Evaluating U.S. Foreign Policy and Warfare:

the Russian/Ukrainian and Hamas/Israeli Conflicts

(Excerpts from an earlier article on Ukraine and Russia that appeared on RicardoPlanas.com have been used in this essay)

Preface

The nation’s foreign policy involves multiple issues that include, among others, armed conflicts, economic trade, legal and illegal migration, tourism, human trafficking, pandemics, labor issues, climate pollution, drug trafficking, foreign aid, law and governance, cyber issues, arms control, international rules of behavior and laws, and scientific and technological issues. It would be difficult, however, to deal with all of them in a brief essay. Hence, the purpose of this article deals with a single issue, warfare, because of all problems we face on earth none is as lethal or senseless as the willful killing of human beings.

According to how human nature works, human beings do not ask permission to be born; others do it for them. But once alive, the immense majority of us are born with an instinct—a desire—to stay alive, at times defying great odds, even while knowing that one day each one of us will die. No one, with the exception of mentally or emotionally ill persons, would wish to die if he or she can help it, including those who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their freedom, to escape injustice, or even to commit a crime. Such a strong desire suggests that death, no matter how it comes, is not humanly desirable.

Traditionally, experts and political leaders have stressed the view that warfare is primarily the result of a lack of international institutions akin to a domestic system of law enforcement that prevent or minimize deadly conflicts. Having to live in an environment similar to an untamed jungle, nations have no other choice but to be ready to protect themselves from each other; that is, always to be prepared for war. But while it is true that Planet Earth lacks an enforceable system of law and order that often leads to wars, the tendency by these experts and political leaders to exonerate or ignore what is in reality the result of human behavior seems to be a travesty. Armed conflicts in the twentieth century alone caused millions of deaths, of injuries, and the destruction of cities and communities of people. Thus, blaming a humanly created anarchic system ignores the reality that responsibility for warfare falls mainly on national governments or regional groups, their leaders and institutions. And, although soldiers become mere executors of decisions made by their leaders, citizens, particularly in democratic societies, play a significant role often by actively supporting conflicts mostly because of their apparent indifference and ignorance of the issues that can lead to war.

In the seventeenth century, international politics underwent a large transformation, the creation of nation-states (peoples and their governments). As soon as a nation-state arises it becomes responsible for safeguarding its national sovereignty and the security of its citizens. The interaction of nations as they seek these security concerns is what foreign policy is mostly all about, keeping in mind that what we do outside our borders is ultimately the responsibility of human beings.

The nation’s foreign policy comprises two opposing activities, 1) competition for power for the necessary resources that ensure survival and security, which at times lead to wars; 2) collaboration or cooperation to solve all domestic and international problems that each nation faces including competition and warfare. Those who view struggles for power among nations as their most important aspect, however, tend to disregard the value of a crucial process that mediates between competition and cooperation: diplomacy, or the constant negotiations and exchanges among nations to seek solutions that may avert potential crises. Although it has been traditionally asserted that warfare is nothing but the continuation of politics through different means, this view misses the point that wars occur because of failures in diplomacy.

How do we understand what are often humanly-caused problems that eventually lead to wars? Using a simple medical analogy might allow us to better explain how modern conflicts occur  within a secular, historical and political context.

      An analogy to understand and evaluate warfare

Wars, we may say, evolve like cancer. We know that cell mutation, invisible to the naked eye, is initially responsible for what eventually develops into a tumor that may or may not become malignant. We also know that some benign tumors may go undetected and become malignant as they begin to spread through the bloodstream. Often, physical symptoms that ought to dictate medical scrutiny are foolishly ignored as insignificant ailments (colds or back pain) that occur to human beings throughout their lives. We also know that not all malignant tumors metastasize, although once cancer reaches that stage it becomes exceedingly difficult to cure. How does the analogy relate to wars?

Transposing the cancer analogy to the political world suggests that not all violent conflicts (undetected tumors) lead to combat. Some do, some do not. Furthermore, history demonstrates that political and military leaders do not wake up one day and decide they want to go to war. As whimsical and criminal as their decisions may be, wars imply motives, thought, planning, and long-term execution. In the end, wars are the result of premeditated behavior whether greed, glory, domination, revenge, ideological/religious convictions, claims of  national security, or self-defense.

      A myopic view on warfare

If a public opinion poll on warfare were to be conducted, the overwhelming majority of respondents (including political leaders) probably would concur with the belief that wars begin when shots are fired, suggesting that those who launch the first rounds are always to be blamed. This view, however, is simplistic and historically untenable. It tends to overlook wars as complicated processes that often find their origins and/or causes in capricious or calculated actions by political leaders or in historical, socio-economic, religious, and political events that may have taken place for a long time (so-called undetected tumors).

For example, it would be historically capricious to state that World War I began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand while overlooking decades of preventive military buildups in Europe that created a sense of insecurity that led to defensive alliances; a belief that considered wars a risk worth taking to attain national goals; and feelings of nationalism or the mutual dislike of nations based on their cultural differences and/or desires. Likewise, World War II cannot be seen as commencing with Germany’s forced unification of Austria or its invasion of Poland. It too would ignore the humiliating defeat of Germany in WWI and a revengeful Treaty of Versailles imposed on the country. Although Germany was mainly responsible for WWI, the reaction by the Allies along with the rise of a megalomaniac individual and a vindictive type of Nazi nationalist ideology infested the German people through decades with a desire to avenge humiliation.

The origin of wars, then, occurs way before actual combat begins, when benign tumors are unobserved or neglected. Colonialism, empire building, dogmatic religious views, slavery, economic and military imperialism, unmitigated political ambition, and resentful ideologies.  Events whose long-term consequences are ignored or unforeseen can unleash vindictive forces by victims against their oppressors centuries or decades later transforming an insignificant condition into a serious tumor. That is to say, our past behavior is often responsible for present armed conflicts. It is doubtful that wars are mandated by God. The empirical evidence points to human behavior.

      Rules to evaluate foreign policy

Bearing in mind that most wars are not whimsical events, these conflicts may be evaluated in terms of past behavior, including our War of Independence, the U.S.’s Civil War, 9/11/, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the nuclear arms race, the Russian-Ukrainian and the Hamas-Israel conflicts among many others. Nevertheless, nation-states face what appears to be an insurmountable problem, how to, secularly speaking, legally and morally evaluate warfare or assign blame or responsibility. Despite there being rules, conventions, and international treaties agreed by all nations on earth through the United Nations Charter, not having a system of law and order that may enforce them leaves political leaders and their people to be the ultimate interpreters and moral judges of who is right and who is wrong.

Prior to the creation of the modern state in the seventeenth century, initiating violent aggression was the favorite means of subduing peoples. If Christians and other religions consider this behavior wicked or evil, we must take a look at history and see who those responsible for atrocious behavior. Among these conquerors history recognizes (among others) strange bedfellows such as Greek King Alexander (known as the Great), Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, possibly Charlemagne, Pope Urban II and other crusading popes, Genghis Khan, and Mohammad and Sultan Süleyman to a lesser degree. Following the creation of the modern state, political leaders history recognizes numerous personalities in the Modern and Postmodern era who have exceeded themselves in the use of gratuitous or unprovoked military force to a higher or lesser degree. Establishing a hierarchical order in this respect, though difficult, may include the number of people killed and the level of long-term deprivation and hardship people had to endure. This category includes Adolf Hitler, Hideki Tojo, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Shaka Zulu, and to a lesser extent Louis XIV, Peter the Great, the European and Asian colonial powers, Otto von Bismarck, Wilhelm II, and Simon Bolivar despite being known as the Great Liberator.

There also have been dictators who exceeded themselves in the use of force within their countries such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet, or Fidel Castro. And we may even find democratically elected leaders too, such as U.S. Presidents James K Polk, Andrew Jackson, and George Washington, if we consider the ruthless annexation of foreign territories or their treatment of Native Americans. Moreover, following the end of the Soviet era, a new type of cruelty surged against the West, non-state-led terrorism. Although there is no universal definition of terrorism during acts of war, according to U.S. criteria the term points to the maiming or killing of innocent civilians as a means to attain a group or a state’s political objective. Accordingly, U.S. President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japanese civilians may fit the definition. Even the beginning of the Israeli state was characterized by acts of terrorism (including former prime minister Menachem Begin) against the British whose government was perhaps the most influential actor leading to the creation of Israel. Israeli paramilitary forces also assisted in forcefully depopulating Jerusalem and other areas of Palestinians living in the area. Hence, given the historical panorama, a moral question needs to be raised: who shall dare to cast the first stone?

Blunders in foreign policy that lead to warfare

      Violation of international norms

Perhaps the most dangerous stage of politically cancerous mutations occurs when nations violate established international norms of conduct. Such behavior allows opposing parties to justify acting in the same manner later on reasoning that not following through would weaken their security. As in sports, if some teams were allowed to break the rules of the game others soon would follow. A most sinister behavior used for centuries is that of preventive warfare. In this type of conflict political leaders seek to eliminate perceived enemies simply to prevent them from the possibility of initiating an attack at a later day even if such an attack is not being contemplated. The U.N. Charter prohibition against preventive wars was designed precisely to avoid the likes of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hungary in 1956, its intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the U.S. covertly planned operation of Bay of Pigs in 1961, the U.S.  invasion against Iraq in 2003, and countless others.

While the U.S. is still referred to as the leader of the free world, and indeed it has offered a great deal of protection to human rights and democracy, it has also relied on violations of international law, assassination attempts, support for human rights violations, overthrow of democratic processes, and unwillingness to use diplomacy and the powers it projects to prevent armed conflicts. The overall consequence of such behavior is that when U.S. criticism of warfare happens, our enemies cry hypocritical behavior characterized by the meme ‘the pot calling the kettle black.’

      How self-righteousness leads to warfare

In foreign policy, critical remarks to a war are often regarded as disloyal and tend to be disregarded. Such a misplaced sense of loyalty along with a self-righteous mindset can  lead to malignant political mutations. Self-righteousness is a self-deceiving trait that considers one’s behavior to be upright and principled while judging opponents’ actions as evil. Such an attitude sidesteps an attempt to understand one’s adversaries’ feelings and intentions because they are deemed to lack validity. As a result, thinking becomes one-sided, concluding that since our leaders cloak their actions as honorable, an opponent’s behavior must be self-serving. This attitude provides legitimacy to armed hostility while forgetting that all major powers have been responsible throughout their histories of the worst conduct humanity has exhibited.

      Misperceptions can be just as dangerous

Another serious cancerous mutation in world politics occurs when seemingly innocuous misconceptions or misperceptions lead to rigid postures and risky confrontations. These occur when we disregard our opponents’ motives when they conflict with preconceived notions that are unchecked or when insecurity seeps in and clouds our judgements. Rejecting an opponent’s ‘rightful’ claims of national insecurity tends to be driven by the belief that only “bad guys” use this rationale to justify their actions. The problem is that no nation labels itself as a bad actor. Hence, the tendency is to justify our insecurities asserting they are real, thus acceptable, while our enemies’ concerns are pretexts to take aggressive action. The ultimate consequence of this behavior is that, lacking legal and moral consensus regarding universal norms, each nation chooses to believe that only its causes can be justified. This ‘rally around the flag’ becomes an impulsive reaction that allows war to happen.

      Erroneous mindsets are that are often irreversible

A mindset may be defined as a rigidly established set of attitudes and beliefs indicating that one’s mind regarding an issue is already made up thereby not requiring more information. It is similar to an unfounded belief based on an unwanted desire to acquire more information that may clarify the issue. This is not surprising among most citizens who are unwilling to learn about the issues because they regard the process as boring or complicated and prefer to spend their free time relaxing.

For example, a consistently mistaken view in the minds of many may be defined by the slogan ‘a tiger never changes its stripes,’ asserting that viciously aggressive nations will never be able to transform their nature. History, nonetheless, cannot validate such claims. European colonial nations and an imperialist Japan, for example, evolved into democracies. The U.S., despite being created through racial slavery, mistreatment of Native Americans, and ethnic nationalities is today vastly different from the nation its Fathers founded. And all the European great powers, Spain, England, France, Portugal, and others that practiced authoritarianism and human exploitation for decades today have become democracies.

Contemporary history tells us about glaring examples of the risks of rigid mindsets. The famous Missile Gap that led to the nuclear arms race in the early 1960s was likely the result of US misperceptions and a rigid mindset. In the words of historian Tim Naftali, the U.S. argument those days was, They [Moscow] hate us. They will work 24 hours a day to build as many missiles as they can. And you can’t prove that they can’t. Indeed, the Soviets were in competition with the West; both sides felt insecure; and Moscow disliked the U.S. immensely. Nonetheless, what led to the inordinate increase in U.S. missiles that fueled a nuclear arms race was our fearful misconceptions amid a lack of adequate intelligence. Also, the Vietnam War, among the greatest U.S. military tragedies of the twentieth century, was based, according to Robert McNamara, on the U.S. supposition that Hanoi was a rigid ideologically communist ally of Russia as opposed to a country fighting off anti-colonialism to remain an independent nation. Years later, he admitted that the war should have ended in 1963, but a Cold War mentality may have prevented us from viewing North Vietnam’s actions differently.

Many in the West repeated the mistake when colonialism and apartheid intransigence transformed Nelson Mandela into the most famous non-communist communist to be revered, Gorbachev-style, by the West. Lastly, terrorist attacks by rogue Muslim groups and religious ideologies, particularly after 9/11, led the West to view Islam as the enemy. We looked for enemies everywhere, eventually creating a vivid image of a “mushroom cloud” menacing the U.S. Washington’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 under false pretenses and flawed, ideologically driven intelligence discredited our institutions and led us into a misconceived preventive war whose effects tripled our insecurity.

Evaluating current wars and conflicts

Sometimes wars are fought because the human condition demands it. Liberation Theology in Latin America, for example, relies heavily on how God liberated his Jewish people from years of Egyptian subjugation. Wars of national liberation that have occurred during the last two centuries, although marginally related to this Christian theology, have resulted in dozens of nations having regained their sovereignty even if the domestic conditions of some of them have not been sufficiently improved afterwards. For example, conditions that the American colonies found economically untenable, despite not being even close to what the Jewish people had suffered, led to the War of Independence deeming they had the ‘right’ to self-govern themselves. Such a right being humanly created, not divinely mandated, the colonies created their own concept of national sovereignty. This war did not begin with shots first fired at Lexington and Concord in 1775; the causes (whether justifiable or not) are to be found in how the British Empire was treating its people in America.

Casually, the American Civil War (1861-1865) may be said to have its origin when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter in 1861. In reality, the conflict was not only preceded by South Carolina and other Confederate states decision to secede from the Union, a right they presumably had then, but by decades of political bickering and divisiveness that revolved mainly over the issue of slavery that at the time was the backbone of the South’s economy. Again, unbearable human conditions and debates over the morality of enslavement taking place decades before created the motives for both sides to go to war.

The Al-Qaeda plan and execution of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US mainland may be described as a grudge held by Osama bin Laden over American military support for Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as US aggression against Muslims in other parts of the world dating back to 1990 (and likely before). As misguided and humanly unjustified these attacks were, they constituted acts of revenge based on how bin Laden perceived Muslim humiliation suffered throughout time. In two messages to the American people describing his motives for the 9/11 attacks, he outlines a list (similar to those in the US Declaration of Independence, though not contextualized and more simplistic) of grievances in which he seeks to justify his actions based on his personal interpretation of the Koran or Qur’an, suggesting how relativistic values and perceptions can lead to armed conflict.

Evaluating two current conflicts: Russia/Ukraine and Hamas/Israel

Relying on the criteria that wars, particularly preventive wars, are often senseless; that wars do not begin when shots are first fired; that self-righteousness and rigid mindsets blind nations and their leaders; and that no modern nation, democratic or authoritarian, have the legal, political, or moral legitimacy to denounce each other for behavior they themselves have been responsible for, it might be possible to shed some light on current conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. As an analyst, my task is to be like an observer at a chess match whose role is to analyze all moves as objectively as possible.

There seems to be no doubt that Russia’s attack on Ukraine and Hamas’ assault against Jewish civilian populations are reprehensible and loathsome crimes. What underlies these crimes is that ruthless military force was used to attain political objectives. These actions need to be denounced; the problem is by who? There is an old saying that anyone who tries to mediate a dispute between two enemies ends up, like Jesus, being crucified. This has happened to U.N Secretary General António Guterres and to Pope Francis, both of whom have issued severe critical statements on both attacks, though, as it appears from the Israeli and the Ukrainian sides, not severe enough to satisfy their feelings. The two wars have divided governments and peoples throughout the world, many preferring the conflicts to continue, as if these conflicts were an entertaining TV drama that viewers wish would never end.

For us humans, it is less troublesome to take sides and avoid the deep thinking that understanding these conflicts require. There is not enough space in this essay to do so. However, based on historical and current information in the media it is possible to make various affirmations. First, we take it for granted that the single most important objective of the U.S. and NATO–the forces of freedom–would have been to avoid unnecessary bloodshed by viewing each conflict from the side of the opponents. Failure to do so suggests that, as public information indicates, both conflicts represent the absence of strong leadership and a diplomatic dereliction on the part of the U.S. and NATO.

The Russia-Ukraine War

Before examining the Russia-Ukraine war, it is necessary to take the reader back to the 1960s. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest humankind has been to a nuclear holocaust, represents an example of how political tumors escalate due to lack of foresight. At the time, the Soviets had become aware that the U.S. had developed a disproportionate nuclear arsenal due to its fear that Moscow represented. Washington established nuclear bases in close proximity to the Soviet Union, a move that Moscow and the Soviet military felt threatened its security. Although from our standpoint we regarded Soviet communism as evil, we did not foresee that Moscow did not see itself as an evil empire. Pressured by his military, Chairman Khruschev was forced to counter NATO and Washington in any way it could. The easiest alternative was to set nuclear missiles in Cuba, a step that drew the world very close to nuclear annihilation. In turn, President John Kennedy had to choose between exercising restraint and a military showdown. In the end, unforeseen circumstances (human fate?), compromise, and mutual backdown in which the US agreed to remove the menacing missiles from Europe in exchange for Moscow removing its own from Cuba led to a peaceful solution.

Sixty years later, we seem not to have learned any lesson from those events. An analysis of contemporary information indicates that since the dissolution of the Soviet empire, the U.S. and NATO have attempted to replicate events in the 1950s and 1960s, except through conventional military alliances. Following the dissolution of the Soviet empire, Russia began to negotiate with the U.S. from a position of weakness. Under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush U.S. policy had been to bring Russia into the democratic fold to the point of allowing private and public capital to invest in Russia to revitalize its economy. However, beginning with the Clinton Administration, NATO policy changed swiftly, and with little explanation and while contradicting itself began to encircle Russia by inviting former Soviet-controlled nations to join NATO… just in case. Both Mikhail Gorbachev (who was politically worshiped in the West) and Boris Yeltsin had regarded the policy as uncalled for and threatening. The policy continued through the George W Bush and the Barack Obama administrations. Although President Donald Trump did his best to create dissension within the NATO alliance, a move that favored Moscow, President Joe Biden renewed the old policy, which Russia perceived as endangering its national security.

When NATO made less than subtle requests for Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO (since then Finland and Sweden have become NATO partners) Vladimir Putin’s worst fears seem to have been confirmed. Putin did not invade Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine capriciously. He had witnessed that the Western democracies with active participation of the U.S. had encouraged and supported a mass coup in 2014 during the Maidan events in Ukraine removing from power its democratically elected leader simply because they wanted Ukraine to join the West. Noticing that NATO was altering the rules of the game, Putin too decided to do the same. Altogether, today NATO is a military alliance comprising 32 countries, all of which with the exception of the U.S., Canada and Turkey (partially) are in Europe. Six of them share borders with Russia. Bringing Ukraine into NATO would signify adding over 1400 miles of land and sea bordering Russia.

It appears that the U.S., the E.U., and Ukraine gave Putin reasons (or excuses) that their actions presented a reasonable threat to Russia. Viewed retrospectively, Russia could have argued that the U.S.’s invasion of Iraq provided Putin with political cover to behave similarly in its annexation of Ukrainian lands to stave off NATO expansionism. Had the U.S. not engaged in regime change and interventions in Iran, South Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (among others) as well as unsuccessful attempts in other countries far away from its borders or supported dictatorships when it suited its national security objectives? Once a government decides to upset international norms it is tacitly endorsing similar behavior by its opponents.

The election of Joe Biden in 2021 did not seem to make much difference to U.S. relations with Russia. Diplomatic talks were being handled from each other’s perspectives and based on their own interests as opposed to focusing on avoiding war. The U.S. and NATO were demanding that Russia’s aggression ceases and lands be returned to the status quo ante while Russia had been insisting that NATO provide tangible guarantees to protect its security. Both sides were aware they were on the same collision track and still failed to notice it. On its part, NATO was myopic in believing it could easily deter a Russian invasion.

According to the public record neither the U.S. nor NATO paid attention to Putin’s requests for tacit guarantees (not spheres of influence) to ensure Russia’s security. Sensing that his policies in eastern Ukraine had not put enough pressure on NATO, Putin began to mobilize troops towards Ukraine’s northern, southern, and eastern borders. In a talk with President Biden two months prior to Russia’s attack on Ukraine (Dec 2022), Putin again demanded security arrangements for Russia. If met, they could conceivably have prevented the war. Nonetheless, the U.S., the E.U., NATO, and Ukraine focused instead on intensifying Ukraine’s security to deter Russian forces while paying little attention to Putin’s demands. NATO’s refusal to negotiate guarantees with Russia (which would not have amounted to any form of appeasement) forced Putin two months later to attack Ukraine. NATO’s deterring policies backfired and the political cancer metastasized. Avoiding diplomacy, NATO preferred to use Ukraine as a red line against Russia by providing material support while Ukrainians would do the fighting and the dying.

The war in Ukraine became tragic regardless of republican or democratic, liberal or conservative leaders in the West. They all contributed to a self-fulfilling prophecy that failed horrendously. U.S. and NATO’s unwillingness to be cautiously receptive to others’ needs; to self-righteously misperceive motives; to express a willingness to prefer war as an inherent right rather than to be mindful that preventing it may bring higher returns; to continue to refer to themselves as exceptional democracies while visibly and without pretenses uprooting a viable and weak democratic country to deny it to the opposition. These were the features that made the war in Ukraine inevitable.

As it is unlikely that governments will acknowledge their mistakes, there is no motivation for the war to end. There is now an irrational form of rationality suggesting that the war must go on; the West needs to continue to defend Ukraine’s ‘sovereignty’ although Russia will not cease hostilities until concrete security guarantees are established.

      A Note on Pope Francis Remarks Regarding ‘Raising the White Flag’

While seeking a diplomatic solution, Pope Francis recently made a remark that stirred enormous opposition among Ukrainians and consternation likely within NATO. When asked about the conflict, Pope Francis seemingly said, “the strongest one is the one who looks at the situation, thinks about the people and has the courage of the white flag, and negotiates,” adding, “the word negotiate is a courageous word. When you see that you are defeated, that things are not going well, you have to have the courage to negotiate.”

His remarks were decidedly not clear. He appeared to indicate that Ukraine is or will be defeated and therefore ought to surrender. Such is not necessarily the case since he mentions negotiations. The problem is the ‘white flag’ that stands for two different types of action: to surrender completely to the opposition, or that in view of a stalemate the white flag is waved to indicate negotiations. The Vatican’s Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, indicated that the pope’s white flag comment meant, not surrender, but for both nations to engage in diplomatic negotiations. It would be inopportune and a diplomatic blunder for Francis to suggest that Ukraine surrenders after previously saying that a nation, i.e. Ukraine has the right to defend itself. In the end, it is clear that Ukraine’s president has no experience in diplomacy or foreign policy (he was a TV entertainer prior to running for president), and that it is the U.S. and NATO that are at the helm in this war. Even a diplomatic solution at this stage, as welcomed as it would be, would indicate a foreign policy failure by the West given the destruction and death this war has caused.

Hamas, Israel … and U.S. Foreign Policy

The Hamas-Israeli war has proven to be as divisive throughout the world as the Russia-Ukraine war. The causes of this conflict are strikingly similar as those of the Russia-Ukraine war except that its historical roots go deeper revealing, once more, that the U.S. and NATO’s ability or willingness to use their influence to avoid wars is not commensurate with the responsibility their power calls for. An attempt to objectively evaluate this conflict is difficult, namely because  of the historical, political, and military ties that bind the American people and Washington to the Israeli nation. Nonetheless, I trust that my writings, beliefs, and strong anti-Semitic sentiments will allow me to be rigorously objective while realizing that extreme sentiments on both sides are unlikely to change.

The most evident statement that can be made about this conflict is that a fairly visible political tumor that appeared over seventy years ago that has not been rigorously treated by major western powers, once again has recurred, this time with devastating consequences. To refer to the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians including children and the elderly as criminal might not properly describe what took place on October 7, 2023. Adding terms such as barbaric, inhuman, cruel, heinous, and abominable better characterize Hamas’s actions.

What is now required is to understand why it happened without offering justifications. It is important first to distinguish between understanding and justifying human behavior. Justifying an act perpetrated by human beings means to accord it moral and  legal considerations that largely mitigates or even exculpates the act due to the conditions and background that led to it. Justification suggests absolving the party of doing something that is morally or legally wrong or evil.

Understanding the event, however, has nothing to do with justifying it; there is no absolution or negation of responsibility, or circumstances that could placate the act. Understanding means to observe without making judgments, for example, calling alcoholism a disease without passing judgment on alcoholics. But when it comes to acts involving the killing and maiming of human beings and the destruction of the infrastructures that make life tenable, it is difficult to walk a middle line. Once the distinction is accepted a brief summary of events may help us to evaluate the conflict.

In 1917, under the Balfour Declaration, the UK announced support for establishing an Israeli nation-state on lands (known as Palestine) that had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire toward the end of WWI and now was administered by the UK. The declaration stated that while it looked favorably upon the creation of “a home for the Jewish people … nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” Although the declaration did not imply authorization, as years went by thousands of Jews began to migrate from other countries into the area eventually leading to skirmishes between Palestinians and Jews along with British forces. As Palestine did not exist other than as a tract of land, it became a competing space between two religious and quasi-ethnic nationalities.

In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Partition Plan under which Palestine was to be divided between Palestinians and Jews and executed under the recommendations of the United Nation Special Committee on Palestine. Palestinians rejected the partition for several reasons including that Jews were given more living space and fertile land despite having twice as many people in the area. Beyond these and other claims, the issue revolved around the view favored by the West that Jews that had been expelled from their land by the Romans centuries before and subjected throughout history to abuse and discriminatory behavior ought to be able to live in the land they lived on for centuries. Although a minority of Jews continued to live in the area, Muslims conquered Palestine in the seventh century following the weakening of the Byzantine Roman Empire. Palestinians and surrounding Arab nations saw increased migration of Jews into what they considered their land as leading to the eventual elimination of a potential sovereign nation, and thus opposed the creation of Israel. Israel in turn, saw the creation of a Jewish state as humanly and religiously proper as well as the beginning of a future plan to extend its territory.

The U.S had considered the Jewish/Palestinian issue more of a localized problem. Politically, Washington had favored the creation of the State of Israel but without paying much attention to potential repercussions (actually, no other major power did). All this changed following a Jewish victory during the Six-Day War in 1967 against a coalition of Arab states that led to Jewish annexation of Arab territories. The political ramifications of the conflict grew immediately. At the United Nations, Resolution 242 was  unanimously approved by the Security Council, including the U.S., stating that acquisition of territory by Israel by war was inadmissible, calling for a just peace, and for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied lands. In 1974, the UN General Assembly proclaimed Palestinian rights of self-determination, including national independence, and rights of Palestinians to return to their homes, basically forming a political preamble to a two-state solution.

A fateful step

However, in 1976, in the middle of the Cold War that had the potential to divide Middle East nations the U.S. made a turnabout vetoing Security Council resolutions mandating Israel’s return of lands, indicating instead that resolution of the border issue had to be negotiated between the two main opponents, Israel and the Palestinians. The implication of the U.S. action, in effect, left two enemies, whose opposition to each other was primarily based on hatred, to decide their own fate by themselves. It would have been naive to have expected that diplomacy and a peaceful resolution to the conflict would have been possible under those conditions. The signal had been sent that Washington would not be able to mediate the conflict. Its policies proved to be divisive as Arab countries grew increasingly hostile toward Washington.

Although U.S. presidents, republicans and democrats, participated and led negotiations toward a resolution of the conflict, Washington’s ‘let them sort their own problems by themselves’ approach became an illusory policy that successive administrations believed would, somehow, lead to a two-state solution by itself. This approach remained U.S. policy for decades. Following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, U.S. political leaders began, once again, to plead, this time more forcefully, for a two-state solution. These cries are the most evident confirmation that U.S. foreign policy regarding the Palestinian-Israeli issue had failed through decades of neglect and forceful leadership. Most political experts would add that American domestic politics played a significant role in maintaining a mild hands-on approach to the conflict.

The OSLO Accords (1993, 1995)  attempted to accelerate Israeli withdrawal of its forces from Palestinian lands. Additionally, the accords established recognition of the State of Israel by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel’s acceptance of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. Hope surfaced that the accords eventually would serve as a blueprint for the two-state solution. Ultimately the accords failed to push negotiations forward. Two Intifadas or popular uprisings against Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank in 1987 and 2000 reflecting disappointment with the failed OSLO Accords resulted in thousands of deaths and injured civilian and military personnel on both sides. Iran, a newcomer to the opposition to Israel and the U.S. following the Ayatollah Ruhollah Koemeni-led revolution, became involved in the Palestinian conflict backing proxy militants such as Hezbollah.

The Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank is over 5 million people according to U.S. and Israeli data. There are an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 Hamas militants, enough to cause havoc but not strong enough to threaten the security of Israel. Nonetheless, over the years the situation among Palestinians has changed from disenchantment to disappointment to anger and hatred given the dire socio-economic and political circumstances they face on a daily basis.

Israel’s military policies have been geared toward deterring hostilities by making the enemy pay a heavy price for its actions. In past conflicts, including the two Lebanon War (1982 & 2006) Israel’s opponents have suffered losses three to four times higher than those sustained by Israel including civilian population. Gathering information from various sources indicate that the two Intifadas together resulted in the death of between 1,100 and 1,300 Israelis including civilians and soldiers while Palestinian losses were over 6,000 including civilians and militants.

Superior use of military force by Israel has not been able to stop or minimize the conflict. This is evident by the recent Hamas attack. Given approximate numbers reported in the media between the end of January 2024 and the beginning of March 2024, excluding the wounded, over 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas, two-thirds of them civilians including children while nearly 250 Israelis were taken hostages. On the other hand, the number of Palestinians killed by Israel is placed at between 25,000 and 31,000, including 12,000 or more of them armed militants. The figures suggest that well over half of Palestinians killed were civilians, many of whom may have sympathized with Hamas as expected. More than 12,000 of Palestinian victims are presumed to have been children.

Even if the numbers are inflated, given the disproportionate number of civilians killed various groups have begun to claim that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians. Technically it does not appear to be so although its actions appear to be not too far from the charges. The U.N. sponsored Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide codified the crime in 1948 defining it in Article II “as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. It does not include political groups or so called “cultural genocide”.”

Reading the definition literally, it does not appear that Israel has the intent to destroy Palestinians in the same manner as Hitler intended to do to Jews, the Hutu population attack against the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, or the Sudanese Government continued assaults against various ethnic groups in 2003. Nonetheless, as judged by the disproportionate number of deaths among Palestinians, the Israelis have unleashed what may be described as indiscriminate rage resulting in over twenty times the number of Palestinian casualties following Hamas’ callous operation.

Israel has consistently labeled its operation as the right to self-defense that in reality has meant the destruction of Hamas sparing little that would get in its way. Even the concept of collateral damage has no bearing in Israel’s counteraction. Initially, collateral damage meant the accidental destruction that would result due to lack of reliable information in warfare. Today, nations use the term to cover their willful destruction; that is, knowingly killing innocent lives that are in the way of eliminating armed opponents. While it is true that at times armed personnel masquerade as civilians or use civilian sites to hide, the willful and indiscriminate bombing or shooting of civilians can no longer be labeled collateral damage.

The rage felt by many Israeli people after the Hamas attack is as understandable as the attack itself is beyond comprehension. However, many believe that despite Israeli intentions it will prove difficult for Israel to completely defeat Hamas as it represents an ideology that is likely to surge in years to come. Hence, both Israel and the U.S. have been driven into a corner from which they cannot exist without acknowledging mistakes and making difficult concessions.

As indicated at the beginning of this essay the present has deep roots into the past. We might as well take a look at what the past is like in the Middle East. The only way to redraw political maps ultimately entails force unless nation-states enter into agreements, usually following the threat of war or war itself. If old claims of land possession were to be accepted today, many countries, including the U.S. would vanish. While it is correct that Jews occupied Palestine centuries ago, they did so by displacing the Canaanites. Afterwards, the Romans conquered the area and controlled it for centuries too, until the Arabs forced their way into Judea and dominated it for centuries. The vestiges of colonialism and the results of two world wars transformed Judea/Palestine into a ‘no man’s land’ populated by Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. Jerusalem is today considered a holy site by three monotheistic religions. Perhaps it was too much to ask for the major powers who decided to redraw the map of the area following WWII to enforce their decisions. With the support of the West Israel had a better opportunity to prevail than the Palestinians. Having created what eventually became a vibrant democracy, it would have been difficult for the West, particularly the U.S., to withdraw its support of an ally largely because of the influence of the Jewish lobby in Washington.

It must be recalled that, since its creation, Israel had not been a significant military or economic ally of the U.S. Wasington’s initial support was mostly political in response to promises (or likely guilt for what it failed to do during the Holocaust). President Harry Truman became the first international leader to recognize the State of Israel in 1948 on the same day Israel declared itself a state. Given the increase of Arab/Muslim hostility toward Israel and the U.S., particularly after the Six-Day War in 1967 and in the midst of the Cold War, Washington had sought to solidify its support of Israel. A short time thereafter and until now, Israel has become, by far, the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, mostly in military equipment.

While all negotiations of the conflict have failed Israel has kept increasing Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories in the last few years from over 200,000 to over 700,000, with the tacit consent of the U.S. despite not considering them legal in accordance with international law. Former President Donald Trump added to the region’s volatility by not objecting to the settlements. Although the Biden Administration reversed this policy, the settlements continued to increase prior to the October 7 Hamas attack continuing Washington’s ‘let them go at it by themselves’ approach.

Israel’s intransigence and insecurity, Hamas’ continued hatred and reluctance to a peace accord, and the U.S. lack of forceful involvement in the process over the years are mainly responsible for the growth of the political tumor that resulted in the Hamas attack. The old slogan, ‘our chickens have now come back to roost’ may best characterize current conditions that in addition  have immensely complicated Israel’s and U.S.’s decision making.

Will Washington continue to enable Israel through hollow words of opposition by American leadership, or show defiance toward Israel by parachuting aid, building a pier, or strongly condemning Israel’s Prime Minister? Will, or can, Israel occupy Gaza permanently without facing serious repercussions? Will the Israeli military reaction cost President Biden the 2024 election, knowing that if former President Trump wins conditions in the Middle East will become an unsustainable nightmare? Hatred is among the most potent human sentiments. It is easily fed and hidden while it continues to grow. Close to extirpation or complete destruction, hatred can last as long as radioactivity. How to decide who hated first, whether Palestinians or Jews, in order to establish accountability has become an insignificant and meaningless question. Jews have a right to a land, and so do Palestinians. Making them coexist is no longer up to them; it has never been. Thus, Israel and the U.S. have fallen into a blind man’s snare, built to capture the enemy without realizing that both have been walking all along into it.

To contact the author copy and paste my e-mail address and send via your e-mail provider.
[email protected]