On the evening of May 26, Israel launched airstrikes on a refugee camp in the northeast of Rafah, home to thousands of displaced Palestinian civilians living in tents. Initial reports indicate that over 40 civilians were killed and burned alive. Worryingly, this area was not among those designated for evacuation by the Israeli military. This latest atrocity starkly reveals the relentless brutality of Israel's nearly eight-month genocidal war.
It is also a damning episode for the liberal world order, which the complicit West touts as prioritizing human rights and freedoms. With this latest tragic incident, the last shreds of credibility of this so-called liberal order have been incinerated along with the burned corpses of the poor Palestinian refugees. Since its inception, this "order" has done little to uphold global peace. The Israeli occupation is a direct product of this system, which has now reached the end of its shelf life.
Since the early months of the conflict in Gaza, the United Nations and its agencies, particularly the conscientious judiciary at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have repeatedly called for a cease-fire. The case brought to the ICJ by South Africa has significantly elevated global awareness. Unlike the advisory opinions such as the 2004 Wall decision, the 2024 rulings on Jan. 26 and March 28 explicitly stated that Israel must take all preventive measures to halt attacks, citing risks of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
On May 24, the court determined that Israel had not complied with the previous provisional measures and ordered an immediate end to its Rafah operation. This decision, passed by a vote of 13 to 2, came just days before the latest tragic night-time attacks, which serve as a stark testament to the collapse of both international humanitarian law and the liberal order allegedly underpinning it.
Even though ICJ decisions are legally binding and can be taken to the U.N. Security Council for further enforcement measures, Israel remains fended by its unconditional sponsor, the United States, which has historically used its veto power to shield the Jewish State from any repercussions on the international stage.
In the wake of the ongoing genocide in Gaza since Oct. 7, it is crucial to clarify the widespread misconceptions about the global order. Many believe these international structures – which revolve around law, humanitarian aid, oversight and intervention – should uphold high ideals. However, the reality is starkly different. The global order is a construct designed to reflect the interests of the powerful, deliberately built to remain impotent when it comes to holding its most influential members accountable. Rather than ensuring justice, this system perpetuates the law of the jungle where "might makes right," which represents a stark departure from the aspirational foundations of the international order.
The world has witnessed a similar scenario during the unilateral sanctioning of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Despite the inconsistent and unverified accusations against the UNRWA of connivance with Hamas, the United States sanctioned this international organization without due process. This situation reveals a glaring hypocrisy: This international humanitarian structure, which was designed to protect Palestinian refugees in peace and war, was the "sacrificial lamb" for the benefit of Israel.
The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is replete with instances where the ideals of the international liberal order and its institutions were blatantly disregarded. From the silence during the nakba catastrophe in 1948, the indifference to calls to recognize the 1967 borders, the disproportionate violence against peaceful protests like the Second Intifada and the Great March of Return, to the deafening silence following the events of Oct. 7.
Examining this nearly century-long history through the lens of the liberal order reveals a pattern: the very principles meant to serve global peace have been consistently ignored by those who established this order. Under its current operation, this system is a boon for the Zionist occupation regime and a bane for the Palestinians, who see their aspirations for statehood dwindling year after year.
The global order has undeniably descended into a state of disorder. It is essential to consider the future implications of these developments. When talking about a global order, we are referring to norms and the powers that enforce them. The liberal order has functioned more as a Western construct than a truly international one. Calls for reform and dissenting voices are growing louder, and states will increasingly have to face the reputational costs of ignoring these calls.
In his book "China Incorporated: The Politics of a World Where China is Number One," Kerry Brown wrote: “The Chinese worldview is not only a uniquely hybrid one but on top of this a very excluding one. That makes it harder, not easier, to create a set of values the rest of the world can adopt and then be governed by.” Yet, it is becoming clear that the rest of the world is also unwilling to continue adopting and being governed by the so-called Western values, which have become superfluous and have had a very exclusionary definition of "human" and "humanity" when it comes to human rights and humanitarian law. Srebrenica, Rwanda, Iraq, Yemen and countless more are the past cracks in the order which is now nearing collapse.
The international system is shifting from a unipolar Western monopoly to a more multipolar structure. This transition will inevitably bring challenges and costs. The Gaza conflict represents a turning point in this transitional period, clearly highlighting the flaws and contradictions of the current system. The future will look very different from today.
