Terrorism Is a Pretext For The Genocide

Israel’s impunity persists while Gaza pays the cost of Western complicity.

(Puppet and Puppet Master)

Western governments continue to use the term terrorism as a political instrument. The designation applied to Hamas avoids engagement with its actual conduct. By using the label, governments remove the need to analyse its development. They substitute legal argument with ideological assumptions and refuse all diplomatic contact. This method prevents negotiations and gives political cover to military actions. The term terrorism, lacking an international legal definition, now operates outside factual boundaries. It is applied without consistency and used to justify policies of exclusion. The consequences of this are visible in the policy failure over Gaza.

Hamas has undergone political and structural transformation since the early 2000s. Its original charter, drafted in the late 1980s, differs from its current framework. A revised charter, published in 2017, marked a shift in language and policy. The group has taken part in elections and established an administrative structure in Gaza. From this point, it has acted as a political authority within the territory. There is no clear evidence that it has engaged in terrorism in the legal sense during this period. The use of violence, while real, has occurred within the scope of armed resistance.

International law distinguishes between terrorism and armed resistance by occupied peoples. United Nations resolutions explicitly affirm the right of Palestinians to resist occupation. This includes the use of armed force, provided it is directed against military targets. These legal provisions are not theoretical or symbolic in nature. They are the product of formal votes by the General Assembly and reflect recognised standards. Any assessment of Palestinian armed activity must take this legal framework into account. Failure to do so results in misclassification and policy distortion.

Gaza remains under full external control despite the absence of settlers. Israel controls its borders, airspace, and access to essential goods. The population is enclosed and subject to periodic military campaigns. These operations produce extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction. The methods used include aerial bombardment of residential zones and attacks on public spaces. Water facilities, hospitals, and schools have all been targets of repeated strikes. These are not isolated incidents but components of a sustained pattern of military behaviour. Their cumulative effect meets criteria associated with collective punishment.

Western officials often speak of Israel’s right to self-defence without legal precision. International law does not grant blanket justification for all military actions. The proportionality and targeting of attacks must still meet legal standards. The repeated killing of civilians waiting for food violates those standards. The targeting of children and medical facilities is not an accident. These acts reflect either disregard for civilian life or deliberate policy choices. No similar scale of violence against civilians has been demonstrated by Hamas in recent years. Claims of equivalence between both sides lack factual basis and legal support.

Calls for Hamas to disarm are not grounded in legal obligation. The right of resistance under occupation is not conditional upon diplomatic approval. The expectation that one side must surrender before talks begin is not a viable position. If Hamas were to disband, resistance would continue under another structure. The cause of armed struggle lies in the occupation itself. Political formations can change, but structural conditions will reproduce conflict. Occupation ensures the existence of resistance movements in some form. Ending armed resistance requires ending the occupation, not organisational dismantling.

Israel’s legal status in Gaza, the West Bank, South Lebanon, and parts of Syria remains unresolved. The presence of its military and civilians in these areas violates binding resolutions. The International Court of Justice has confirmed the illegality of its actions in occupied territories. These findings are supported by additional votes in the General Assembly and statements by legal experts. Despite this, no enforcement actions have followed from the international community. This lack of implementation creates a precedent of selective legal application. States are held accountable based on geopolitical preference, not consistent legal standards.

Israel has never defined its borders under international law. Its current territorial footprint exceeds the boundaries proposed in 1947. Those original borders, put forward in Resolution 181, were never formalised by referendum. Armed groups seized territory before legal arrangements could take place. This foundational departure from legal process remains unresolved. The absence of fixed borders prevents legal clarity and undermines diplomatic engagement. It also raises questions about the conditions under which sovereignty is recognised. The tolerance of these irregularities by Western powers sets a precedent of legal flexibility for favoured states.

Since the 1970s, Israeli foreign policy has shifted from diplomacy to dependency. It now relies on American political and financial support for its international position. No significant diplomatic initiative has been launched independently during this period. Peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, as well as the Oslo framework, were driven by American mediation. Within the region, Israel remains isolated and without significant bilateral partnerships. Its relations with neighbouring states are shaped by military incidents and economic leverage, not shared diplomatic interests. Its regional isolation is no longer compensated by strategic advantage.

Israel’s military campaigns show declining strategic coherence and operational discipline. Recent operations in Gaza lack clear objectives or sustained tactical focus. Civilian areas are targeted without visible military necessity or proportional force. Command and control appear limited or deliberately absent. Troops act without restraint or consistent oversight, resulting in scenes of uncontrolled violence. Video evidence and eyewitness accounts confirm direct attacks on unarmed individuals. These actions exceed accepted norms of military engagement and international conduct. The gap between authorised force and enacted violence is wide and persistent.

(Starvation as a genocide tool)

The assumption that high casualty numbers equate to military success is misplaced. Killing civilians in large numbers has not achieved long-term political goals. Israel remains unable to eliminate armed resistance or secure diplomatic recognition from the region. Repeated campaigns have degraded Gaza but strengthened Palestinian resolve. The use of overwhelming force without political strategy produces temporary control, not lasting security. The absence of a coherent exit plan or diplomatic horizon limits the effectiveness of military operations. Long-term stability cannot be achieved through violence alone.

Legal and political legitimacy for Israel continues to erode. Western narratives built on exceptionalism and historical justification are no longer sufficient. The state does not apply law equally across populations within its control. Civil rights and political representation differ by ethnicity and location. Security policy is based on suppression, not inclusion or negotiation. Democratic procedures exist, but their scope is restricted by systemic legal inequality. This is no longer compatible with international expectations of a democratic state. The original claim to moral distinction is no longer supported by current conduct.

Palestinians remain under occupation, subject to military raids, economic blockade, and legal inequality. They are entitled to resist within the limits of international law. Western refusal to acknowledge this right distorts the legal and political debate. It also removes incentives for Israel to negotiate in good faith. Continued impunity encourages further escalation and reduces the space for diplomacy. Political settlements require recognition of all parties and of the legal structures that govern international relations. Refusing to speak with the governing authority in Gaza undermines this principle entirely.

Silence from Western states on Israeli violations signals deliberate disregard for established international law. This damages the legitimacy of international institutions and the credibility of states who claim to defend them. Legal obligations are not optional, and enforcement cannot be selective. States must choose between rules-based order or discretionary alliances. Current policy reflects the latter, not the former. Without a change in this posture, no progress is possible.

Legal rights belong to the Palestinian people as a whole, not to specific groups. Any durable peace will require recognition of these rights and enforcement of relevant resolutions. Diplomacy must be grounded in legality, not military calculation or ideological favour. The situation will continue to deteriorate unless legal obligations are enforced, resistance will persist as long as occupation remains in place, and the chances of peace will stay remote under current conditions.

Authored By:

Global GeoPolitics

If you think my voice should be heard louder then PLEASE support by becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER. I’m here for your raw, straight, and dedicated analyses. Your support is appreciated. Thank you.

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv