Why the United States Is Not Seeking to End the War on Gaza
A Legal–Political Analysis Based on Conduct, Not Rhetoric
By Sara Kira
States are not judged by their declarations, but by verifiable patterns of conduct.
In the case of Gaza, U.S. behavior, rather than its humanitarian rhetoric, reveals a consistent legal and political reality: Washington is managing the war, not seeking to end it.
1. Military Funding as Legal Evidence of Intent
The U.S. Congress’s approval of $3.3 billion in military assistance to Israel under the FY2026 appropriations bill, while an active armed conflict is ongoing, constitutes a behavioral indicator under international law.
In legal doctrine, the continuation of military support amid credible allegations of serious violations undermines claims of neutrality and places the supporting state within the scope of indirect responsibility, particularly when such support is provided with knowledge of foreseeable consequences.
Intent, in international law, is inferred from action—not from press statements.
2. The Veto as a Tool of Legal Obstruction
The repeated use of the U.S. veto at the UN Security Council to block ceasefire resolutions does not represent procedural disagreement; it amounts to a systematic obstruction of binding international enforcement mechanisms.
A state cannot credibly claim to pursue de-escalation while actively disabling the only forum capable of imposing it.
3. Deliberate Separation Between Support and Accountability
While opposing or undermining judicial processes related to Gaza—including proceedings before the International Court of Justice—the United States continues to provide military assistance without enforceable humanitarian conditionality.
This separation between material support and legal accountability is not accidental. It is a structural policy choice designed to prevent the emergence of binding legal precedents.
4. Humanitarian Aid as a Political Substitute
Humanitarian assistance, while necessary, does not absolve a state from responsibility when it simultaneously enables the conditions producing a humanitarian catastrophe.
International humanitarian law does not recognize the trade-off between relief and bombardment.
Feeding civilians while enabling their continued exposure to unlawful force is not mitigation—it is legal evasion.
5. Indirect Responsibility Under Comparative International Law
According to the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC, 2001), responsibility arises where a state:
- Provides material support,
- With knowledge of the circumstances,
- Where such support substantially contributes to the wrongful act.
In Gaza, all three elements are legally arguable—placing the United States within a zone of complicity risk, even if not direct criminal liability.
Conclusion
In international law, rhetoric does not exonerate, funding does not neutralize, and veto power does not equal innocence.
U.S. conduct demonstrates a clear preference for regulated continuation of war, not its termination.
This posture not only prolongs the suffering in Gaza, but also reshapes the boundaries of responsibility in the international system—at the direct expense of Palestinian civilian protection.
References
- Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC, 2001).
- United Nations Security Council Resolutions and Voting Records.
- U.S. Congressional Appropriations Bills and Official Statements on Military Assistance.
- International Court of Justice Proceedings Related to Gaza.
- International Humanitarian Law Principles and Guidelines.
- Scholarly Analyses on State Conduct and International Responsibility.
