By Jamal I. Bittar

After numerous unsuccessful efforts spanning five months during Israel’s destructive conflict in Gaza, the United Nations Security Council finally approved a resolution on Monday, urging for an immediate ceasefire. The United States, previously the sole obstacle to such a decision, opted not to veto the resolution this time. This resolution in the long run doesn’t solve anything. The decision by the U.S. not to veto the resolution appears to be a strategic move aimed at boosting the morale of the Biden administration amidst criticisms of its involvement in Israel’s genocidal assault against Gaza. Moreover, the U.S. government’s theatrics and superficial demonstrations of technological capabilities in response to the need for air shipments or pontoon bridges for food delivery are perceived as sheer entertainment and lacking seriousness and efficacy.

These gestures seem calculated to please various segments of the Democratic Party’s support base, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, Black Americans, Hispanics, progressive Jews, labor unions and others who traditionally form the core of the party. These groups have expressed strong dissent against perceived genocidal policies and are demanding tangible actions rather than mere promises from the administration. The significance of this extends beyond Arab Americans to encompass all Americans, who inherently value decency and are uneasy about seeing their resources and government support actions deemed as plausible genocide by the international community. Such associations with criminality are deeply troubling for the American citizen.

Since 1948, the United States and other Western powers have actively pursued policies aimed at reducing the Palestinian population in Palestine to establish an exclusively Jewish state. The U.S. continues to pursue a foreign policy characterized by amateurishness, farce and entertainment, fully aware of its inevitable failure in this pursuit.

The Biden administration’s apparent reluctance to apply a legal framework to available information exacerbates the harm, particularly when it fails to uphold policies it has previously established as a demonstration of Biden’s purported commitment to human rights. Last year, the State Department introduced the Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) policy, requiring officials to evaluate whether a security partner is “more likely than not” to use U.S. weapons in ways that breach international law. If affirmative, the policy prohibits the U.S. government from transferring arms to that country. However, the continued support to Israel since the onset of hostilities in Gaza suggests that the administration likely breached its own policy almost immediately after its implementation.

While the Biden administration has condemned atrocities committed by governments like those of Russia and Syria, it is explicitly, openly and enthusiastically endorsing what is perceived as the potential genocide being carried out by Israel. Why would a nation that prides itself on its dedication to democracy, human rights and equality fervently support the deaths of over 30 thousand Palestinians and the injury of hundreds of thousands more? This paradox remains a significant enigma of modern times. The short-term benefits of this approach pale in comparison to the long-term damage it inflicts on American credibility and interests. U.S. officials should publicly acknowledge what they and impartial observers recognize about Israel’s actions in Gaza: They are unacceptable, and unless they change, U.S. policy regarding military assistance to Israel will shift. While honesty may come with a high price, the cost of hypocrisy is even greater.

Why would a nation that prides itself on its dedication to democracy, human rights and equality fervently support the deaths of over 30 thousand Palestinians and the injury of hundreds of thousands more? This paradox remains a significant enigma of modern times.

Contributing to the erosion of international law will yield detrimental repercussions for the United States extending well beyond the confines of Gaza. Subsequent pronouncements by the State Department regarding atrocities will lack credibility, impeding efforts to hold perpetrators accountable and dissuade future international crimes. The efficacy of urging warring factions in other regions, such as Azerbaijan or Sudan, to adhere to the laws of war will diminish. Internationally, the distinction between the United States and nations openly disregarding international law and undermining the rules-based global order through their actions will blur.

Since 1948, the United States and other Western powers have actively pursued policies aimed at reducing the Palestinian population in Palestine to establish an exclusively Jewish state. The U.S. continues to pursue a foreign policy characterized by amateurishness, farce and entertainment, fully aware of its inevitable failure in this pursuit. To curb Israel’s actions and regain American credibility, the U.S. must adopt a long-term approach to policy that aligns with its core values and national interests, transcending the short-term focus of four-year presidential election cycles. Only then can American leadership enact a significant course correction in the Middle East. Also, a genuine reevaluation of misguided strategic priorities and a commitment to a rights-based framework for regional policy are essential components of such a correction. Thus far, there has been no indication of such a reassessment. On the contrary, all major powers, including the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, continue to adhere to their existing strategies. Meanwhile, in the United States, unless it becomes entangled in a regional conflict, concerns regarding Gaza and the overall U.S. approach to the Middle East may fade into the background once the 2024 presidential campaign commences.

However, throughout this time, the United States’ reputation for hypocrisy and indifference toward civilians is likely to worsen. The strategic misjudgments prevalent in Middle Eastern policy undermine rights and foster a cynical, transactional approach to realpolitik, while also setting the stage for future crises.

— Jamal I. Bittar is a professor at the University of Toledo