Opinion | All Talk, No Action: Why Doesn't the West Intervene in Gaza?

Protesters in Spain last month. Just two weeks ago, Israel invoked the "Responsibility to Protect" to defend Syria's Druze. Yet in Gaza, no one considers action against it.Credit: Paul White / AP

In September 2005, a UN summit approved the principle of the "Responsibility to Protect" – the duty of states to safeguard their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. When a government fails to do so, the international community has an obligation to use diplomatic, humanitarian, and other measures to protect the affected population. If necessary, the UN Security Council may impose sanctions or even authorize military force.

This principle was fully implemented in 2011, when the Security Council authorized the use of force against Libya to protect its citizens from crimes committed by their government.

Under normal circumstances, one might expect growing international pressure to apply the "Responsibility to Protect" in Gaza, once the sovereign responsible – the Palestinian Authority – failed to safeguard its people. Such pressure would likely include calls for sanctions and, if needed, military action.

This would be especially true after the March 2024 Security Council decision and the January 2024 International Court of Justice rulings (both requiring Israel to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Gaza) went unfulfilled, and after Israel's repeated violations of international law: the destruction of Gaza, attacks on its residents, and mass displacement.

And yet, intervention is not even on the table. The U.S. is currently vetoing far more modest Security Council resolutions and recently blocked a proposal that, among other measures, called for lifting restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

By comparison, in 1999 (before the "Responsibility to Protect" was even formalized), NATO bypassed the Security Council and bombed Serbia to halt the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo. At that point, about 2,000 Albanian civilians had been killed – compared to at least 30,000 in Gaza today – and 350,000 displaced, versus roughly two million in Gaza. That level of suffering was enough for NATO leaders, led by U.S. President Bill Clinton, to deliver impassioned speeches about moral duty and invoke the memory of the Holocaust.

By that logic, today's far greater disaster in Gaza, combined with the fact that most Europeans assign full responsibility to Israel, should be prompting European leaders to push for NATO action. They could even take inspiration from Israel's own recent conduct: just two weeks ago, Israel acted – ostensibly as a representative of the international community – and implemented the "Responsibility to Protect" principle in striking Syria to defend the Druze population.

Yet in Gaza's case, it is doubtful that anyone in the West is considering military action against Israel, an air blockade, or even minimal steps like deploying forces to separate Gazans from the IDF. It is highly unlikely Israel would openly confront Western forces, even if some ministers would urge it (its Air Force has already shown it can reach Poland, after all…).

The truth is, no one in the West would entertain the idea. Israel enjoys U.S. protection, is still perceived as part of the West – a pillar of the "iron wall" against the Muslim world – and is often seen as deserving sympathy because of the trauma of October 7, which stirs memories of the Holocaust.

And so, Western countries will continue to watch the hunger, destruction, killing, and mass displacement in Gaza. They will continue to watch babies buried in Gaza who, along with their tiny bodies, are burying Israel's moral identity.