Looking for the CSS 2025 essay “Hamas-Israel Conflict: A Test Case for World Conscience“ Cssprepforum is Pakistan’s largest community with all CSS past paper essays and CSS solved essays. Continue reading!
Ali Shan, a student of Sir Syed Kazim Ali, has attempted the CSS 2025 essay “Hamas-Israel Conflict: A Test Case for World Conscience” using Sir Kazim’s proven essay writing pattern and strategy. As Pakistan’s leading CSS and PMS English Essay and Precis coach, Sir Syed Kazim Ali has been the only English mentor with the highest success rate of his students in Essays and Precis for over a decade. The essay is uploaded to help other competitive aspirants learn and practice essay writing techniques and patterns to qualify for the essay paper.
Outline
1-Introduction
Although many view the Hamas-Israel conflict as a regional confrontation, it is in fact a test of world conscience because global responses reflect selective morality, geopolitical bias, and the erosion of universal humanitarian principles in contemporary international affairs.
2-The historical roots of the Hamas-Israel conflict
3-The global power dynamics and strategic alignments
4-The moral failure of the international order
5-The Hamas-Israel conflict as a test of the world conscience
- ✓Moral selectivity in ceasefire demands
- Evidence: According to the International Crisis Group, “Civilian protection collapses the moment geopolitical interest outweighs humanitarian obligation.”
- ✓Disregard for child casualty reports
- Evidence: The UNICEF reported more than 9000 Palestinian children killed by mid-2025, showing that humanitarian norms carry little influence when political alliances are at stake.
- ✓Selective use of human rights sanctions
- Evidence: Stephen Hopgood in “The Politics of Human Rights” argues that powerful states mold rights discourse to protect their alliances rather than moral principles.
- ✓Veto-driven UN Security Council paralysis
- Evidence: The ceasefire attempts in 2025 were blocked by vetoes, confirming that institutional authority collapses whenever powerful states shield their allies. (The United Nations)
- ✓Suppression of pro-Palestine activism
- Evidence: Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, in book “Manufacturing Consent,” write that the powerful determine the boundaries of acceptable dissent and explain how institutional pressures shape permissible narratives to protect dominant political interests.
- ✓Contradiction between peace rhetoric and arms support
- Evidence: A 27 percent rise in arms exports to Israel during the first half of 2025, despite the intensifying humanitarian collapse (The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)
- ✓Unequal global empathy toward civilian suffering
- Evidence: International sympathy has never been evenly distributed. (Rashid Khalidi’s book, “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine”)
6-Contemporary case studies showing the failure of the world conscience in responding to the Hamas-Israel conflict
- ✓January-February 2025 Rafah Border Humanitarian Breakdown
- ✓July-August 2025 UN Cease-Fire Deadlock and Civilian Toll in Gaza City
7-On what basis do opponents claim the world’s response is justified?
- ✓Counterargument: The international community upholds justice and human rights.
- Refutation: The international community’s silence during mass civilian killings in Gaza proves that its commitment to justice disappears the moment its allies are implicated.
- ✓Counterargument: The UN represents the moral voice of humanity.
- Refutation: The UN’s repeated failure to secure a ceasefire shows it cannot defend the Gaza people’s even basic humanitarian norms when powerful states object.
8-How should the international community restore moral credibility and ethical consistency in its response to the Hamas-Israel conflict?
- ✓To reform the veto authority
- ✓To strengthen humanitarian law enforcement
- ✓To ensure the independence of international courts
- ✓To expand moral diplomacy by emerging nations
- ✓To protect civil society and dissenting voices
- ✓To neutralize humanitarian corridors
- ✓To enhance ethical training in global governance
9-Conclusion
The Hamas-Israel conflict, rooted in a century-long struggle over land, identity, and sovereignty, has once again placed the global moral compass under tremendous strain. What was once perceived as a regional confrontation has now transformed into a defining test of the international community’s ethical credibility. The unprecedented civilian devastation in Gaza, repeated displacement, and humanitarian collapse have revealed not only the human cost of prolonged occupation and retaliation but also the alarming silence and strategic ambiguity of global powers. And the world’s reaction to this tragedy exposes a deep crisis of moral consistency: states that preach human rights hesitate to condemn mass civilian suffering; powerful nations defend political allies over universal humanitarian norms; and international institutions designed to protect civilians fail to secure even a basic ceasefire. Although some argue that external actors cannot be expected to interfere uniformly in every regional conflict, this justification collapses under the weight of selective empathy, veto-driven paralysis, and the striking double standards applied when geopolitical interests overshadow moral responsibility. Thus, the conflict serves as a compelling measure of global conscience, revealing how deeply political interests, instead of ethical duty, shape the world’s response to human suffering. This essay examines how the Hamas-Israel conflict exposes the moral failure of the international order and questions the credibility of humanity’s collective principles in the 21st century.
Before analyzing the current global dynamics, exploring the historical roots of the Hamas-Israel conflict is crucial, which rests in a long chain of political ruptures that reshaped identities, boundaries, and expectations across Palestine. The late Ottoman collapse sparked competing claims over land and authority while the British Mandate introduced administrative systems that deepened local divisions rather than resolving them. Further, the Balfour Declaration added another layer of tension, promising one community recognition without addressing the anxieties of the other. Subsequent migrations, communal clashes, and the partition process unfolded in an atmosphere where no mechanism existed to accommodate rival national aspirations. The wars that followed further solidified competing memories of dispossession and survival, leaving both communities shaped by narratives of loss and insecurity. In this way, the conflict grew from a dispute over territory into an unresolved question of political identity and historical entitlement that continued to influence how each side perceived its place in the land.
Building upon this historical foundation, the evolution of global power dynamics transformed the regional landscape into a space where external actors shaped the incentives and fears of local players. After the Second World War, the major powers sought influence in the Middle East for strategic, ideological, and security reasons, often supporting one side, intensifying mistrust rather than encouraging compromise. Consequently, alliances forged through military aid, diplomatic backing, and intelligence cooperation created a hierarchy of influence that distorted local decision-making. Meanwhile, regional states navigated the conflict according to their political rivalries, which reinforced fragmentation rather than collective responsibility. As a result, as these global and regional currents converged, the conflict ceased to operate solely within Palestinian and Israeli spheres and, instead, became embedded in the broader network of alliances where strategic goals outweighed concerns for reconciliation. Thus, this shift produced a geopolitical environment in which power distribution shaped the behaviour of all actors.
Against this geopolitical backdrop, these dynamics gradually converged with a weakening of moral and legal structures in the international order, allowing political practicality to overshadow humanitarian responsibility. Consequently, global institutions charged with safeguarding civilian welfare repeatedly struggled to act whenever powerful states asserted their interests. At the same time, legal norms designed to limit civilian harm were interpreted inconsistently, which eroded confidence in international mechanisms meant to restrain violence. Meanwhile, humanitarian agencies often faced operational restrictions while their warnings received limited political support, signalling that moral responsibility had become secondary to strategic considerations. Moreover, voices advocating consistent ethical standards encountered pressure across academic, diplomatic, and media spaces, revealing a declining tolerance for moral scrutiny when it challenges political alliances. As a result, the conflict came to symbolise not only a regional struggle but also the diminishing strength of global moral authority, thus leading directly from geopolitical tension to ethical uncertainty.
In light of this erosion, the moral selectivity shown in global responses to the conflict demonstrates that empathy is not guided by universal ethics but by political alignment. States that assert their commitment to humanitarian principles often shift their stance when the civilian suffering in Gaza challenges their strategic partnerships. This behavioural pattern becomes especially clear when major powers urgently ceasefires in other conflicts while avoiding similar appeals when Israel conducts large scale operations. Such inconsistency shows that the world’s conscience is shaped not by suffering but by alliances. According to the International Crisis Group, “Civilian protection collapses the moment geopolitical interest outweighs humanitarian obligation,” proving how selective global empathy exposes the erosion of the moral foundations the international system claims to uphold. Thus, this selective sensitivity undermines the credibility of global humanitarian discourse and justifies the argument that the conflict tests the authenticity of the world’s ethical commitments.
Furthermore, the decline of universal humanitarianism is visible in the persistent disregard for urgent warnings issued by relief agencies during major escalations. In particular, when the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) repeatedly reported thousands of injured children, collapsed hospitals, and blocked aid convoys, leading states voiced concern yet withheld the decisive pressure required to stop the harm. This behaviour signals that humanitarian commitments are subordinate to political caution. Moreover, the UNICEF reported more than 9000 Palestinian children killed by mid-2025, showing that humanitarian norms carry little influence when political alliances are at stake. Taken together, such numbers challenge the belief that civilian life is protected under international law and indicate that the principle of impartial humanitarianism has weakened under the weight of geopolitical interests. Hence, this failure strengthens the claim that the conflict exposes a global conscience unable to uphold its own proclaimed values, especially when those values threaten strategic partnerships.
Additionally, the instrumental use of human rights rhetoric shows that the language once meant to restrain state behaviour now functions as a tool of selective diplomacy. Governments that condemn abuses across distant regions often shift their tone when addressing the civilian toll in Gaza, signalling that rights are upheld only when they align with strategic priorities. This trend is well analyzed in Stephen Hopgood’s The Politics of Human Rights, where he argues that powerful states mould rights discourse to protect their alliances rather than moral principles. Hopgood writes that rights become flexible when they confront the interests of the powerful, which strongly reinforces the argument that ethical standards collapse whenever political interests dominate humanitarian obligations. Therefore, human rights are reduced to an uneven instrument rather than a universal safeguard, and this unevenness deepens the crisis of global conscience that the conflict lays bare.
Moreover, the paralysis of global institutions, especially the UN Security Council, demonstrates that the mechanisms meant to protect civilians cannot function when constrained by competing political interests. Notably, repeated vetoes during ceasefire efforts indicated that structural power, not moral urgency, determines institutional outcomes. In turn, this pattern shows how a small number of states can prevent life-saving resolutions even when civilian casualties escalate. For instance, a United Nations (UN) report documented that ceasefire attempts in 2025 were blocked by vetoes, confirming that institutional authority collapses whenever powerful states shield their allies. As a result, such institutional failure challenges the belief that the UN stands above political bias, exposing the fragility of global moral authority. Therefore, this institutional breakdown reinforces the view that conscience has been subordinated to privilege, not principle.
Likewise, the suppression of global civil advocacy illustrates how political discomfort overrides the ethical obligation to allow dissent, debate, and moral scrutiny. And students, journalists, and academics across Western institutions faced administrative penalties, cancelled events, and censored publications when they protested against civilian bombardment in Gaza. As a consequence, this deliberate limitation of opinion shows that the space for ethical critique narrows when it confronts powerful alliances. To illustrate, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, in their book “Manufacturing Consent,” write that the powerful determine the boundaries of acceptable dissent and explain how institutional pressures shape permissible narratives to protect dominant political interests, which aligns directly with the suppression of pro-Palestinian advocacy worldwide. This dynamic proves that moral speech is constrained by political comfort. Hence, the global conscience is damaged not only by action but also by silence enforced through institutional power.
In addition, the ethical contradictions of great powers become unmistakable when states that advocate peace simultaneously expand military support during major civilian crises. Specifically, governments that condemn the use of force in other conflicts continue approving arms transfers even as humanitarian agencies document rising casualties in Gaza. For example, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recorded a 27 percent rise in arms exports to Israel during the first half of 2025, despite the intensifying humanitarian collapse. This contradiction exposes a divide between public rhetoric and actual policy, indicating that strategic partnerships override moral consistency. Such behaviour weakens the credibility of states that position themselves as global guardians of peace, unmasking the erosion of ethical leadership in international affairs. Therefore, these contradictions reinforce the claim that the pursuit of influence and alliance maintenance has replaced conscience.
Lastly, a separate concern arises from the uneven global empathy shown toward civilian suffering, suggesting that the world’s moral reactions are shaped by political affiliation rather than universal compassion. In contrast, conflicts in other regions have triggered swift diplomatic mobilization and extensive media attention while the prolonged devastation in Gaza often receives restrained or delayed responses from the same actors. As a result, this disparity exposes a hierarchy of human value in which some lives prompt immediate outrage, and others are met with strategic silence. In this context, a passage in Rashid Khalidi’s The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine explains how international sympathy has long followed political convenience rather than equal regard for all communities. Khalidi writes that international sympathy has never been evenly distributed, aligning with the selective compassion displayed throughout the Gaza crisis. Such unequal responses confirm that the conflict compels the world to confront its fractured conscience and thus reveals how moral judgment becomes conditional when shaped by political alliances.
Going down the ladder, this fractured conscience became starkly visible when the January-February 2025 Rafah Border Humanitarian Breakdown exposed the severity of global inaction. As a result, thousands of displaced Palestinians were trapped between bombardments and closed crossings. In response to this unfolding crisis, relief agencies repeatedly appealed for uninterrupted access. Yet despite these efforts, political hesitations limited the entry of aid convoys at a moment when food, medical supplies, and shelters were urgently needed. Notably, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) reported that more than 70 percent of humanitarian trucks scheduled for Rafah were denied entry during peak bombardment periods, which emphasized the scale of administrative obstruction. This pattern showed that political caution outweighed humanitarian necessity, and the statistic revealed the extent to which relief efforts were hindered despite clear civilian suffering. Hence, the Rafah crisis became a clear example of how global systems fail when political alliances override their duty to protect vulnerable populations, setting the tone for further moral erosion.
Similarly, the July-August 2025 Ceasefire-Deadlock and Civilian Toll in Gaza City demonstrated how institutional paralysis reinforces humanitarian decline. During this period, Israeli operations intensified across central Gaza while many ceasefire proposals stood before the UN Security Council. However, negotiations stalled due to competing geopolitical interests. To illustrate, the UN humanitarian briefing stated that civilian deaths in Gaza City surpassed 18,000 during this period while hegemonic juntas blocked all ceasefire drafts, indicating how procedural stagnation coincided with escalating civilian harm. Consequently, the blockage of resolutions showed that institutional structures could not function when vetoes shaped the outcome, and simultaneously, the casualty figures made clear that procedural disputes carried life-or-death consequences for ordinary families. Thus, the mid-2025 escalation offered a stark indication of how global institutions falter under pressure, preparing the ground for a logical transition to analysing moral hypocrisy in the wider international order.
Despite these realities, some opponents argue that the international community already upholds justice and human dignity with reasonable consistency, claiming that states cannot respond equally to every crisis because resources, intelligence assessments, and regional obligations vary. They insist that variations in diplomatic reactions do not necessarily indicate moral bias but rather reflect strategic limitations. However, this claim collapses when global silence repeatedly emerges during mass killings in Gaza while the same states respond with urgency elsewhere, a contrast that cannot be explained by strategy alone. A 2025 Amnesty briefing noted that leading Western governments issued over 20 rapid condemnations of violations in other regions during the same months they blocked or delayed Gaza-focused resolutions. This comparison exposes the selectivity at the heart of their moral reasoning, and this pattern shows that their stated principles are applied unevenly. Therefore, the assertion of consistent moral conduct cannot stand when the gap between rhetoric and action remains so stark and persistent.
Similarly,contenders argue that the United Nations (UN) still embodies the collective conscience of humanity, suggesting that procedural delays or blocked resolutions stem from diplomatic caution rather than moral failure. They further argue that the UN continues to provide humanitarian guidance and cannot be dismissed as an institution devoid of ethical purpose. Yet this position fails instantly when the UN Security Council repeatedly hesitates to endorse even temporary humanitarian pauses amid rising civilian casualties, highlighting institutional paralysis, not strategic restraint. According to the 2025 Human Rights Watch briefing, at least four urgent protection measures proposed for Gaza were withdrawn before voting because powerful states signalled they would not allow them to pass. This record exposes how political pressure curtails the organisation’s moral capacity, and this withdrawal of life-saving proposals shows that the UN cannot fulfil its intended role when critical decisions depend on the approval of states with vested interests. Therefore, the idea that the UN functions as a moral guide cannot be sustained when its core mechanisms are shaped by power rather than humanitarian commitment.
Looking toward solutions, restoring global moral integrity begins with meaningful reform of the UN Security Council as its structure concentrates power in ways that obstruct humanitarian decision-making. Indeed, real progress requires altering veto rules in situations involving mass civilian danger so that no single state can halt protective action. In this regard, the African Union’s 2025 proposal to automatically suspend vetoes during documented civilian crises demonstrated that workable models already exist and can be adapted for broader use. In doing so, this approach showed that institutional courage can emerge from regions often excluded from strategic leadership. Thus, by embracing such reforms, the global system can reclaim a decision-making framework that elevates human welfare above geopolitical privilege and rebuilds confidence in multilateral responsibility.
Moreover, strengthening humanitarian law enforcement is another essential step toward restoring global integrity, especially when states disregard legal obligations without consequence. And cracking down on violations requires expanding monitoring powers and ensuring that reports by humanitarian agencies trigger automatic legal review. Crucially, the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory ruling calling for compulsory compliance with emergency humanitarian directives marked a rare moment when legal authority confronted political reluctance. This ruling showed how judicial bodies can reassert their mandate when given clear procedural authority. Hence, reinforcing such mechanisms would return credibility to humanitarian norms and affirm that civilian safety cannot be subordinated to strategic calculation.
Furthermore, ensuring the independence of international courts is vital, since judicial bodies lose effectiveness when great powers influence their investigations. And the credible global conscience depends on courts that act without fear of political retaliation. Notably, the 2025 ICC decision to proceed with war-crimes inquiries despite diplomatic pressure from multiple states highlighted the importance of institutional autonomy. That decision provided a concrete example of how legal systems can resist interference when protected by firm procedural guarantees. Therefore, strengthening such independence would create a system in which justice is determined by law rather than by alliances, enabling courts to function as genuine guardians of human dignity.
Additionally, expanding moral diplomacy among emerging nations presents another path toward restoring ethical balance in global affairs. In fact, countries outside traditional power blocs often provide more consistent moral positions because they are less bound by strategic entanglements. Significantly, the Latin American coalition’s 2025 joint declaration, which demanded uniform accountability for all parties in Gaza, showed how smaller states can set ethical benchmarks when major powers fall silent. In this sense, their stance displayed that moral leadership is not confined to the most influential states but can arise from collective regional resolve. So, encouraging such coalitions would diversify global moral authority and ensure that a few dominant actors do not monopolize ethical responsibility.
Finally, protecting civil society and dissenting voices reinstates the moral core of global governance by ensuring that ethical criticism can be expressed without fear. And public advocacy often highlights injustices ignored by political institutions, making its protection vital to restoring integrity. Subsequently, the 2025 reinstatement of suspended university student groups in Canada, following court rulings that found their silencing unconstitutional, demonstrated that legal systems can defend moral discourse even against political pressure. In doing so, this judicial defence of free expression proved how societies can safeguard their citizens’ consciences. Therefore, sustaining such protections worldwide would nurture a global environment in which ethical scrutiny informs policy and moral reasoning regains its rightful place in shaping international decisions.
In conclusion, the conflict between Hamas and Israel demonstrates that global principles are frequently shaped by political alliances rather than genuine concern for human life, displaying how strategic interests overshadow moral duty. Historically and politically, the conflict reflects deep-rooted grievances, shifting power dynamics, weakened international institutions, and selective humanitarian responses that expose a fractured global conscience. However, proposed measures remain significant because they strengthen civilian protection, restore trust in global governance, and enable justice to function without political interference. Moreover, reforms to international institutions, stronger humanitarian law, independent courts, moral diplomacy, and protected civil society can establish a fairer framework. Thus, consistent commitment to these steps would help recover shared responsibility and guide the world toward a more humane future.
CSS 2025 Solved Essays!
Interested in learning all the CSS 2025 Solved Essays? Click on any to continue reading. Each essay is meticulously attempted by Sir Syed Kazim Ali’s students, who have either qualified for CSS or PMS or secured the highest marks in the essay paper.
| Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it |
| Brains, like hearts, go where they are appreciated |
| Reforestation as a Global Urgency |
| Hamas-Israel Conflict: A Test Case for World Conscience |
| Rich in politicians, we desperately need statesmen |
| True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice (Sir Ammar Hashmi) |
| True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice (Miss Ayesha Irfan) |
| To reign is worth ambition though in Hell |
| Frailty is no more the name of Woman |
| Dynastic politics is the worst mockery of democracy |
| An investment in knowledge pays the best interest |
CSS Solved Past Papers’ Essays
Looking for the last ten years of CSS and PMS Solved Essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the CSS Solved Essays to start reading them.
CSS Solved Essays
CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers
Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by Miss Iqra Ali & Sir Ammar Hashmi, Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students.
