American and Israeli Accountability?
July 28, 2026โข528 words
Is the total destruction of Gaza and mass killing of Palestinian Christians and Muslims of Gaza and the dropping of 70,000 tons of TNT (equivalent of 4 nuclear bombs) from Israel a war crime?
For decades, American backing for Israel has been one of the few constants in U.S. foreign policy. Presidents come and go, Congress flips from one party to the other, but the flow of military aid, intelligence sharing, diplomatic cover, and weapons shipments barely changes. Whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, the support holds steady. And because that support runs so deep and has last so long, it's genuinely hard to draw a clean line between what Israel does and what America enables.
The U.S. isn't some distant bystander here.
American administration, Congress, and its military supplies the money, the advanced weapons systems, the intelligence sharing arrangements, the satellite surveillance, and the political protection that have made Israel's military campaigns possible. Over the past twelve years, through the Trump, Biden, and now second Trump administrations, both the White House and Congress have kept that machinery running, shaping the political, economic, and military support that flows to Israel.
That responsibility comes into sharpest focus in Gaza, a strip of land roughly the size of Las Vegas, where more than two years of Israeli military bombing and shelling have left much of the territory in ruins, killed and displaced huge numbers of people, and produced a humanitarian crisis that aid groups describe as catastrophic.
A number of UN experts, human rights organizations, and genocide scholars have gone further, arguing that the bombing campaigns targeting civilian areas (hospitals, schools, universities) along with restrictions on food, water, and medical aid amount to genocide or create genocidal conditions. UN commissions of inquiry have reached similar conclusions, and some UN officials have specifically pointed to the blocking of humanitarian aid as part of a deliberate campaign against Gaza's population. It's worth saying plainly, though, that this characterization is not universally accepted. Israel and its allies dispute it, and legal scholars remain divided on whether the threshold for genocide under international law has been met. That dispute is still playing out in international courts.
Still, for those who accept the genocide, the fact that the U.S. kept the weapons, intelligence, and diplomatic cover flowing throughout this period is hard to wave away as mere association.
From that vantage point, Washington can't credibly claim neutrality while supplying the material and political backing that makes the campaign possible in the first place. If a country keeps providing the resources that enable actions many legal experts and international bodies view as genocidal, the argument goes, then the moral and political weight of what follows doesn't rest on the shoulders of the country pulling the trigger alone.
It's shared by the one that kept handing over the ammunition.
Others push back hard on this genocide, arguing that Israel bears sole responsibility for its own military decisions, that U.S. aid is a matter of alliance and self-defence rather than complicity, even though American political and military elites knew the outcome of the genocidal actions.