Aggressors in the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine Conflicts: The Role of the United States

Introduction

The conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine represent two of the most consequential geopolitical crises of the early 21st century.

Both involve allegations of aggression, violations of international law, and complex roles for global powers, particularly the United States.

FAF reviews the responsibility for initiating and perpetuating violence in these conflicts, evaluates the legal and moral dimensions of their actions, and analyzes the extent to which the U.S. bears responsibility as an enabler or indirect aggressor.

The Israel-Hamas Conflict: Structural Violence and Asymmetric Aggression

Israel as the Occupying Power and Primary Aggressor

Since its military occupation of Palestinian territories in 1967, Israel has maintained systemic control over Gaza and the West Bank through blockades, settlement expansions, and restrictions on movement.

The 2023–2025 escalation, triggered by Hamas’s October 7 attacks, saw Israel launch a devastating military campaign in Gaza that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have labeled a genocide.

Over 47,300 Palestinians were killed by January 2025, with Israel deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and aid convoys, while imposing conditions of life calculated to destroy Palestinians physically.

Israel’s military superiority—backed by $3 billion in annual U.S. military aid—contrasts starkly with Hamas’s limited capabilities, which rely on rudimentary rockets and guerrilla tactics.

Despite framing its actions as self-defense, Israel’s disproportionate use of force, refusal to recognize Palestinian statehood, and repeated violations of ceasefires (e.g., over 300 attacks on Lebanon post-ceasefire in 2024) underscore its role as the primary aggressor.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly condemned Israel’s occupation as illegal under international law, a stance ignored by successive Israeli governments.

Hamas: Resistance or Provocation?

Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by Israel and Western states, has engaged in armed resistance against Israel’s occupation.

While its October 7 attacks violated international humanitarian law by targeting civilians, these actions must be contextualized within decades of Israeli blockade, settlement expansion, and systemic violence.

Critics argue Hamas’s tactics are counterproductive, but its persistence reflects the absence of viable political avenues for Palestinian self-determination.

By January 2025, Hamas retained operational control in Gaza despite heavy losses, demonstrating the failure of Israel’s “eradication” strategy and the resilience of Palestinian resistance.

The Russia-Ukraine War: Unprovoked Invasion and Shifting Alliances

Russia’s Unilateral Aggression

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marked a blatant violation of the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on territorial conquest.

By 2025, the war had claimed over 500,000 lives and displaced 12 million Ukrainians. Moscow’s objectives—denying Ukrainian sovereignty and dismantling its statehood—align with President Vladimir Putin’s revanchist rhetoric framing Ukraine as an “artificial state.”

Despite repeated U.N. resolutions condemning Russia as the aggressor, Moscow has weaponized energy supplies, conducted indiscriminate strikes on civilian targets, and mobilized foreign mercenaries to prolong the conflict.

Western Complicity and U.S. Policy Reversals

The U.S. and EU initially united in opposing Russia, imposing sanctions and supplying arms to Ukraine. However, the Trump administration’s 2025 foreign policy shift—abstaining on U.N. resolutions naming Russia as the aggressor and advocating “neutral” peace talks—signaled a rupture with European allies.

By voting against a February 2025 General Assembly resolution reaffirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the U.S. aligned itself with Russia, North Korea, and Belarus, undermining its prior commitments under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

This reversal, coupled with Trump’s public admiration for Putin, has emboldened Moscow while weakening Ukraine’s negotiating position.

The United States: Enabler or Indirect Aggressor?

Military and Diplomatic Support for Israel

The U.S. has provided Israel with unwavering diplomatic cover, vetoing 45 U.N. Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1972.

This includes blocking cease-fire resolutions during the 2023–2025 Gaza genocide, enabling Israel to operate with impunity.

Concurrently, the U.S. supplies advanced weaponry used in Gaza, such as white phosphorus bombs, while dismissing evidence of war crimes.

Such support positions the U.S. as a complicit partner in Israel’s aggression, violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent atrocities.

Ambivalence in Ukraine: From Leadership to Abdication

Until 2025, the U.S. was Ukraine’s most prominent military backer, providing $75 billion in aid. However, Trump’s transactional approach—prioritizing “ending the war” over accountability—has legitimized Russia’s territorial gains.

By reframing the conflict as a “dispute” rather than aggression, the U.S. has eroded the norms of sovereignty and collective security, risking a precedent for authoritarian expansionism.

While not the direct aggressor, the U.S.’s policy shift indirectly aids Russia’s war aims.

Conclusion: Aggression, Complicity, and the Erosion of International Order

In both conflicts, the aggressors are clear

Israel in Gaza and Russia in Ukraine. Their campaigns of territorial conquest and population subjugation violate foundational principles of international law.

The U.S., however, plays a paradoxical role—a democracy rhetorically committed to human rights yet actively enabling Israeli aggression and passively acquiescing to Russian expansion.

To restore credibility, the U.S. must:

Halt military aid to Israel until compliance with ICJ rulings.

Reaffirm support for Ukraine’s sovereignty through sustained arms shipments.

End veto abuse at the U.N. Security Council to enable multilateral accountability.

Without such reforms, the U.S. risks cementing its legacy not as a defender of order but as an architect of chaos.