Nearly two years into one of the most devastating conflicts in the Middle East’s recent history, signs are growing that Israel’s allies are reassessing their support as evidence of war crimes committed by all parties continues to build.

A Conflict Ignited by Miscalculations

In the lead-up to the deadly events of October 7, 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained focused on regional geopolitics—chiefly Iran and the potential normalization of ties with Saudi Arabia. Though vocal in his opposition to Hamas, his administration allowed Qatari funding to flow into Gaza, viewing it as a way to contain instability while pursuing broader strategic goals.

At the same time, U.S. officials under President Joe Biden were optimistic that a historic agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia was within reach. That optimism would be shattered by Hamas’s unexpected and brutal assault on Israeli territory.

Israel’s leadership has since faced intense scrutiny, both at home and abroad, for apparent intelligence failures and strategic miscalculations. Despite mounting pressure, Netanyahu has declined to authorize a formal investigation into how Hamas was able to carry out such a large-scale attack.

A War with No Easy End in Sight

The war that followed has reshaped the Middle East. What began as a response to a deadly assault has evolved into one of the most destructive and prolonged episodes of violence in the region since the foundational wars of 1948 and 1967.

With nearly 200 journalists killed—most of them Palestinian—the conflict has also become one of the most difficult wars to report. International media have been barred from freely entering Gaza, leaving much of the frontline coverage to courageous local journalists who continue to risk their lives.

Crimes on Both Sides

There is consensus among international observers that war crimes have been committed by both Hamas and Israel.

On October 7, Hamas fighters killed 1,200 people—mostly civilians—and abducted 251 hostages. Many of those hostages remain in captivity, with only an estimated 20 believed to be still alive.

In the months since, Israel’s military campaign has caused staggering civilian casualties in Gaza. Human rights organizations and legal experts have documented multiple violations of international humanitarian law, including:

• The starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
• Failure to protect non-combatants, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands.
• The destruction of entire communities, deemed disproportionate to the military threat posed.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and his former defense minister, citing credible evidence of war crimes. Both men have denied wrongdoing and criticized the ICC’s actions as politically motivated.

Israel is also facing proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is examining allegations of genocide. Israeli officials have rejected these claims outright, calling them baseless and antisemitic.

Dwindling Support Among Allies

In the early days of the conflict, many Western governments expressed strong support for Israel’s right to defend itself. That tone has shifted significantly.

On July 21, a joint statement by foreign ministers from the United Kingdom, European Union member states, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza. The statement was unambiguous in its language:

“The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability, and deprives Gazans of human dignity.”

It went on to denounce the “drip feeding” of aid and the “inhumane killing of civilians, including children,” particularly those attempting to access food and water. The ministers cited the deaths of over 800 Palestinians while seeking humanitarian assistance as a deeply alarming indicator of the crisis.

“The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable. Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law,” the statement concluded.

Mounting Political Pressure at Home and Abroad

In the UK, Foreign Secretary David Lammy echoed the joint declaration in the House of Commons. However, many within his own party viewed his words as insufficient. Labour MPs have increasingly called for stronger measures—including official recognition of a Palestinian state, a move supported by the majority of UN members.

Meanwhile, tensions are also rising within Israel’s own political system. With the Knesset heading into its summer recess, Netanyahu temporarily avoids a vote of no confidence—primarily driven by far-right coalition members who oppose any ceasefire in Gaza.

His reluctance to negotiate a truce is widely believed to be linked to political survival. A loss of power could bring renewed momentum to his ongoing corruption trial and intensify calls for accountability over the failures of October 7.

A Fragile Glimmer of Hope

Despite the bleak conditions, a ceasefire is no longer out of reach. For Gaza’s civilians—many of whom have been displaced multiple times—and for the remaining Israeli hostages, a truce could be a lifeline.

A ceasefire would not end the conflict. But it would offer a rare moment for diplomacy, humanitarian recovery, and potentially, the beginning of a long-delayed political process aimed at lasting peace.

Conclusion: From Crisis to Responsibility

The war in Gaza has entered a critical phase. For many of Israel’s international partners, continued support now hinges on a return to the principles of proportionality, protection of civilians, and adherence to international law.

There is no denying that the security concerns Israel faces are real. But increasingly, even its closest allies are stating that military solutions alone cannot guarantee peace—and that justice and humanity must be part of the equation.

As the world watches, the choices made by leaders on all sides will shape the region’s future. Whether it continues in destruction or turns, however briefly, toward diplomacy, will depend on their willingness to recognize the cost of war and the urgency of peace.