By: Abdulaziz Al-Anjeri
Founder and CEO, Reconnaissance Research
Member of the National Press Club in Washington
The narrative of U.S. foreign policy is rife with paradoxes, none more glaring than its stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The U.S. champions democratic values globally, vehemently advocating for peaceful protests and freedom of speech in nations like Russia, China, and Iran. Yet, this fervor wanes dramatically with pro-Palestinian demonstrations, revealing a policy that values voices only when they echo the official narrative.
Labeling Hamas’ retaliation as “unprovoked” while turning a blind eye to the provocations — aggressive settlement expansions and human rights violations by some of Israel’s most “extreme” cabinet members, as acknowledged by U.S. officials themselves — is a stark manifestation of America’s selective memory. This practice is not new; it’s an echo of the past, a continuation of policies that disregarded the displacement and suffering of Palestinians, ensuing decades of occupation and oppression.
The normalization agreements inked between Israel and several Arab states, have been touted as monumental successes. However, a critical facet is glaringly absent in this diplomatic fanfare: the voices of the people. Streets across these nations tell a different story, one of widespread protests and palpable dissent. The populace in Morocco and Jordan, for instance, has been vociferous in its support for Palestine, underscoring a stark disconnect between the inked statecraft and the heartbeat of the Arab street.
These widespread pro-Palestinian sentiments are significant indicators that diplomatic accords, often brokered with authoritarian regimes with scant regard for public opinion, hardly reflect the will of the people. They lay bare a fundamental flaw in the U.S.’s approach to the region: mistaking the silence of oppression for peace, and equating signed documents with genuine reconciliation.
The U.S. Secretary of State’s poignant empathy for the Rohingya few years ago, starkly contrasts the absence of such sentiment for Palestinians in Gaza. The comparison is not just apt but necessary. If the U.S. stands against segregation and dehumanization anywhere, why does it fail to do so in Gaza?
This is not a dialogue about Hamas. This is about civilians, about children, mothers, and fathers subjected to unimaginable suffering while the world, including the U.S., continues its geopolitical chess game.
The words of the late Sir Gerald Kaufman, a Jewish-British MP, resonate powerfully in this context. He boldly denounced Israeli policies, drawing a line between criticism of a state’s policies and anti-Semitism, a line too often blurred to silence dissenting voices.
The recent surge in Arab unity is a beacon of hope, yet it’s perilously close to being extinguished by the very leaders who should be its guardians. These leaders, swayed by geopolitical interests, often forsake the visceral cries of their people, cries for the basic human dignities that Palestinians have been denied.
The U.S. foreign policy’s credibility wanes with each instance of selective outrage and conditional human rights advocacy. The facade of objectivity and human rights defender has crumbled, revealing a stance that reeks of double standards and blatant hypocrisy.
A recalibration of U.S. policy towards Palestine is not just advisable; it’s a moral imperative, a chance to realign stated American values with its actions on the international stage. The path to peace demands the U.S. to stand unequivocally for justice, even when it’s inconvenient, even when it means standing with Palestine.