According to Middle East Monitor, analyst and author Ramzy Baroud argues that a cluster of “middle power” states have treated Gaza and its people as expendable in wider geopolitical bargaining since Israel’s 2023 assault on the enclave and the subsequent regional crisis. Middle East Monitor reports that Baroud links policies toward Gaza to a broader attempt by these states to balance between Western allies, Israel, and domestic public opinion, often prioritizing their own security and economic interests over sustained pressure for accountability or an end to the blockade and bombardment.
As reported by Middle East Monitor, Baroud situates these developments in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks and Israel’s large-scale military response in Gaza, which caused tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and widespread destruction, according to UN and health authorities. He describes how repeated rounds of negotiations on ceasefires, humanitarian access, and post-war arrangements created opportunities for regional and global middle powers to raise their diplomatic profiles, even as conditions on the ground in Gaza remained catastrophic.
According to coverage cited by Countercurrents, Baroud uses the term “middle powers” to refer to states that are not global superpowers but wield significant economic or diplomatic leverage, including countries in Europe, Asia, and the wider Middle East. He contends that these governments often framed their Gaza policies as pragmatic crisis management, while in practice avoiding decisions that could jeopardize trade deals, security cooperation, or energy arrangements with the United States, Israel, and other major actors.
As reported by various outlets summarizing Baroud’s work, the article forms part of a wider discussion of how the Gaza war has exposed structural imbalances in the international system, especially the limits of international law and multilateral institutions when powerful or strategically important states resist pressure. The analysis links Gaza’s experience to broader patterns in which populations in conflict zones become bargaining chips in regional or global negotiations, rather than central subjects of protection.
How have states and publics reacted?
According to Middle East Monitor’s Palestine coverage, Baroud notes that widespread public outrage over civilian casualties in Gaza led to large demonstrations in numerous countries, including some of the same middle powers whose governments adopted cautious or incremental diplomatic positions. In this framing, there is a stark contrast between street-level solidarity campaigns and official policies that focus on de-escalation and containment, with governments seeking to prevent regional spillover while avoiding a full rupture with Washington or Tel Aviv.
As reported by Middle East Monitor and other regional outlets, humanitarian organizations and UN officials repeatedly warned that Gaza was facing a deepening catastrophe, citing massive displacement, destroyed infrastructure, and severe shortages of food, water, and medical supplies. Baroud’s analysis, as described in these accounts, argues that these warnings often did not translate into sustained pressure from middle powers for a permanent ceasefire, lifting of the siege, or international accountability mechanisms.
According to Countercurrents’ listing and Middle East-focused commentary, the article also reflects on how some middle powers sought to present themselves as mediators or responsible stakeholders, hosting talks, supporting aid convoys, or backing limited ceasefire proposals. Baroud reportedly contends that such initiatives remained constrained by red lines drawn by stronger Western states and by the desire of middle powers to protect their strategic partnerships, limiting the impact on Gaza’s long-term situation.
Supporting details and expert commentary
Middle East Monitor’s profile of Baroud identifies him as a Palestinian journalist and political analyst whose work often examines the intersection of Palestinian rights, international diplomacy, and global South politics. According to these biographical notes, he has previously written about how global and regional hierarchies shape responses to Palestinian struggles, giving additional context to his argument that Gaza has been placed “on the menu” of larger strategic calculations.
As described in Middle East Monitor’s Gaza coverage, the broader debate includes assessments by UN agencies, human rights groups, and legal experts who have raised concerns about potential violations of international humanitarian law during Israel’s military campaign. While Baroud’s article is framed as analysis rather than a legal brief, it draws on this environment of documented civilian harm and institutional deadlock to argue that the actions and inaction of middle powers have helped sustain an untenable status quo in Gaza.
According to references collected by Countercurrents, the piece also appears alongside other analyses of geopolitical shifts, suggesting that the Gaza war is being used as a lens to examine how mid-tier states navigate an increasingly multipolar world. In that context, Baroud’s argument implies that Gaza’s fate has become closely tied to the bargaining positions of these states, rather than being treated primarily as a humanitarian emergency requiring robust, principle-driven intervention.
What are the implications and possible future developments?
As reported by Middle East Monitor, Baroud warns that the approach taken by middle powers could have lasting implications for Gaza’s reconstruction, political future, and prospects for a durable ceasefire. If these states continue to prioritize short-term stability and their own strategic relationships, he suggests, Gaza may remain trapped in cycles of destruction and partial rebuilding, without meaningful accountability or a political resolution that addresses core Palestinian demands.
According to regional reporting summarized by Middle East Monitor, ongoing discussions on post-war arrangements for Gaza involve questions of governance, security control, and international oversight, areas where middle powers are likely to seek roles as funders, facilitators, or security partners. Baroud’s analysis suggests that the way these roles are defined—whether they center Palestinian rights or wider geopolitical interests—will shape Gaza’s future for years to come.
As outlined in listings and context provided by Countercurrents and other outlets, the article’s core contention is that current patterns risk normalizing a system where vulnerable populations become bargaining chips in negotiations led by more powerful states. For Gaza, Baroud argues, this could mean that any future ceasefire or reconstruction framework remains conditioned on external strategic calculations, rather than on the needs and choices of the people who have borne the brunt of the war.
The reporting and analysis attributed to Ramzy Baroud in Middle East Monitor and related platforms depict a Gaza Strip that has been devastated by prolonged conflict while caught in the middle of complex maneuvers by regional and global middle powers. According to this coverage, his central claim is that these states have largely safeguarded their own interests and international standing, even as Gaza’s population continues to face the consequences of war, siege, and stalled diplomacy.
