia, and the European Union—must stop turning Gaza into a stage for geopolitical competition. A minimum global consensus is urgently needed: a sustained ceasefire, guaranteed humanitarian access, accountability for violations by all parties, release of detainees, protection of civilians, and a credible political roadmap that includes Palestinian statehood. Anything less will only perpetuate cycles of violence, extremism, and regional instability. If Muslim-majority states continue to pursue narrow self-interest while Gaza is being destroyed, history will judge not only the perpetrators of violence, but also the silent and opportunistic bystanders. And if global powers continue to treat Palestinian suffering as “manageable,” the credibility of the international system itself will crumble—city by ruined city.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Opinion Desk.
