War is not just a clash of armies but of ideals—where ethics collide with political realities. Governments justify military actions as national security measures, while civilian casualties are dismissed as ‘collateral damage.’ But can morality ever dictate war decisions?
The Israel-Gaza and Russia-Ukraine conflicts highlight this tension. Strategic interests shape responses to humanitarian crises, global powers apply moral outrage selectively, and double standards persist in addressing human suffering.
Israel-Gaza: Struggle for security or humanitarian disaster?
While Israel cites national security and an aim to neutralize Hamas, the humanitarian impact is horrific.
Thousands of Palestinian refugees are forced into tents with limited access to food, water, and medical care. Humanitarian groups reported that infrastructure in Gaza is crumbling, making hospitals overstrained and rescue operations more challenging.
Contrarily, while being stuck in war-torn areas, some Palestinians have backed Hamas, regardless of the hostage crisis that has ended up claiming numerous lives, in a retaliatory action by Israeli troops, justified by referring to Hamas holding Israeli hostages. The support to Hamas is due to the Israeli threat that has been looming for Palestinians for years which dictated their decision to support and overlook the civilian lives lost.
On the Israeli side, individuals have been accused for merely their background and voicing opinions regarding the October 7 attack, without even being involved in the government’s subsequent operations.
And when it comes to the war, Israel, when they justify doing it as an attempt to free hostages, placed obstacles in between the negotiations of Hamas several times, and just recently they violated a ceasefire ironically claiming to do it for the hostages.
Also, Palestinians condemn the Israeli action but mostly overlook the original act (the October 7 attack) that led to this. Hamas has still kept hostages, who had nothing to do with the adversity between the two nations, as leverage to negotiate with Israel.
So while a country claims some moral high-ground, the actions can point to a conflicting picture.
Ethically, the enormous collateral damage to civilians and worsening living standards demand immediate international intervention. The reports of Palestinian paramedics and rescue workers being executed, bodies found bound and shot close-range, have elicited worldwide outrage and allegations of war crimes but little substantial action.
Politically, though, Israel’s government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, remains firm in its stance. The operation complies with US President Donald Trump’s policies, who has declared himself a supporter of ‘cleaning out’ Gaza of Palestinian inhabitants. It is a radical contrast: moral considerations demand restraint and accountability, while political interests center on military objectives and national security.The leadership of Israel justifies the move as a pre-emptive action against terrorism, but its opposers raise concerns on the collective punishment of civilians, with regards to humanitarian law.
Russia-Ukraine: The politics of power and the ethics of war
The Russia-Ukraine war continues to reshape global geopolitics, especially under the Trump administration in the US. As of March 2025, Washington has significantly scaled back military aid to Ukraine, signaling a strategic shift in favor of a more diplomatic approach toward Russia.
Meanwhile, for many Ukrainians, this change in US policy represents a betrayal of sorts. In the early times of the war that started in 2022, Ukraine enjoyed overwhelming Western support in its fight against Russian aggression. However, as war fatigue sets in and economic concerns grow, many Western nations have begun prioritizing diplomatic negotiations over continued military assistance. This has left Ukraine in a difficult position—caught between its determination to resist Russian occupation and the waning resolve of its allies.
Meanwhile, Russia under Vladimir Putin continues to justify the invasion as a defense against Western encroachment.
Ukraine was once a symbol of resistance against authoritarian aggression, its plight is now subject to the fluctuating interests of its allies. If the international community abandons Ukraine in favor of diplomatic expediency, it sets a precedent that aggression can eventually be rewarded—a reality that could have long-term consequences beyond Eastern Europe.
Selective outrage and global double standards
One of the main issues in both the conflicts is the selective moral outrage of the international community.
Israel has justified its ground operation in Gaza citing the October 7, 2023 attack. But the military action to eliminate terrorism has also displaced thousands of Palestinians, just living their lives amid poverty and grief.
Additionally, the Western world has been vocal in its criticism of Russian war crimes, but the international community’s response to Israel’s activities in Gaza has been muted and justified as action against terrorism despite the disproportionate consequences. The US and European allies have been quick to sanction Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, yet military aid and diplomatic backing for Israel remain strong despite mounting allegations of human rights abuses, owing to political ties and strategic benefits.
This selective use of moral principles highlights the hypocrisy that is present in international politics. Are human rights abuse claims worthy of condemnation only when politically convenient? Or, should moral considerations trump strategic interests, even against an ally? Furthermore, even institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court have struggled to consistently enforce international law.
The unanswered question: Is morality compatible with politics in war?
At the heart of both conflicts lies an uncomfortable reality: morality rarely dictates political decisions. Governments act based on strategic interests, not ethical concerns. While public sentiment, international law, and humanitarian organizations advocate for peace and justice, realpolitik prevails.
At the end of the day, the war between two nations is fought by the governments for their agendas while the citizens pay the price. Thus, as the world watches these conflicts unfold, the question remains: Can we ever bridge the gap between moral imperatives and political necessity, or will history continue to repeat itself with different actors but the same tragic outcomes? Perhaps the key lies in the way citizens and leaders across the globe respond—no, not to any singular conflict, but to all the injustices out there, beyond political expediency.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
