Does President Trump really want to stop the war in Gaza? Why is the Vatican not investigating the genocide in Gaza?

Based on his first term in office, many analysts projected that Donald Trump’s return to the White House would augur ill for the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular. They were not let down by the new president. Not only did he break his pledge to end the war in Gaza within days, but he also made choices that prolonged the war: furnishing Israel with powerful bombs that his predecessor had prohibited and encouraging Netanyahu to escalate the war in order to expel the Gazans, in line with his absurd idea of clearing Gaza of its more than two million residents in order to transform it into a seven-star Riviera. 

By employing confused and pointless rhetoric, Trump gave Netanyahu opportunity after opportunity, deadline after deadline, to murder thousands of Palestinians, rather than pressuring him to permit the provision of much-needed humanitarian aid to the besieged people of Gaza.

If we were to ignore his recent reaction to the treacherous Israeli attack on Qatar and his claim that he was not informed of it, President Trump’s words during the joint press conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London on 18th September provide a clear example of his vision or strategy towards Gaza. First, he stated that he disagreed with Starmer on Britain’s intention to take the symbolic decision to recognise the State of Palestine. This position is not new, as he has previously sharply criticised France and threatened Canada and any state that had the same intention. Yet, when asked about the war in Gaza, he responded with a stern, scowling, and angry face, saying, “What Hamas did on October 7 is a ‘heinous and unforgivable crime’ unprecedented in human history,” adding that the focus must be mainly on releasing all hostages, living and dead, as quickly as possible. Then, in response to a journalist’s question as to whether the release of the prisoners would help in stopping the war, he answered, “Perhaps.” This answer means that he has no intention of trying to stop the war.

Looking at his words from another perspective, President Trump has provided clear evidence that the lives of 24 Israeli prisoners or hostages held by Hamas are far more important to him than the lives of more than two million Palestinians subjected to daily killing, at a rate of 70-100 people, by Israeli soldiers armed with lethal American weapons. It is also worth noting that he never budged from his proposal to evacuate all the population of Gaza, and whenever he is told that the Palestinians will not leave their land, he says, “They will; we are in no hurry.” Yet his reaction to the aggression on Qatar indicated that the security and stability of a US ally, home to the largest US military base in the region and hundreds of billions of dollars in investments, are worthless compared to continued and unlimited support for Israel. Who needs more evidence of the US administration’s stance toward Palestine and all Arabs?

This clear and explicit stance was confirmed on the same day when the US vetoed, for the sixth time since 2023, a draft resolution submitted by the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities, the release of prisoners, and the entry of large quantities of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The resolution was approved by all the other permanent members (Britain, France, Russia, and China) and the non-permanent members, with the exception of the United States. Before the vote, the US representative to the Council (the infamous Morgan Ortagus, known for her notorious statements in Beirut) said that the rejection of the proposal should not surprise anyone, repeating the same old allegations, such as ‘the resolution did not mention Israel’s right to defend itself’, ‘it equated Israel with Hamas’, and ‘it gives false legitimacy to false narratives that benefit Hamas and have unfortunately found favour within the Council…the resolution also refuses to recognise a failed system that has allowed Hamas to enrich itself at the expense of civilians, and which it seeks to return to.’

READ: Thousands protest Trump in London, voice support for Gaza

The US veto prompted the Danish delegate to recall the seriousness of the famine that Israel is insisting on imposing, which has forced mothers to boil leaves to feed their children and fathers to search through the rubble for sustenance. More expressive were the words of Algeria’s representative to the Council, Mr Amar Ben Jamaa. With words laced with pain, he said, “Brothers and sisters in Palestine, forgive us, especially you who are in Gaza, where the fires are consuming you and the rubble is suffocating you. Forgive us because this Council was unable to save your children, more than 18,000 of whom were killed by Israel. Forgive us because this Council was unable to protect your women, more than 12,000 of whom were killed by Israel. Forgive us because the Council was unable to protect the elderly, more than 4,000 of whom were killed by Israel. Forgive us because this Council was unable to defend your doctors, nurses, and paramedics, more than 1,400 of whom were killed by Israel. Forgive us because we were unable to defend your journalists, more than 250 of whom were killed by Israel. Forgive us because we were unable to protect your humanitarian workers, more than 500 of whom were killed by Israel. Forgive us because famine is spreading among you, and this Council was unable to stop that, or stop your forced displacement, or stop the humanitarian aid from being turned into a weapon against you. Forgive us because the Council has been unable to break the siege on Gaza. Forgive us because the world that speaks of rights is denying them to you, the Palestinians. Forgive us because our sincere efforts are met with the wall of continued rejection in this Council. Forgive us because we have been unable to help you because Israel is protected and because it gets away with impunity, not because of international law but because of the bias in our international system. Israel kills and starves an entire people daily, and no one does anything about it. Israel bombs hospitals, schools, and shelters, and nothing happens. Israel attacks the negotiating mediator and tramples diplomatic norms underfoot, and no one does anything about it. Shame on our impotence, shame on the genocide that is unfolding before our eyes while we remain silent.

While the current US administration’s stance is not surprising given that the pro-Israel attitude within the different administrations has been on the rise since President Lyndon Johnson took office in 1963, until it reached the point of unconditional and unrestricted support, the Vatican’s decision to join this biased policy was really surprising. The Catholic Church has long been known for upholding everyone’s human rights and concern about the killing and starvation of innocent civilians, but current Pope Leo XIV has decided to change this tradition. In an interview (18 September), the Pope stated that although he has “great concern” for the situation in Gaza, he felt that the word “genocide” is being thrown around more and more before stating, “The Holy See is not ready to declare Israel’s campaign in Gaza a genocide …There’s a very technical definition about what genocide might be.” Apart from the fact that his statement contradicted the one made by his predecessor Pope Francis, who called in November 2024 for the genocide charge to be investigated and showed no real understanding of the suffering of the Palestinians, this declaration paid no attention to the report issued by the UN Human Rights Council (two days earlier, 16 September) stating that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip and calling on the international community to stop it and take action against those responsible. The question is, has Pope’s attitude come in line with US policies or as a result of Zionist influence inside the Vatican?

OPINION: Israel’s failed attack on Qatar demonstrated its weakness, bewilderment and bankruptcy

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