Selective morality: how the US perpetuates conflict in Israel

When US Vice President Kamala Harris unequivocally condemned Iran's retaliatory strikes against Israel as intolerable terrorist acts while reaffirming support for Israel, a glaring question was raised: Why is US condemnation never applied to Israel, whose recent military campaigns have left thousands dead?

When US officials denounce groups like Hamas and Hezbollah for war crimes, Israel's similar operations often escape the same scrutiny; the deaths that result from targeting civilian infrastructure are treated as justifiable collateral damage rather than acts of aggression. This selective outrage is not unique to the United States.

Yet, its status as a member state of the UN and a leading source of political media means that US response has the power to influence global opinion. The divergence in response to attacks contingent on their perpetrators unearths a troubling pattern, revealing more about political loyalties than adherence to international law.

In unconditionally supporting Israel while allowing for vilifying rhetoric to be employed against their enemies, the US effectively appoints the roles of aggressor and righteous victim.The United States' support for Israel amidst ongoing conflict has provoked examination of the double standards present in their foreign policy and the incongruence of US condemnation. Over the past year, Israel's military campaign in Gaza has left over 40,000 dead.

In contrast, Hamas has not been credibly linked to any deaths in Israel since the October attack, which killed an estimated 1,139 people.

The US response to the conflict has consistently emphasized Hamas' status as a terrorist organization and affirmed Israel's 'right to defend itself,' backed by continued military aid.

This stance has prompted questions about the sincerity of US calls for a peaceful resolution and concerns over US complicity in the war in Gaza, where at least 24 hospitals, 53 schools, 12 universities, and 200,000 housing units have been destroyed.

Even after Israel's military campaign has killed over 10,000 children in just one year, the United States government has customarily failed to question the defensive capacity and effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of Israel's strategies.

Despite UN investigations into potential war crimes, the International Criminal Court's requests for arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, and, above all, the rising death toll, the US has not hesitated in its military support-to the contrary, the Biden administration has provided Israel with arsenals used to destroy civil areas in Gaza.

When Israeli forces assassinated Hassan Nasrallah, the Lebanese cleric and politician who served as secretary-general of Hezbollah, by airstrike last month, Joe Biden doubled down in his support for Israel in an official statement, apparently defending Israel's right to extrajudicial killing by referring to Nasrallah's murder as "a measure of justice."

Biden echoed this sentiment after the killing of Yahya Sinwar, the appointed leader of Hamas, who he called “the mastermind of the October 7th massacres, rapes, and kidnappings,” although there has been no verification of rapes by Hamas taking place on October 7th.

This approach not only alienates Lebanese officials but also casts doubt on the US's commitment to democracy and justice.The inconsistency in US foreign policy can be seen as benefiting dangerous US-backed military interventions, offering immunity to scrutiny.

In recent history, the United States has sponsored terrorism abroad, for example in Cuba, by arming, training, and funding operatives in their mission to commit sabotage, kill civilians,and harm the local economy.

The failure to thoroughly address past injustices while maintaining the designation of Cuba as a 'State Sponsor of Terrorism,' and upholding an economic embargo that has stunted economic growth since 1958, reveals a disregard for the role the US has played in destabilizing regions across the globe.

Thus, we see that the US has a pattern of engaging in hypocritical condemnation of non-state actors motivated by US-backed terrorism.

In the Goldstone Report, the UN Human Rights Council identified "clear evidence" of possible war crimes committed by both the IDF and Palestinian militants.

The report concluded that Israel had violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, describing the Israeli strategy during the war of 2008 as having been "designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity (...), and to force upon it an ever-increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability."

US State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly accused the report for disproportionately focusing on Israel while downplaying Hamas' "deplorable actions", the US House rejected the report, and the US ambassador to the UN promised to “stand by Israel” in “the fight against the Goldstone report."

This reflects a broader pattern of disregarding expert opinions, such as those of Richard A. Falk, a Jewish-American professor of international law, who was appointed to the UNHRC during the 2008–09 Gaza war. Falk stated that targeting the "civilian infrastructure" of groups like Hamas or Hezbollah constitutes a blatant "violation of the most elementary norms of the law of war" and aligns more closely with "state terrorism."

This pattern of dismissal further encourages US-backed interventions to continue amidst international outrage.The United States' global impact extends beyond its military presence, with American media and policies shaping the framing of conflicts – and raising concerns about the neutrality of event portrayal.

Many of the biggest news journals are US-based, meaning that when journals like the New York Times, Washington Post, or Los Angeles Times – which have all been found to favor Israel in various studies – publish articles emphasizing Israeli casualties while diminishing Palestinians' – as they have been found to do in an analysis by Intercept – this shapes opinions everywhere.

The same analysis found that these three publications use terms like 'slaughter' and 'massacre' disproportionately to describe the killings of Israelis as opposed to Palestinians, and remarked on a report run by the LA Times that notably differed in its description of Israeli "children" vs. Palestinians "under the age of 18." In addition to media influence, the US's diplomatic ties allow for pressure to be exerted on ally states.

Some US officials have directly lobbied the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, exemplifying the influence of US policy on global listings.

Studies show that groups designated as terrorists by the US are more likely to appear on other nations' terrorist lists. Islamist groups, in particular, face a significantly higher probability of proscription, highlighting potential biases in designation practices.

Not to mention, media narratives heavily influence policy decisions, as seen in the 2006 decision by the EU to label the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as terrorists, which was later found to be based on “imputations derived from the press and the Internet,” in place of thorough investigation.

US influence is further demonstrated through its veto power in UN decision-making: In 2021, amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Hamas, the US used its veto privilege to obstruct a statement calling for an end to hostilities and urging all parties to exercise restraint.

The US's unflinching military support for Israel coupled with their reluctance, as displayed in their veto use, to criticize Israeli methods, such as the targeting of civilian infrastructure, implicates US leaders in the ongoing destruction and civilian casualties.

By unreservedly supporting Israel while employing antagonistic rhetoric toward Israel's adversaries, the United States can be seen as skewing narratives due to historical alliances and geopolitical objectives. US history of sponsoring terrorism abroad contrasted with its denunciation of similar acts by foreign parties additionally reflects inconsistencies in US foreign policy.

Disregarding expert opinions enables US-backed military initiatives, such as Israel's operations in Gaza and Lebanon, to proceed despite global opposition.

This has broader implications for international law, as it grants Israel a unique level of impunity not afforded to their adversaries, obscuring the path to accountability and impartiality.

In light of the dire situation in Gaza (and now, Beirut), it is imperative for the US to reassess its foreign policy, namely its steadfast support for Israel, and actively seek solutions that prioritize peace, justice, and human rights.

Elisabeth Gaiganis is a Greek university student with a background in English Literature from the International School Michel Lucius. She aspires to work in journalism while pursuing her studies in Psychology. 

Contact us at youngvoices@rtl.lu