Gaza is burning, again and again. The destruction is staggering, families torn apart, neighbourhoods flattened, and children buried before they ever had a chance to live. For Palestinians, none of this is new. But for much of the world, the sheer scale of this crisis has forced a reckoning. Gaza is no longer a distant headline; it is a moral test for governments and societies everywhere.
Europe, in particular, seems to be waking from its long slumber. For decades, most European capitals carefully tiptoed around Israel, repeating the same talking points while avoiding any real challenge to the status quo. That façade is cracking. Sweden broke ranks back in 2014 when it recognized Palestine. In 2024, Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Slovenia followed, not with vague statements, but with official recognition of Palestinian statehood. Symbolic? Yes. Conditional? Often. But symbolism has weight, and recognition changes the diplomatic map in ways Israel cannot ignore.
Still, Europe is no single voice. Some states in the East recognised Palestine years ago; others remain firmly aligned with Israel. Yet, the overall trend is clear: the images from Gaza have made it harder for European leaders to hide behind “neutrality.” Their people are demanding clarity, and clarity now leans toward justice for Palestinians.
Israel, meanwhile, has leaned heavily on Washington, as it always has. Its narrative, that Hamas alone is to blame, is being repeated endlessly. But the story is slipping. The world sees not only rockets but also hospitals without power, schools turned to dust, and families with nowhere left to run. The bombing of Doha shattered any illusion that the war would remain contained within Gaza. It was not just another act of aggression; it was an insult on Arab soil, aimed at a city that has repeatedly hosted ceasefire and mediation talks. In response, an emergency OIC meeting was convened in the Qatari capital, a gathering that signaled more than outrage. It hinted at a region on the verge of moving from words to coordinated action.
And here lies the crossroads. Calls to “teach Israel a lesson” grow louder with every massacre. The anger is justified; the suffering is unbearable. Yet, rage alone is a blunt instrument. Retaliation may satisfy the heart in the short term, but it risks creating only more death, more grief. The real strength of the Arab and Islamic world lies not in matching Israel bomb for bomb but in wielding coordinated political, economic, and diplomatic power, power that can isolate, pressure, and eventually force a just resolution.
The narrative is shifting, and Israel knows it. Once, it could count on Western sympathy to drown out Palestinian voices. Today, Gaza’s cries are heard everywhere. Europe is changing, the global South is mobilising, and Arab frustration is boiling over. The Doha bombing, in a city known worldwide for its mediation efforts and the OIC’s rapid response have shown that unity is no longer an abstract idea. It is already taking form. The world is watching and perhaps, just perhaps, the balance of power in the story of Palestine is beginning to tilt.
How Russia and China Could Respond to Gaza’s Turning Point
The war in Gaza has become more than a regional tragedy; it is now a crucible testing the balance of global power. Images of devastation and displacement dominate international news feeds, hardening public opinion in Europe and beyond. For Israel’s closest allies, even those that remain supportive, this humanitarian narrative is nearly impossible to counter. The conflict has forced governments to reassess old alignments, and in some cases such as recent European recognitions of Palestinian statehood, it has already cracked long-standing consensus.
Israel’s strategy, framing the war as solely a campaign against Hamas, is not accidental. By narrowing the conflict to “counterterrorism,” it shields its military actions from wider criticism, delegitimises Palestinian national aspirations, and divides international opinion. Yet this framing is faltering. Repeated cycles of violence have eroded trust, especially in Europe, where public pressure and moral fatigue are driving governments toward alternatives. In parallel, rumours of strikes spilling beyond Gaza and Doha, even into Saudi Arabia and Turkey, risk galvanising Arab and Islamic states into rare unity, they should though whether that unity translates into collective action remains uncertain.
So where does this leave Russia and China? Thus far, both have been content to issue cautious statements, calling for restraint while watching Washington sink deeper into a costly quagmire. Strategic silence has its uses. But silence also forfeits influence. If Moscow and Beijing truly aim to position themselves as counterweights to Western dominance, this moment offers a sharper tool than passive observation.
The first step is diplomatic. Instead of echoing calls for ceasefires after the fact, Russia and China could seize the initiative by convening a broad international conference that includes Arab powers, European states, and perhaps even reluctant Western observers. A jointly sponsored peace framework, complete with timetables and implementation mechanisms would not only highlight their constructive role but also expose the bankruptcy of stalled U.S.-led efforts.
Economic instruments should follow quickly. Promises of reconstruction aid, coupled with visible investment in Gaza’s shattered infrastructure, would carry both symbolic and practical weight. For Palestinians, it would represent hope beyond Western aid packages, while for Arab partners, it would showcase an alternative path of partnership unbound by U.S. conditionality. Admittedly, oversight would be tricky and nobody wants resources diverted into factional conflicts but transparent mechanisms, even under UN supervision, could mitigate that risk.
Narratives matter just as much as money. Western governments often win the information battle by sheer dominance of media ecosystems. Here, Moscow and Beijing could shift tack. Instead of broadcasting blunt propaganda, they might support independent regional journalism and amplify legalistic arguments grounded in humanitarian law. That approach carries more credibility and aligns with the public’s raw moral reaction to Gaza’s suffering.
Reform of the United Nations will remain a long shot as the veto power of the Security Council is not easily dislodged. Yet there are workarounds. General Assembly resolutions, special tribunals, and Human Rights Council mandates can exert reputational pressure, even when they lack enforcement teeth. Combined with financial aid and narrative pressure, these tools can chip away at Western monopoly over the diplomatic process.
The hardest lever is military. A stronger naval presence or joint drills in the Eastern Mediterranean would send a message, but one miscalculation could trigger escalation. Arms sales may win short-term clients but risk deepening the very conflicts Moscow and Beijing claim they want to resolve. Any military gestures, therefore, must remain carefully choreographed and defensive in tone.
Ultimately, the point is not to “teach Israel a lesson,” as some voices angrily suggest, but to recast the global order in a way that does not leave the fate of Palestinians or indeed the principles of international law at the mercy of a single camp. Assertiveness, in this sense, means taking ownership of peace-building, creating credible alternatives to Western frameworks, and showing that the language of dignity and multilateralism can be backed by real action.
The Gaza war has exposed cracks in the old order. For Russia and China, the choice is clear, either continue to benefit quietly from America’s overextension, or step forward to shape an alternative. History rarely waits for those who stay silent. The current state of affairs in Gaza marks a turning point for the entire world order, not just the Middle East.
Zaabar Ballia
20 September, 2025
Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
