The Blogs: The Death Toll Only Counts When Israel Makes It

International outrage over civilian casualties in Gaza has never been louder, especially since Israel launched a large-scale military operation in response to the horrific Hamas massacre on October 7. Critics accuse Israel of “disproportionate violence,” “ethnic cleansing,” or even “genocide.” But where was this moral indignation during the thousands of civilian deaths caused by Western military operations in the Middle East over the past decades?

Take, for example, the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to the independent project Iraq Body Count, between 183,000 and 208,000 civilian deaths resulted, most due to violence. The large-scale bombings that flattened Baghdad — ironically dubbed “Shock and Awe” — faced little ethical pushback in Western media. Even the fact that the entire war was based on a lie (the fictitious “weapons of mass destruction”) changed little.

Similarly, the NATO bombings in Libya (2011), which led to regime change without a UN mandate and sparked years of civil war, caused numerous civilian deaths. Amnesty International reported ongoing civilian casualties, but there was no in-depth investigation — let alone public condemnation of France or the US. The chaos in Libya opened the doors to slavery and jihadist networks, yet nobody called for “sanctions against Paris or Washington.”

Or consider the US and French airstrikes against ISIS territories in Syria and Iraq: during the liberation of Mosul (2016–2017) and Raqqa (2017), Airwars estimates up to 9,000 and 1,600 civilian deaths, respectively. Journalists visiting the ruins described scenes of utter devastation. The US reluctantly admitted afterwards that their bombings “likely caused civilian casualties,” but that this was “unavoidable.” When Israel uses the same argument in Gaza, it faces calls for genocide trials.

Even historical bombings like Dresden (1945), where up to 25,000 civilians died in Anglo-American firestorms, or Vietnam (1965–1975), where millions of tons of napalm and cluster bombs were dropped, saw limited moral reflection. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 — carried out without UN approval — caused thousands of civilian casualties and long-term environmental harm. Depleted uranium munitions were used, raising ongoing health concerns. The campaign included the illegal bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the deadly attack on a civilian Niš Express bus, and the controversial airstrike on RTS, Serbia’s national broadcaster, which killed 16 civilians and violated international law protecting media infrastructure. These acts remain legally and morally contested, yet no Western leader has ever been held accountable. Apparently, civilian deaths only count when Israel causes them.

Selective Ethics

What explains this double standard? Israel is the only Western country that faces permanent terror threats within and along its borders. No other country endures thousands of rockets on residential areas, child kidnappings, tunnels under daycare centers, or beheading videos — and is simultaneously expected to respond more restrainedly than the US or France did in Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq.

What Israel does in Gaza is military, tragic, but not exceptional: it tries to dismantle a hostile military infrastructure that deliberately hides behind civilian targets (schools, hospitals, apartment buildings), as Human Rights Watch itself acknowledged in its report on Hamas operations. Civilian casualties are morally painful — but why do they only matter when Israel causes them?

Israel: The Only One Forced to Negotiate with Terrorists

Another astonishing aspect of this asymmetric treatment is that Israel — and only Israel — is systematically pressured to negotiate with terrorist organizations.

The US, France, Russia, or China do not negotiate with terrorists. The American doctrine has been clear for decades: “The United States will make no concessions to terrorists and will not negotiate with them.” (U.S. State Department, 1985, reiterated in 2002 and 2023). France did not negotiate with Al Qaeda in Mali, nor did Russia with Islamist groups like the Caucasus Emirate, responsible for the Moscow and Beslan attacks.

But Israel? The international community continually urges Israel to “resume dialogue with Hamas.” Since Arafat and the PLO — themselves once designated as terrorist organizations by the US and Europe — Israel has been under pressure to hold peace talks. Israel always engaged: it recognized the PLO via Oslo (1993), unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and allowed civil authority over roughly 40% of the West Bank (zones A and B), of which 18% is fully under Palestinian control. No other Western country would have negotiated under such conditions with ISIS, Boko Haram, or Al Qaeda.

More strikingly: even with Hezbollah, designated terrorist by the US, EU, and the Arab League, Israel has been compelled through mediators like France and Qatar to accept ‘humanitarian agreements’ — while Hezbollah openly calls for Israel’s destruction. No other Western country has made such political concessions to terrorist groups or has been required to do so.

Why this ethical exception for Israel? Why is only this country expected to make peace with those who reject its very existence?

—

Selected Sources: