Enough of hypocrisy: It’s time to stop the genocide

In the face of escalating genocide, we hear from official Western circles a soft, altered tone expressing disapproval of the continued crimes committed by Netanyahu government. The most appalling of these crimes include starvation and the prevention of humanitarian aid from entering through the UN system and insistence on distributing it through American companies under the supervision of the occupation army. However, the shift in rhetoric has not risen to the level of concrete action and remains mere noises without substance.

Although Netanyahu and his team revealed their intent to commit genocide from the very first day of the 7 October events, we witnessed how the official West supported the occupation on every military, security, political, and economic level. Heads of government and ministers rushed—against the backdrop of massacres—to reaffirm the so-called “right of Israel to self-defence.” Arms of all kinds flowed to the occupying entity, while Britain cooperated with Israel in intelligence operations, conducting reconnaissance flights over Gaza. Military bases in the region were reinforced in anticipation of possible cross-border operations.

Now, even if we were to assume that they were previously unaware of the crimes—despite international organisations documenting them for twenty months and global media reporting on them—if they have only just now “discovered” the scale of the atrocities and that Netanyahu has gone too far, why have they not acted accordingly? Why haven’t they imposed even the most minimal sanctions, starting with halting arms exports? Or are they always fully prepared to support this entity, but when it comes to the victims and the truth finally emerges under certain timing and circumstances, their response is limited to expressions of dissatisfaction and calls to “regulate” the killing, displacement, and starvation?

This tepid shift in the position of states traditionally allied with Israel is not due to a moral awakening or regret over past stances. The reality is that Trump gave the green light to these countries to criticise Netanyahu’s crimes, because Netanyahu has adopted a zero-sum policy that defies Trump’s regional agenda. If we examine the timing of this rhetorical shift, we find it came shortly after reports surfaced of a rift between Netanyahu and Trump, to the point of complete estrangement.

Additionally, the powerful Zionist lobby in these countries now sees Netanyahu’s policies as a threat to the broader Zionist project. His insistence on continuing the war has led to a deepening economic crisis, political polarisation that risks civil war, rising fears over continued reverse migration, and catastrophic consequences for global trade due to the blockade imposed by Yemen on Red Sea navigation and the missiles launched toward targets in Palestine.

Had these powers possessed an ounce of moral conscience, they would not have allowed these indescribable crimes to continue. They would have moved to stop them from day one. What more does it take than the killing and wounding of over 160,000 people—most of them children and women—the targeting of international aid workers, the bombing and destruction of hospitals and public facilities, the striking of shelters for displaced persons, the closure of crossings, and the prevention of humanitarian aid, all to kill people by starvation?

Their shifting stance does not even reach the level of statements made by former top Israeli politicians like former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, and former Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who described what is happening as ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Nor does it match the statements of opposition politicians like Yair Golan, whose comments sparked a storm when he accused the Israeli army of systematically killing children in Gaza.

In the face of all these crimes, and over the course of twenty months, we never heard of any of these countries recalling the Israeli ambassadors—except when Israeli soldiers opened fire on a group of foreign ambassadors visiting the city of Jenin. Only then did some of these countries summon Israeli ambassadors in protest. These same countries continue to suppress, in every possible form, activists calling for an end to the genocide, monitoring every slip in order to arrest them and press charges that typically fail in court.

The shameful stance of these countries has also impacted the only window of justice available to the victims—the International Criminal Court. The occupation’s campaign against the ICC and its judges, and the Western world’s silence in the face of this fierce assault, has left the judges fearing for their own safety and that of their families. They have become far more cautious in handling the files presented to them. After issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, the court has not issued any new warrants, even though the list of suspects is long. Worse, the Appeals Chamber accepted Israel’s challenge on the grounds that the Office of the Prosecutor had not previously offered Israel the chance to investigate the crimes under Article 18 of the Rome Statute.

While the Appeals Chamber rejected the cancellation of the arrest warrants, it did accept the aforementioned challenge under Article 18. This raises deep concern, suggesting that the judges—under political pressure—chose to manoeuvre by asking the issuing chamber to reassess whether Article 18 conditions had been met. Yet the overwhelming evidence confirms that Israel’s judiciary is either unwilling or incapable of conducting any genuine criminal investigations into the various crimes being committed. In fact, it has consistently granted these crimes legitimacy—not just since October 7, but for over 77 years.

As for the Arab and Islamic regimes, they are entirely absent from the scene. They have held summits and issued resolutions, but none of these decisions have seen the light of implementation—as if the ongoing slaughter means nothing to them. They should have seized on the West’s faint shift in tone to magnify it and develop a joint practical plan to halt the killing, destruction, and starvation.

Arab and Islamic betrayal—especially by the regimes that have normalised ties with Israel—is likely the primary reason Netanyahu feels emboldened to continue his genocidal war. While Western officials express displeasure and hint at imposing sanctions on Israel, an Arab regime simultaneously engages in joint military exercises with the occupation and bestows a “Friendship Medal” upon the air force commander who is chiefly responsible for the genocide. With such scenes, how can Israel be expected to respond to Western pressure?

This betrayal—so clear to the eye—has only led to increased arrogance and intensification of Israeli crimes. Israeli Defence Minister Yisrael Katz, while announcing the government’s approval for the construction of 22 new settlements in the West Bank, said:

“This is a decisive response to the terrorist organisations trying to harm us and weaken our grip on this land. It is also a clear message to Macron and his friends: They may recognise a Palestinian state on paper, but we are building the Jewish Israeli state here on the ground. That paper will be thrown into the trash bin of history, while settlement in the West Bank strengthens and Israel grows and prospers. Don’t threaten us with sanctions—you will not make us kneel, and we will not bow our heads to your threats.”

In the face of such disgraceful cowardice, entrenched hypocrisy, and the unwillingness—or inability—of both East and West to do what law and ethics demand in such circumstances, pressure must escalate until words are matched by actions. Regardless of any rhetorical shift in Western stance, the West remains complicit in the ongoing crimes. Without military, political, and economic support, Netanyahu would not have been able to commit this crime of the century—genocide.

What’s required now is decisive intervention to stop the genocide—even if it entails military force—just as U.S. President Eisenhower did with his closest allies (Israel, France, and Britain) when they attacked Egypt in 1956. He bypassed the Security Council to avoid the British-French veto and turned to the General Assembly to issue a resolution to stop the aggression, invoking the “Uniting for Peace” resolution. This mandated an end to the aggression, withdrawal of the invading forces, and the deployment of peacekeeping troops.

Until we see concrete action on the ground—until we see a stance like Eisenhower’s that puts an end to the killing and destruction—no one will be fooled by the rhetoric of Macron, Starmer, or others, nor by their intent to recognise a Palestinian state. These are empty words. Time is running out. It is now time to act to stop the genocide. There is no meaning in recognising a state while its people are being exterminated, starved, and displaced—while cries grow louder and noise abounds, without a single act that can save the land and its people.

READ: At least 27 Palestinians killed near Israeli aid site in Gaza, medics say

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.