A Strategic Blunder

Today, the world is made up of states that are simultaneously the most interconnected and competitive they have ever been. Shifting balances of power and finite resources stress the relationships between the most powerful countries, resulting in more frequent wars. True to the structural form and behavior of states, Israel is carrying out the most recent war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and it has been the most disastrous human rights catastrophe in modern times.

The conflict in Gaza will prove to be a strategic mistake by the US for several reasons, many of which are directly related to America’s founding principles and values. Chocked full of liberal democratic institutions that are remarkably silent on the many clear human rights violations, the US is currently on the wrong side of history and needs to engage in a course correction.

Given that the conflict has resulted in many human rights violations that look an awful lot like ethnic cleansing and genocide,[1] liberal institutions from Western democracies appear to be wholly and utterly incapable of bringing the conflict to an end.

The most evident call for justice came from perhaps the most unlikely whistleblower: South Africa. A country and government that emerged from its institution of an apartheid state in the mid-1990s submitted an 84-page application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The document alleges that Israel has committed several violations of the 1948 Genocide Conventions (not to be confused with the Geneva Conventions) in Gaza following the events of October 7, 2023.

The application hinges on claims that Israel's actions in the occupied territories amount to systematic violations of the convention, triggering an obligation for international intervention and accountability.

While some may point to the application as “choosing sides” in South Africa's bias through a long-standing position on Palestine, it is deeply rooted in its historical struggle against apartheid. It reveals a commitment to advocate for marginalized populations on the global stage. By framing the situation as one of genocide, South Africa seeks to draw attention to the severity of the humanitarian crisis while challenging the international community to respond.

Critically, this application raises pertinent questions about the efficacy and impartiality of international legal institutions and their mechanisms in addressing state violence. Furthermore, it reinforces what we all know about the densely packed geopolitical complexities surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and highlights the entrenched narratives that often complicate efforts toward resolution.

South Africa's initiative raises questions about broader state accountability and the international community's responsibilities in protecting human rights. However, it remains to be seen whether this legal entreaty will yield meaningful outcomes or reiterate the weakness of institutions and the limitations of international judicial processes in politically charged conflicts.

When so many international laws and treaties have been created since World War 2 to protect Jews and defend Israel, what happens when Israel is the perpetrator of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity since the Jewish holocaust?

Regardless of international law, including the Geneva Convention (interestingly, Israel has never agreed to Protocols 1 or 2) or the Genocide Convention, something about the situation in Gaza is wrong. In an age where many Americans feel they lack a political home, they see that Israel's actions and America’s complicity don't sit right with them.

In a historical twist of grim irony, Israel is now at center stage, but they are not alone.

The US is chocked full of liberal democratic institutions that are remarkably silent, given the long list of human rights violations and even longer list of casualties in Gaza. Even further, the US is doing very little to silence its critics who claim that it has historically used the term “human rights violations” as a stick to beat those countries it didn’t like while supporting allies who do the same.[2]

The most recent controversy is coming from the US president’s executive order to arrest and deport lawful permanent residents, bringing widespread fear from allegations of the government violating citizens’ First Amendment rights.

The fears in the US extend beyond the domestic. There are concerns from its nuclear capable Arab state allies who help maintain stability in the Middle East.[3] Egypt and Jordan have cited wide-ranging concerns, from nuclear threats to the mass displacement of Palestinians, which could destabilize neighboring countries further and exacerbate the ongoing humanitarian crisis. The legacy of a displaced population among Arab states looms large. Further, if the past is an indicator, people displaced by conflict rarely return to their home countries. Given the American population’s concern over its Southern border, is the US ready for waves of Palestinian refugees? What about the second- and third-order effects that come along with mass migration?

This conflict presents even more profound questions about the American identity and its place in the modern world.[4] Given that its citizens still swear allegiance to a country that stands for “liberty and justice for all,” the conflict in Gaza makes no sense and begs many serious questions. For example: To what degree do a nation’s actions need to match its espoused values? What does America's complicity in the genocide in Gaza say about democratic values? Is the US so committed to combating terrorism that it will support ethnic cleansing?

If the past can teach us anything, it’s that if foreign and military policymakers can ask the right questions at critical inflection points, we can prevent strategic disasters.[5] Questions like, "What are Japan's long-range plans for Asia?" or "Are we adequately sharing intelligence across federal, state, and local agencies?"

The consequences of our analytical blind spots can be profound, as the nation grappled with the repercussions of the events on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. Reflecting upon these omissions is not merely a retrospective exercise but a vital necessity for crafting a more vigilant and adaptive approach to national security in the contemporary world and reconnecting to our values as Americans.

Amid these critical questions, several plans to end the conflict have emerged. Under President Trump’s plan, the United States would govern Gaza and expel its residents. Under the Arab plan, Gaza would be run by Palestinian technocrats within a broader Palestinian state. By one Israeli proposal, Israel would cede some control to Palestinians but block Palestinian statehood. By another, Israel would occupy the entire territory.[6]

But the world is a complex adaptive system comprising incredibly competitive states with finite resources and long memories. These plans offer no solutions that do not come with unintended consequences. Israel cannot “solve” this problem without expecting some form of balancing response(s) from the larger system over time. In a foreshadowing analogy, the effects of the Trump tariffs show how tightly linked one country's decisions are to another.

In a parallel thought, suppose Israel and the US can learn something from South Africa’s historical example and recent application to the ICJ. Both countries are offered a view of the wrong side of history. Perhaps more scholars from liberal institutions and political leaders must increase political pressure on both governments to initiate comprehensive course corrections. For countries in economic and defense leadership positions, all decisions must be made only after examination through a moral prism. In this case, I fear we will continue to be wrapped in what Stephen M. Walt has eloquently called a “strategic blunder wrapped in a moral disaster.”

Is this still the country that aspires to be the “city upon a hill” that stopped the Nazis, put a man on the moon and mapped the human genome? If so, why is it so hard to critically examine the actions in Gaza? At this particular moment, we have all of the historical analogues we should ever need to reconsider our position on the tragedy in Gaza. It’s about time we get to work and reassess our interests.

[1] John J. Mearsheimer, “Genocide in Gaza,” Substack newsletter, John’s Substack (blog), January 4, 2024, https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/genocide-in-gaza.

[2] “Human Rights in United States of America,” Amnesty International, accessed March 16, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/.

[3] “Why Egypt and Other Arab Countries Are Unwilling to Take in Palestinian Refugees from Gaza,” AP News, October 18, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/palestinian-jordan-egypt-israel-refugee-502c06d004767d4b64848d878b66bd3d.

[4] Holly Dagres, “Gaza Is a War without End. American Interests Must Be Reassessed.,” Atlantic Council (blog), October 29, 2024, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-israel-american-interests/.

[5] Willard C. Matthias, America’s Strategic Blunders: Intelligence Analysis and National Security Policy, 1936-1991 (University Park: Penn State University Press, 2001).

[6] jcookson, “Experts React: Is the US Really Going to ‘Take over’ the Gaza Strip?,” Atlantic Council (blog), February 5, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/is-the-us-really-going-to-take-over-the-gaza-strip/.