Former US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, made striking statements in which he acknowledged that parts of the humanitarian suffering experienced by Palestinians during the war on the Gaza Strip could have been avoided. Blinken indicated that the final judgment on the decisions made by his administration during that period would be left to history and the assessment of global public opinion, implicitly acknowledging the extent of the controversy sparked by US foreign policy.
The former US official explained that Israeli society experienced a deep shock that led to the emergence of a strong will to continue military operations in the Strip. According to his estimates, this determination was so strong that the war would have continued and taken its course even if the United States had decided to intervene directly or reduce its military support, reflecting the complexity of the field and political landscape at the time.
In response to questions regarding the continued supply of weapons to Israel despite accusations of genocide by human rights organizations and researchers, Blinken described this issue as one of the most difficult challenges he faced. Blinken openly questioned whether the administration should have acted differently to protect thousands of children and civilians, answering his own question with the phrase 'perhaps yes,' which opens the door for belated policy reviews.
Blinken revealed that the option of cutting military supplies to Israel was indeed on the table for discussion within the US administration, but it was ruled out for several strategic considerations. Sources indicated that the administration believed this measure would not be sufficient to change the course of the war in the short term, and might instead cause a wider regional explosion as a result of hostile parties seeking to exploit the situation.
The former Secretary stressed that the American vision was based on the belief that the optimal and only solution to ensure the protection of civilians lay in reaching a comprehensive ceasefire agreement. This path, he said, aimed to ensure the release of hostages and the sustainable flow of humanitarian aid to the residents of the Strip who faced catastrophic living and health conditions.
Blinken concluded his remarks by emphasizing that ending the conflict and protecting lives required a diplomatic path leading to a comprehensive de-escalation rather than taking steps that could lead to an escalation of the confrontation. He believed that US efforts focused on trying to balance military support with humanitarian pressure, despite widespread criticism directed at Washington for ignoring the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
Could we or should we have acted differently to avoid civilian suffering and the loss of thousands of children? The short answer: perhaps yes.
שתף את דעתך
Blinken admits moral responsibility: We could have avoided some of the suffering of Gaza's people