Why has America risked it all in Gaza? | Israel-Palestine conflict

It has now been close to 10 months that Israel has been waging a genocidal war in Gaza. Its army has violated nearly every facet of international humanitarian law in its relentless assault on an unimaginably vulnerable population.

Israel has denied the Gaza concentration camp the bare necessities of life — food, water, medicine, sanitation, electricity and fuel. And its targeting of civilian infrastructure has made the majority of Gaza residents homeless.

No Israeli military goal requires the total destruction of Gaza. Killing 40,000 Palestinians – a death toll that could reach 186,000 per some estimates – and injuring many more serves no clear strategic purpose. Nor does the systematic and wholesale destruction of Gazan universities, schools, hospitals and neighbourhoods. If Israel wants to occupy and annex Gaza, presumably it would want to inherit something more than a blast zone.

And while Israel’s conduct appears irrational, so does the unconditional support its closest ally – the United States – has extended. Washington’s “ironclad” backing of the genocide Israel is conducting has eroded its international authority and claim to uphold the international rules-based system.

Many ascribe Israel’s gross irrationality to the feeling of humiliation stirred by Hamas’s October 7 attack. That hyperemotionality accelerated the rightwards shift of Israeli politics, which now openly celebrates genocidal exploits. Gone is the rhetoric of “peaceful coexistence” and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promises instead “total victory”.

History can give a clue as to what he might mean by that phrase. It is eerily similar to the German word Endsieg, which literally translates to “final victory” and described the full realisation of the Nazi regime’s genocidal ambitions. The parallels are chilling.

While October 7 may explain Israel’s behaviour, it hardly illuminates American complicity. Sure, the United States is a reliable Israeli ally and bankroller, but, until recently, it was always careful to market itself as an even-handed broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians due to its innumerable international considerations. That caution has vanished. The US has unequivocally supported every step of Israel’s destructive campaign in Gaza, even as it has rhetorically called for “restraint” or “ceasefire”.

Washington’s fealty is striking. Ever since the offensive began, President Joe Biden has fully supported Israel at every turn. But the US and Israel are distinct societies with interests that often diverge. Surely the American and Israeli positions on the war must differ at least slightly?

Could it be that the Israel lobby simply dictates American foreign policymaking? Groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are undoubtedly powerful. But they represent just one of many lobbies jockeying for influence in Washington.

Perhaps the United States sees a personal stake in Gaza? Evidence for that is scant.

Maybe America wants the gas fields just off of Gaza’s coastline? But Washington wouldn’t need to aid and abet a genocide to get that gas. A wholly peaceful albeit inequitable negotiation would do the trick.

Indeed, none of the above would explain why the US is risking amassing such disrepute not just in the Middle East but worldwide by backing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.

So what if American support for Israel’s genocide isn’t about Gaza at all? What if the US is merely trying to show who is the boss?

In recent years, there has been heightened talk of multipolarity. Many analysts have predicted a world wherein the US is no longer the global hegemon.

Amid this chatter, the US sustained a loss and a stalemate with Russia in Ukraine and Syria, respectively. It precipitously withdrew from Afghanistan, which resulted in the Taliban returning to power. Various Latin American governments have shifted leftwards, increasing friction within “America’s backyard”.

Meanwhile, the US’s main rival, China, has been asserting its influence on the global scene. BRICS – an intergovernmental organisation where Beijing plays a key role – became BRICS+, as it expanded to include Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Egypt.

The People’s Republic also debuted on the Middle Eastern stage, playing peacemaker between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023 and facilitating a cooling of hostilities in Yemen.

In short, America seemed to be on the back foot, with its position as the dominant global superpower looking increasingly shaky. In Gaza, it sees a chance to reassert itself.

That is how we should understand American involvement in Gaza. Why else would the United States heavily reinforce its military presence in the Middle East in response to a one-off attack by a lightly armed Hamas? It is an insecure superpower, desperate to prove its enduring primacy. And it is disregarding even the most basic tenets of international humanitarian law to show that no one will stop it.

There has been some resistance. Iranian allies have challenged American and Israeli forces in the region. Tehran launched a massive aerial attack against Israel over the assassination of high-level Iranian officials in Syria. It is expected to do the same now over the assassination of Hamas’s leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Hezbollah also launched a series of attacks in retaliation for deadly Israeli strikes on Lebanese territory. It will likely do the same over the assassination of Fuad Shukr.

In the Red Sea, Yemen’s Houthis have disrupted crucial shipping lanes and sent drones and missiles towards Israel in response to its atrocities in Gaza.

South Africa has brought 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 plausibly constitute genocide.

Amid the Israeli and American push to defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), China has backed the organisation and announced emergency funding. It has also called for the establishment and recognition of an independent Palestinian state and helped secure a unity deal between Fatah and Hamas.

But none of this has been enough to challenge the seemingly limitless resources and diplomatic cover the US is providing to Israel.

The purpose of BRICS+ is to counter Western hegemony. Yet, China, its leader and largest economy, has appeared no bolder than some actors within hegemonic forces like the European Union. It has limited itself to supportive rhetoric and some diplomatic initiatives, while Russia has been conspicuously muted and India openly pro-Israel.

BRICS+ could have done much more to try to stop the genocide. They could have done much more to tangibly support the people of Gaza in their most painful moment. But they did not.

America is calling BRICS+’s bluff and exposing it as a paper tiger. With the exception of South Africa and Iran, the bloc simply hasn’t met the moment. That means the United States has made its point. It is still the world’s superpower until BRICS+ can prove otherwise.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.