This discussion began by focusing on what the war in Gaza teaches us about America. It will now conclude with an examination of what it reveals about its “rules” based international system. Whereas the lessons gleaned from parts I, II, and III were relatively straight forward, using Gaza to understand the nature of the current international order is more complicated due to America’s contradictory behavior and blatant gaslighting.
For example, Jeffery Cimmino and Matthew Kroenig state the Pax Americana is designed to promote stability throughout the world by encouraging “peaceful, predictable, and cooperative behavior among states that is consistent with liberal values and principles,” while placing “limits on the use of military force” and advancing “democratic values and human rights.” However, America’s unequivocal support for apartheid Israel and the massacre it unleashed on Gaza’s civilians suggests these lofty principles have no real connection to its actions. Given the disconnect between its stated ideals and actions, calls for a closer look at America’s behavior to determine three aspects of the international system it has created, namely, when does it allow people to wage war, does it protect civilians during war, and whether it truly promotes democracy.
When Is War Justified?
Men have traditionally waged war for power, wealth, and territory. Every once and a while they build empires that pretend to aspire to greater things like God or democracy to justify their actions, but organized violence is rarely noble or moral. In the aftermath of WW2, the nations of the world tried to create a new international order based on the idea that war must only be waged as a last resort. The United Nations (UN) was founded to ensure states had peaceful ways of resolving their disputes to try and avoid future wars. Unfortunately, the five nations empowered to keep the peace were also some of the biggest arms dealers on the planet and each had its own imperial or neoimperial ambitions. Thus, the system failed. It is mostly irrelevant now, but the UN charter is still meant to govern the conduct of nations, including when they are permitted to wage war.
Despite what many in the West would like to believe, October 7th did not happen in a vacuum. It happened within the context of Israel’s 16-year blockade of Gaza, its total rejection of diplomacy including several attempts by Hamas to negotiate a long-term peace, its apartheid system, 75 years of conquest and ethnic cleansing and its policy of occasionally “mowing the grass,” which is a disgusting euphemism popular in the West that refers to Israel’s policy of preemptively attacking and murdering Palestinians.
Though some have tried to make non-sensical distinctions between “wars of choice” and “wars of necessity” to suggest otherwise, from a moral and legal perspective, war is only ever justified as a means of self-defense or coming to the defense of others in extreme situations. The right to self-defense is an almost universally acknowledged concept best characterized as a natural or innate right that is enshrined in most legal systems including Article 51 of the UN charter. In theory, the idea that violence is only ever justified as a defensive action should be easy to apply. Gaza, and by extension the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, prove otherwise.
Despite what many in the West would like to believe, October 7th did not happen in a vacuum. It happened within the context of Israel’s 16-year blockade of Gaza, its total rejection of diplomacy including several attempts by Hamas to negotiate a long-term peace, its apartheid system, 75 years of conquest and ethnic cleansing and its policy of occasionally “mowing the grass,” which is a disgusting euphemism popular in the West that refers to Israel’s policy of preemptively attacking and murdering Palestinians. During the two years preceding this attack, Israel’s extremist government did everything it could to provoke the Palestinians by desecrating their places of worship and murdering a record number of children. It even attacked Gaza five months before October 7th in May of 2023, killing nine civilians, including 3 children.
In addition to brutalizing the Palestinians, Israel has spent years waging a relentless bombing and clandestine campaign against Iran and its allies because of their support for the Palestinians. It has bombed Lebanon and Syria hundreds of times. It is also responsible for murdering numerous high ranking Iranian government officials and conducting several acts of sabotage on its infrastructure. It even helped America murder General Soleimani, one of Iran’s highest-ranking officers who worked in a hybrid role roughly comparable to being the head of the CIA and America’s special forces command.
As the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Syria shows, Israel’s aggression has only grown over the past eight months. Inexplicably, Muslims are denied the right to defend themselves from this violence. They can neither respond to protect themselves nor intervene to save Palestine’s defenseless people.
In addition to brutalizing the Palestinians, Israel has spent years waging a relentless bombing and clandestine campaign against Iran and its allies because of their support for the Palestinians.
On the other end of the spectrum, we are frequently reminded that Israel’s right to defend itself is absolute and expansive. Israel’s supporters have gone out of their way to frame its massacre as an act of self-defense meant to prevent future attacks. But the IDF regained control of the border within two days of the initial attack. It killed, captured, or expelled Hamas’ entire force, ending the threat they posed. Once Israel reinforced the border with its tanks and armored fighting vehicles, there was zero possibility of a repeat attack. That Hamas was able to inflict as much damage as it did, given its limited arsenal of light weapons, was shocking and mostly due to catching Israel off guard. But pretending it has the capabilities for a repeat performance is ridiculous.
As such, nothing that has happened since that day can reasonably be described as self-defense. The slaughter Israel has carried out can only be classified as revenge and collective punishment.
On the other end of the spectrum, we are frequently reminded that Israel’s right to defend itself is absolute and expansive. Israel’s supporters have gone out of their way to frame its massacre as an act of self-defense meant to prevent future attacks.
The current war in Gaza and the entire conquest of Palestine reveals a tiered international system in which a privileged few are allowed to wage war while others must never resort to violence, no matter the provocation. Americans and Israelis, as members of the West, can use violence whenever they deem it necessary and have no limits on who or how many they can kill. Whereas Muslims must meekly accept their fate when they are attacked, lest they be labeled “terrorists” and subjected to more violence.
Gaza is but one example of many that prove the point. When the countless other invasions and violent actions America has committed or enabled, like the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq or the insurgencies it supported in Central America are considered, the pattern shows America and its allies enjoy a monopoly on violence. They are allowed to do anything to feel safe, even if that means destroying another country for no reason at all or murdering entire families in their homes as they sleep.
Men still wage war for the same reasons they always have in the Pax Americana. The only difference is when they are armed with weapons made in America, their cause is automatically considered just. To oppose such men, even if they are stealing your land or bombing your family, is a crime.
Are Civilians Protected During War?
Hamas’s attack killed over 1,200 Israelis, 377 of whom were security personal and 845 of whom were civilians. It also took over 250 hostages, including women and children. As such, its attack was condemned in the West because it intentionally targeted civilians. President Biden described it as “abhorrent” and “unadulterated evil” that caused harm to “innocent civilians.” The US House of Representatives passed a resolution denouncing it as “barbaric” while one Western commentator argued the violence Israel has inflicted on the Palestinians over the decades did not justify October 7th because, “no amount of context justifies killing babies.” These responses were largely due to the belief that Hamas broke the rules by targeting civilians, which is consistent with the idea that the Pax Americana limits the use of military force by protecting innocents during war.
The problem, of course, is that Israel’s response has killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians. Not only has it killed a staggering number of innocents, but as we have discussed throughout this series, it did so intentionally. Its rules of engagement and targeting practices led it to launch missile strikes on the homes of Palestinian families at night while they were sleeping if its AI software decided one of them might be involved with Hamas. That they were full of children or that Hamas’ fighters were hiding underground was deemed irrelevant.
Once again, Gaza reveals a double standard. Just as westerners are the only ones who have the right to protect themselves and can wage war under a definition of self-defense so broad it loses all meaning; their civilians are off limits too. Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, are fair game. They can be shot, beaten, carpet bombed, starved, arrested en masse, held without trial indefinitely, tortured or expelled from their homes. Similarly, their homes, hospitals, schools, and places of worship are legitimate targets too.
Americans and Israelis, as members of the West, can use violence whenever they deem it necessary and have no limits on who or how many they can kill. Whereas Muslims must meekly accept their fate when they are attacked, lest they be labeled “terrorists” and subjected to more violence.
In truth, this dynamic has been obvious since the end of WW2, which America concluded by firebombing residential neighborhoods in Tokyo and then dropping two atomic bombs on cities full of women and children. Charges related to the intentional bombing of civilians by German and Japanese officials were even dropped during the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials because the Allies were guilty of committing similar crimes.
In fact, one of the few successful defenses available to these officials was pointing to similar conduct on the part of the Allies. Through these proceedings, the founders of the Pax Americana began their reign by giving themselves legal license to murder women and children.
Gaza is just one more example that proves when America, or those it empowers, wage war, they are allowed to murder women and children with impunity. Even an attack on a purely military target like Pearl Harbor will be deemed an offense worthy of burning 100,000 civilians to death. But any attempt to target civilians who deserve protection according to Western eyes, like Ukrainians, Israelis, or Americans, will be met with passionate condemnation and a massive escalation in violence.
Does Pax Americana Really Promote Democracy?
To answer this question, we must look beyond Gaza since the current war does not directly touch on this issue. Thankfully, America’s support for apartheid Israel does. There are over 2.8 million Palestinians in the West Bank who have been forced to live under a brutal military occupation and apartheid system since 1967. None of these people have any say over the government that controls their lives and America has actively supported Israel in denying them their right to self-determination for decades. America’s unequivocal support for apartheid Israel unequivocally shows it does not promote democratic values or human rights.
As usual, Palestine is merely part of a broader pattern. In addition to supporting apartheid Israel in its quest to oppress the Palestinians, America has a long history of supporting dictators and juntas across the world. Since listing all the dictators America has armed and supported over the years would take entirely too much space, we will limit ourselves to just a few examples. It is currently the primary arms dealer to the tyrants who rule Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, and nearly every other Arab country. Without America’s support, the iron grip these dictators have on their societies would be considerably looser.
Once again, Gaza reveals a double standard. Just as westerners are the only ones who have the right to protect themselves and can wage war under a definition of self-defense so broad it loses all meaning; their civilians are off limits too. Palestinian civilians, on the other hand, are fair game. They can be shot, beaten, carpet bombed, starved, arrested en masse, held without trial indefinitely, tortured or expelled from their homes. Similarly, their homes, hospitals, schools, and places of worship are legitimate targets too.
America’s support for the region’s despots is just the tip of the iceberg. It has also quietly helped undermine or topple the few democratic movements in the region. According to Shadi Hamid, the Obama Administration effectively gave Egypt’s generals the “greenlight” to overthrow their nation’s first democratically elected government.
This assertion is supported by its remarkably muted condemnation of their coup and the haste with which it restored ties once the junta was in power, even after it mercilessly slaughtered over 1,000 demonstrators on the streets of Cairo. Mr. Hamid’s work has shed light on the extent to which America actively helped overthrow Egyptian democracy, though the US government has done its best to obscure these facts.
Given the degree to which Egypt’s miliary depends on America for many of its weapons, like the F16s it flies or the M1 Abram tanks that form a substantial part of its armored units, it should be obvious, as a matter of simple logic, that Egypt’s generals would never do anything to jeopardize their access to these weapons. As such, it is highly unlikely they would overthrow their government without first getting permission from their favorite arms dealer.
America played a similar role in toppling Tunisia’s democratic government too, going so far as to deny a coup had even taken place, and has spent decades undermining Pakistan’s civilian rulers while empowering its generals. But nothing illustrates its hostility to democracy in the Muslim world better than its relationship with Turkey. Even with its restrictions on free speech, Turkey’s claim to the title of the only democracy in the Middle East is superior to Israel’s since it has not violently disenfranchised millions of people under its control based solely on their ethnicity. Despite being the only democracy in the Middle East and the frequent proclamations America’s leaders make regarding their preference for working with other democracies, Turkey’s relationship with America has come under increased strain over the past few decades.
Many analysts like to pretend the souring in relations between these two once stalwart allies is due to Turkey’s “democratic back sliding” or disproportionately blame Turkish President Erdogan’s personal ambitions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The primary catalyst for Turkey’s growing rift with the West was its rejection by the EU, which unmoored and set it adrift from the Western bloc. A secondary driver of this shift is the fact that Turkey’s government has become more responsive to the desires of its people, which is a function of the growing inclusivity of its political system particularly as it relates to the growth of Turkish civil society. Though it is still flawed in serious ways, Turkey’s democracy is getting stronger.
Democratic Muslim governments are harder to control and more likely to enact policies that challenge America’s hegemonic policies. A democratic Egypt, for example, would never have worked with Israel to blockade Gaza, just as a democratic Turkey has become more willing to condemn Israeli excesses.
As its democratic system has entrenched itself and grown from the shadow of the generals who so frequently tried to control it, Turkey’s leaders have been forced to act according to the wishes of their constituents. The tensions between Turkey and the West are therefore partially due to the fact that its government now gives expression to the Pan-Islamic sentiments of its people. President Erdogan’s passionate denunciations of Israel and embrace of Hamas are just two examples that show how these sentiments impact his rhetoric and policies.
Taken together, these facts show America is actively opposed to the spread of democracy in the Muslim world, which makes sense considering its goal is to subjugate the region to its interests. Democratic Muslim governments are harder to control and more likely to enact policies that challenge America’s hegemonic policies. A democratic Egypt, for example, would never have worked with Israel to blockade Gaza, just as a democratic Turkey has become more willing to condemn Israeli excesses.
Tying It All Together
Gaza reveals the true nature of the Pax Americana by showing it is a system that treats Muslim children as legitimate targets during war and denies their parents the rights to defend or govern themselves. As a system predicated on war and domination, it is not based on a set of definable rules but force and coercion. It is designed to violently maintain America’s control over the Muslim world and its resources. Which finally brings us to Gaza’s most important lesson.
America and Israel represent an immediate and existential threat to the peace and prosperity of not just the Palestinians, but the entire Muslim world. They have chosen the path of war and have no interest in real peace. Instead of recognizing that the choice to build Israel on Arab land means they must learn to live as equals with Palestinians, they have chosen apartheid and slaughter. Both believe they have the right to attack any part of the Muslim world they deem fit and have proven capable of mercilessly massacring children in pursuit of their goals.
By any sane measure, meaning one that values all human life equally regardless of the faith or identity of the victims, America has been an agent of chaos, violence, and repression throughout the region. One can only hope those responsible for its crimes live long enough to see justice. There is no statute of limitations on mass murder, after all. Just as Israel’s spies famously tracked down Nazi officials decades after WW2, there must come a day when its soldiers and politicians are dragged before tribunals to face justice for their transgressions alongside their American accomplices.
Before that can happen, Muslims must take the steps needed to protect themselves. Given the unhinged people Israelis and Americans keep choosing to lead them, their racist world views, lethal arsenals, and history of using chemical or nuclear weapons against defenseless women and children, Muslims should be very frightened of the type of violence they are capable of unleashing. The only way to put an end to the threat they pose is by finally taking the long overdue steps needed to build strong states that can defend them and work together.
There is no statute of limitations on mass murder, after all. Just as Israel’s spies famously tracked down Nazi officials decades after WW2, there must come a day when its soldiers and politicians are dragged before tribunals to face justice for their transgressions alongside their American accomplices.
The key to doing that is building inclusive and democratic political and social systems and institutions that can lead to the economic and technological growth they so desperately need. Muslim nations do not need more guns but more factories, start-ups, universities, research institutes, laboratories, political parties, and independent and honest judges, prosecutors, and journalists. Societies that do not possess such ingredients are incapable of building prosperous economies driven by innovation and technological growth which means they are incapable of building powerful militaries armed with the most advanced weapons.
These ingredients will also help bring Muslims together, which is the only way to counter the Western coalition’s far greater strength. There is no single Muslim state powerful enough to stand up to America and its friends. The Arab, Central Asian, and African parts of the Muslim world are too weak or servile to be of any use in this regard while those in Southeast Asia are too remote. As such, the burden must fall to Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan. It is only by creating a deep-rooted alliance between these nations that Muslims have any chance at finally ending the neo-colonial dynamics that have ensnared them and regaining sovereignty over their lands in both name and fact.
America realized the possibilities of such an alliance decades ago when it created CENTO. The logic that compelled it to do so is still sound. Combining the power of these three nations would give them the strength to protect the Muslim world while stabilizing a large chunk of it. Turkish and Pakistani leaders may not wish to openly break with America, but any fool can see this is inevitable and necessary. America has denied both nations its most advanced weapons while offering them to their archrivals in Greece and India. It is investing in India’s defense industry while sanctioning Pakistan’s and it has an unstated policy of ensuring no Muslim state can ever develop enough power to threaten Israel or its control of the region. Whether they realize it or not, Pakistan and Turkey have no choice but to create an alliance with Iran. All three desperately need each other.
Effectively combining their powers will require linking them on multiple levels. They must create free trade zones reinforced by infrastructure designed to increase the flow of people, goods, and ideas between them. Encouraging tourism by creating international organizations designed to increase people to people contact like sports leagues and professional, civil, trade, and academic associations would also be wise. Even something as simple as starting a soccer league featuring teams from each country would go a long way towards building the sort of ties that can bind these nations. Most importantly, they must create fair and transparent ways for their people to trade with each other on a large scale. The best way to do that is by creating democratic systems based on the rule of law. Which highlights, yet again, the desperate need to build such systems. Bringing these nations together represents the Muslim world’s best hope for finally ending the pattern of conquests and massacres that have plagued it for centuries.
As explained in Part III, it is only a matter of time before America implodes. Its decline will add to the chaos over the short term but may bring some reprieve over the long run. The problem is that at some point, another nation will step in and the same dynamics that prevented Muslims from protecting themselves from the West will still exist. Due to its unique geographic position as a bridge that connects Western Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, India, and China, there will always be powerful states with an interest in controlling the Muslim world. As a result, Muslims nations must remain vigilant about safeguarding their freedoms. As Palestine shows, the price for failing in this vigilance is paid in blood. If Muslims ever want the bloodshed to stop, they will need to make some serious changes to their societies consistent with the ideas discussed above. Until they do, they will be forced to obey the ridiculous “rules” others impose on them.