Israel Gaza and Russia – Critical Analysis of the Ukrainian War

War is not only a conflict between the army, but also an ideal conflict, with morality and political reality colliding. The government regards military operations as legitimacy of national security measures, while civilian casualties are seen as “collateral damage.” But can morality determine the decision of war?

The Israeli-Gaza and Russia-Ukraine conflict underlines this tension. Strategic interests shape responses to humanitarian crises, global forces selectively apply moral anger, and double standards continue to solve human suffering.

Gaza, Israel: Fight for security or humanitarian disaster?

Israel has cited national security and neutralizing Hamas’ goals, but the humanitarian impact is terrible.

Thousands of Palestinian refugees have been forced into tents and have limited access to food, water and medical services. Humanitarian groups reported that Gaza’s infrastructure was collapsing, making hospitals over-solving and rescue operations more challenging.

Instead, some Palestinians supported Hamas while trapped in a war-torn area, regardless of the hostage crisis that ultimately claimed many lives, referring to Hamas’ holdings of Israeli hostages. Support for Hamas is due to the Israeli threat that has been imminent in Palestinians for years, which determines their decision to support and ignore civilian lives.

In Israel, individuals were accused of simply because of their background and opinions on the October 7 attack and were not even involved in the subsequent government actions.

When it comes to war, Israel is justifiably trying to free the hostages, placing a barrier between Hamas’ negotiations, and several times, they recently violated an ironic ceasefire, ironically claiming they did it for the hostages.

Furthermore, Palestinians condemn the Israeli action, but mostly ignore the original actions that led to it (the attack on October 7). Hamas still retains the hostages, which have nothing to do with adversity between the two countries, as a leverage for negotiations with Israel.

Thus, while a country claims to have some moral high ground, these actions may indicate conflicting situations.

Morally speaking, the enormous collateral damage to civilians and the worsening standard of living require immediate international intervention. Reports of execution of Palestinian paramedics and rescue workers, the bodies were found and shot at close range, sparking outrage and allegations of war crimes around the world, but with little substantive action.

But politically speaking, the Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, remains on the stance. The action is in line with the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump, who declared himself a supporter of “cleaning up” Palestinian resident Gaza. This is a fundamental comparison: moral considerations require restrictions and accountability, while political interests focus on military goals and national security.

Russia – Ukraine: Power Politics and War Ethics

Russia-Ukraine war continues to reshape global geopolitics, especially under the leadership of the Trump administration in the United States. As of March 2025, Washington had significantly reduced military aid to Ukraine, indicating a strategic shift in favor of a more diplomatic approach to Russia.

At the same time, for many Ukrainians, this change in U.S. policy represents betrayal. In the early days of the war that began in 2022, Ukraine gained overwhelming Western support in its fight against Russian aggression. However, with war fatigue and economic concerns growing, many Western countries have begun to prioritize diplomatic negotiations over ongoing military aid. This puts Ukraine in a difficult position – between the determination to resist the Russian occupation and the determination of allies to decline.

Meanwhile, Russia under Vladimir Putin continued to prove that the invasion was a defense of Western occupation.

Ukraine, once a symbol of resistance to authoritarian aggression, has now been subject to fluctuations from allies. If the international community abandons Ukraine’s support for diplomatic expediency, it will eventually be rewarded for aggression, a precedent that can be rewarded – a reality that could have long-term consequences outside Eastern Europe.

Selective anger and global double standards

One of the main problems of the two conflicts is the selective moral anger of the international community.

Israel’s ground operations in Gaza were justified on the ground, citing the 7 October 2023 attack. But military operations to eliminate terrorism have also displaced thousands of Palestinians, only living in poverty and sadness.

Furthermore, the Western world has spoken out in criticizing Russian war crimes, but the international community’s response to Israel’s activities in Gaza is downplayed and justified in opposing terrorism, albeit disproportionately. The U.S. and European allies quickly approved Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, but military aid and diplomatic support for Israel remain strong due to political ties and strategic welfare.

This selective use of moral principles emphasizes hypocrisy in international politics. Only when politically convenient can human rights abuse claims be condemned? Or, even for an ally, should moral considerations outweigh strategic interests? In addition, even institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court have worked hard to enforce international law.

Unsolved question: Is morality compatible with politics in war?

At the heart of both conflicts is an uncomfortable reality: morality rarely determines political decisions. A bill based on strategic interests rather than ethical issues. Real government prevails among organizations where public sentiment, international law and humanitarian organizations advocate peace and justice.

Ultimately, the war between the two countries is fought by the government for its agenda, while citizens pay the price. So, as the world observes the development of these conflicts, the question remains: Can we bridge the gap between moral demands and political necessity, or will history continue to repeat itself with different actors, but the same tragic outcome? The key is perhaps the way global citizens and leaders respond, not to any strange conflict, but to all injustice, not political expediency.

End of the article