The Future of War in the World: The Israeli Aggression on Gaza and the Return of Realism to the precedence
Written by: Doaa Hussein Hussein
Abstract:
Realism views states as relying on power in their relations with one another and seeking to increase power, preserve national interests without regard to values and morality. The Gaza War brought this perspective to the forefront again. The article argues that despite the existence of international institutions, rules, and international law, they have no impact on the world’s most powerful and influential states. The most prominent examples of this are the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court resoultions againt Israel, which have yet to be implemented. There are no bodies in the world with the power to enforce such decisions.
The realist perspective in international relations during the Cold War period was a dominant and accepted perspective for explaining conflict, wars, and the behavior of states toward each other. This was because its assumptions were consistent with events occurring in the international system. The world witnessed polarization between two major powers, an arms race, competition for spheres of influence, and proxy wars. The world was on the verge of war between the Soviet Union and the United States, as dramatically demonstrated by the Cuban Missile Crisis, initiated in the 1960s by the Soviet Union in Cuba, in cooperation with the Castro communist regime in the American sphere of influence. Structural realism, or neorealism, introduced by John Mearsheimer, was more appropriate to the reality, offering an explanation for the behavior of states as seeking to increase their power and continually expand their spheres of influence. Military and material power are considered the most important means for states to secure their survival and influence. The international system is an anarchic system, in which each state seeks to secure its own survival individually and pursue its national interest, with no field for the morality and values among states.
In contrast, there are other different perspectives, such as neoliberalism within the liberal perspective, also known as interdependence theory. It argues that cooperation between states can be achieved through international institutions. Cooperation occurs when there is consistency between partners and when states respect each other’s preferences. Interdependence occurs when states and governments are bound by policies that they cannot change unilaterally, and if they do, there would be a high political cost.
However, it can be said that the world is currently witnessing conflicts that challenge the liberal perspective and bring the realist perspective back to the forefront, after its decline following the end of the Cold War. Conflict, military force, and material power have become dominant, and have become more important due to the ongoing conflicts in the world. I believe there is a decline in the role of international law and international institutions such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, while the military and economic power of states is now more influential. An example of this is the Russian-Ukrainian war, which broke out because of Ukraine’s desire to join the Western camp and NATO, which emerged during the Cold War. The war between Russia and Western countries is via Ukraine, which receives support from European countries and the United States.
The Gaza war, which erupted in October 2023 and continues to this day, is a clear example that the realistic perspective is the most appropriate perspective for interpretation of what is happening in the world. The role and activity of international institutions are declining in favor of states with military and material power, which can impose their influence and implement policies that violate international law without being held accountable. The United States, supposedly the world’s largest economy and most liberal country, unconditionally supports Israel in its war on Gaza, disregarding the violations committed by Israel against the Palestinian people, including civilians, children, and women.
The American realist theorist John Mearsheimer criticizes the American unconditioned and unlimited support for Israel and say “what Israel do in Gaza is apartheid, and Israel goal is acting genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza “. Mearsheimer and the other realist Stephen Walt criticize US support for Israel, arguing that it could undermine US international position. They argue that the Gaza War “demonstrated that the US commitment to the rules-based international order is meaningless.” An example of this is the US’s veto in UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire. They argue that US support for Israel is not in the US’s interest but rather undermines its international standing for the benefit of other competitors such as China and Russia. They argue that the US spending on supporting Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza would be better spent on projects in the US. The reason for American support for Israel is the activity of the Zionist lobby in the United States.
If Israel claims that its violations of civilians and human rights in Gaza for the sake of eliminating Hamas and protecting its security and survival, why is Israel attacking southern Lebanon? After the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria in December 2024, Israel occupied the Syrian Mount Hermon and a buffer zone 80 kilometers long and about 20 kilometers wide in Syria, carrying out more than 350 airstrikes against military sites. In January 2025, it targeted border crossings between Syria and Lebanon, wounding a number of civilians. Israel unilaterally violated the 1974 Disengagement Agreement with Syria, and UN officials called for Israel’s immediate withdrawal from the areas it occupied in southern Syria and that it must continue by the Disengagement Agreement, which is still in effect.
In a decision issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the request of the UN General Assembly in 2022, the court ruled in July 2024 that “the Israeli presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is illegal and must be ended as soon as possible.” The decision is a non-binding advisory opinion. The court stated that “Israel has no right to sovereignty over the territory, violates international laws prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force, and impedes the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.” It added that other states are obligated not to provide assistance or support to maintain Israel’s presence in the area. Israel occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the 1967 war and built settlements there. It also had settlements in the Gaza Strip before its withdrawal in 2005. These are areas of historic Palestine that the Palestinians want for a state. The United Nations and most countries of the international community consider these territories to be Palestinian territories occupied by Israel.
In January 2024, the International Court of Justice issued a ruling in a case brought by South Africa against Israel, which included three binding resolutions that the Israeli authorities must implement to prevent the risk of genocide in Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Israel has grossly violated these provisions. It is taking arbitrary measures to prevent the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and using starvation as a weapon of war. On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity involving starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts committed between October 8, 2023, and May 20, 2024. Hungary welcomed Netanyahu on April 3, 2025, on his first `visit to a European country after the court’s ruling, and Hungary announced its withdrawal from the ICC hours after Netanyahu’s arrival. Netanyahu visited the United States after the court’s ruling, and the United States condemned the court’s decision, but it is not a member of the court and therefore is not bound by its decisions.
Finally, it can be said that despite the existence of international law and rules, international institutions and organizations, the international system lacks mechanisms that make decisions such as those of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court binding. For the decisions of these organizations to be effective, there must be mechanisms with the power to enforce their decisions. Thus, the rules of international law can be applied, which can act as a deterrent in this case.
