War is not only a clash of armies but of ideals, while ethics collides with political realities. Governments justify military actions as national security measures, while civil victims are ruled out as “collateral damage.” But can morality ever give war decisions?
The conflicts of Israel-Gaza and Russia-Ukraine highlight this tension. Strategic interests shape the responses to humanitarian crises, global powers apply selective moral outrage and the double standard persist in addressing human suffering.
Israel-Gaza: Fight for security or humanitarian disaster?
While Israel cites national security and the objective of neutralizing Hamas, the humanitarian impact is horrible.
Thousands of Palestinian refugees are forced to tents with limited access to food, water and medical care. Humanitarian Group reported that the infrastructure in Gaza is falling apart, which makes hospitals excessive and rescue operations more challenging.
On the contrary, while they are trapped in areas devastated by war, some Palestinians have backed Hamas, regardless of the hostage crisis that has ended up claiming numerous lives, in a retaliation action by Israeli troops, justified by Sastiatags. The support to Hamas is due to the Israeli threat that has advanced for the Palestinians for years that gave their decision to support and ignore the lost civil lives.
On the Israeli side, individuals have been accused of simply their background and express opinions about the attack of October 7, and Wood is even involved in the subsequent operations of the government.
And when it comes to the war, Israel, when they justify doing so as an attempt to release hostages, placed obstacles between Hamas negotiations several times, and recently violated the fire ironically that claimed to do it for hostages.
In addition, the Palestinians condemn Israeli action, but mostly overlook the original act (the attack of October 7) that led to this. Hamas has still kept the hostages, which had nothing to do with the adversity between the two nations, as leverage to negotiate with Israel.
So, while a country claims a moral terrain, actions can point out a conflicting image.
Ethical, huge collateral damage to civilians and generating living standards require immediate international intervention. The reports of Palestinian paramedics and rescue workers who are being executed, the bodies found tied and triggered at a short distance, have avoided world indignation and accusations of war crimes but little substantial action.
Politician, thought, the Israel government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is still firm in his position. The operation complies with the policies of US President Donald Trump, who has declared a supporter of ‘cleaning’ Gaza or Palestinian inhabitants. It is a radical contrast: moral considerations demand a rescue and responsibility, while political interests focus on military objectives and national security. Leadership or Israel justify movement as a preventive action against terrorism, opponents or civil opponents, with respect to humanitarian law.
Russia-Ukraine: The policy of power and ethics of war
The Russia-Ukraine war continues to restructure global geopolitics, especially under the Trump administration in the United States. As of March 2025, Washington has significantly reduced military aid to Ukraine, indicating a strategic change in favor of a more diplomatic approach to Russia.
Meanwhile, for many Ukrainians, this change in the representatives of American politics is a kind of betrayal. In the early days of the war that began in 2022, Ukraine enjoyed Western support too much in its fight against Russian aggression. However, as war fatigue and economic groups grow, many Western nations have begun to prioritize diplomatic negotiations on continuous military assistance. This has left Ukraine in a difficult position, trapped between its determination to resist the Russian occupation and the reduction resolution of its allies.
Meanwhile, Russia under Vladimir Putin continues to justify the invasion as a defense against Western invasion.
Ukraine once was a symbol of resistance against authoritarian aggression, his difficult situation is now subject to the fluctuating interests of his allies. If the international community abandons Ukraine in favor or diplomatic convenience, it establishes a precedent that aggression can be optionally rewarded, a reality that could have long -term consequences beyond Eastern Europe.
Selective outrage and double global standard
One of the main problems in both conflicts is the selective moral outrage of the international community.
Israel has justified its land operation in Gaza citing the attack of October 7, 2023. But military action to eliminate terrorism has also displaced thousands of Palestinians, only living their lives in the midst of poverty and complaint.
In addition, the western world has been vowel in its Russian criticisms or crimes, but the response of the international community to Israel’s activities in Gaza has been silenced and justified as action against terrorism despite the discrete disputed. The allies of the United States and Europe have rushed to sanction Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, however, military aid and diplomatic support for Israel remain strong despite the growing accusations of human rights abuses, due to political ties and strategic benefits.
This selective use of moral principles highlights the hypocrisy that is present in international politics. Are the claims of human rights abuse worthy of condemnation only when politics is convenient? Or should moral considerations succeed over strategic interests, even against an ally? In addition, even institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court have fought to constantly enforce international law.
The questionless question: Is morality compatible with politics in war?
In the heart of both conflicts there is an uncomfortable reality: morals rarely dictates political decisions. Governments act based on strategic interests, not ethical concerns. While public feeling, international law and humanitarian organizations advocate peace and justice, Realpolitik prevails.
At the end of the day, governments free the war between two nations for their agendas while citizens pay the price. Therefore, as the world observes that these conflicts develop, the question remains: can we close the gap between moral imperatives and political need, or history will continue to repeat different actors but the same tragic results? Perhaps the key lies in the way citizens and leaders around the world respond, no, not to any singular conflict, but to all injustices, beyond political convenience.
Discharge of responsibility
The opinions expressed above are the author’s own.
End of the article