For nearly ten months, Israel has been waging a genocidal war in Gaza. Its army has violated almost every aspect of international humanitarian law in its relentless assault on an incredibly vulnerable population.
Israel has deprived the Gaza concentration camp of basic necessities: food, water, medicine, sanitation, electricity and fuel. And by targeting civilian infrastructure, the majority of Gaza’s residents are left homeless.
No Israeli military objective requires the total destruction of Gaza. Killing 40,000 Palestinians – a death toll that some estimates put at 186,000 – and wounding many more serves no clear strategic purpose. Nor does the systematic and massive destruction of Gaza’s universities, schools, hospitals and neighborhoods. If Israel wants to occupy and annex Gaza, it will probably want to inherit something more than a blast zone.
If Israel’s conduct seems irrational, so too does the unconditional support for it from its closest ally, the United States. Washington’s “unconditional” support for Israel’s genocide has eroded its international authority and its claim to defend the rules-based international system.
Many attribute Israel’s blatant irrationality to the sense of humiliation sparked by the Hamas attack on October 7. This hyper-emotion has accelerated the rightward shift in Israeli politics, which now openly celebrates genocidal exploits. The rhetoric of “peaceful coexistence” is gone, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promises instead “total victory.”
History gives us an idea of what he means by this phrase. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the German word Endsieg, which literally means “final victory” and describes the full realization of the Nazi regime’s genocidal ambitions. The parallels are chilling.
If October 7 can explain Israel’s behavior, it does little to illuminate American complicity. True, the United States is a reliable ally and financial backer of Israel, but until recently it has always been careful to present itself as an impartial mediator between Israelis and Palestinians because of its myriad international considerations. That caution has vanished. The United States has unequivocally supported every step of Israel’s destructive campaign in Gaza, even as it has rhetorically called for “restraint” or a “ceasefire.”
Washington’s loyalty is striking. Since the start of the offensive, President Joe Biden has supported Israel at every opportunity. But the United States and Israel are separate societies, with often divergent interests. Should American and Israeli positions on the war differ at least slightly?
Could the Israel lobby simply dictate American foreign policy? Groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are undoubtedly powerful. But they are just one of many lobbying groups vying for influence in Washington.
Perhaps the US has a vested interest in Gaza? The evidence is scant.
Perhaps America wants gas fields just off the coast of Gaza? But Washington would not need to engage in genocide to get that gas. A completely peaceful, if unfair, negotiation would do the trick.
Indeed, none of this explains why the United States risks accumulating such discredit, not only in the Middle East but around the world, by supporting Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.
What if American support for Israeli genocide has nothing to do with Gaza? What if the United States is simply trying to show who’s boss?
In recent years, there has been increasing talk of multipolarity. Many analysts predict a world in which the United States will no longer be the global hegemon.
In the midst of these discussions, the United States suffered a defeat and found itself in a stalemate with Russia in Ukraine and Syria, respectively. It hastily withdrew from Afghanistan, which led to the return to power of the Taliban. Several Latin American governments have shifted to the left, which has increased friction in “America’s backyard.”
Meanwhile, China, the United States’ main rival, is asserting its influence on the international stage. The BRICS, an intergovernmental organization in which Beijing plays a key role, has become the BRICS+, expanding to include Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Egypt.
The People’s Republic also made its debut on the Middle Eastern stage, playing the role of peacemaker between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023 and facilitating a cooling of hostilities in Yemen.
In short, America appears to be on the defensive, its position as the world’s dominant superpower becoming increasingly fragile. It sees Gaza as an opportunity to reassert itself.
This is how we should understand the American involvement in Gaza. Otherwise, why would the United States massively reinforce its military presence in the Middle East in response to a one-off attack by a poorly armed Hamas? This is an insecure superpower, desperate to prove its enduring supremacy. And it is flouting the most basic principles of international humanitarian law to show that no one will stop it.
There has been some resistance. Iran’s allies have challenged American and Israeli forces in the region. Tehran launched a massive airstrike against Israel following the assassination of senior Iranian officials in Syria. It is expected to do the same now following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.
Hezbollah has also launched a series of attacks in retaliation for deadly Israeli strikes on Lebanese territory. It will likely do the same after the assassination of Fuad Shukr.
In the Red Sea, Yemen’s Houthis have disrupted crucial shipping lanes and sent drones and missiles toward Israel in response to its atrocities in Gaza.
South Africa has filed a lawsuit against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing it of genocide; the court has issued a preliminary ruling that Israeli actions likely constitute genocide.
As the United States and Israel attempt to cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), China has lent its support to the organization and announced emergency funding. It has also called for the creation and recognition of an independent Palestinian state and helped broker a unity deal between Fatah and Hamas.
But none of this has been enough to challenge the seemingly unlimited resources and diplomatic cover that the United States provides to Israel.
The BRICS+ is intended to counter Western hegemony. Yet China, its leader and largest economy, has not been bolder than some players within hegemonic forces such as the European Union. It has limited itself to supportive rhetoric and some diplomatic initiatives, while Russia has remained conspicuously silent and India openly pro-Israel.
The BRICS+ could have done much more to try to stop the genocide. They could have done much more to provide concrete support to the people of Gaza in their most painful moments. But they did not.
America is calling the BRICS+ bluff and exposing them as a paper tiger. With the exception of South Africa and Iran, the bloc simply failed to rise to the occasion. This means that the US has made its point. It remains the world’s superpower until BRICS+ can prove otherwise.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.
