A quick and superficial look at the United States’ stance on the current war in Gaza, alongside its position on the ongoing war in Ukraine, might lead some analysts to conclude that the two positions are contradictory, reflecting double standards in American politics.

While Washington has shown political and military support for Ukraine after Moscow’s attack on Kyiv, regardless of what triggered it, painting Russia as the aggressor and Ukraine as the victim, the United States simultaneously backs Israel, supplying it with weapons and ammunition, even as it launches attacks on Gaza under the pretext of responding to the October 7th attacks by Hamas and other Palestinian factions. At the same time, Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territories in the West Bank.

If the United States supports and backs the victim in the ongoing war in Ukraine, how do we justify its support for the aggressor in the war on Gaza?

To understand these seemingly contradictory positions, we must first examine the recent history of U.S.-Israel relations since the founding of Israel, and then explore the U.S. relationship with Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its subsequent declaration of independence.

Next, we should identify the nature of U.S. relations with both Israel and Ukraine—nations that Washington, in my view, has utilized for specific functions or roles.

Our exploration will conclude with the concept of the “functional state,” which will shed light on these two seemingly contradictory stances.

First: U.S.-Israel Relations The United States was the first nation to recognize Israel, with President Harry Truman issuing a declaration recognizing it just 11 minutes after David Ben-Gurion announced Israel’s independence on May 14, 1948.

Prior to that, the United States had supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which called for the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine.

Washington’s support for the Balfour Declaration could have stemmed from the large influx of Jews migrating from Europe to America to escape persecution and seek better living conditions. There might have also been a parallel in the founding principles, as the United States itself was established by colonizing indigenous lands in the Americas. Thus, it was not an issue for the U.S. to agree with Britain granting European Jews part of the lands under its mandate.

This idea of shared origins was echoed by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris during her 2017 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where she stated: “I stand with Israel because of our shared values, which are fundamental to the foundation of both of our countries.”

The concept of the “Promised Land,” which was popularized by the secular Zionist movement to attract Jewish support, also resonated with many Christians as it aligned with their biblical beliefs. This sentiment was expressed by American pastor John Hagee, who said, “Israel is not a political issue, it’s a biblical issue. It’s a matter based on the Bible. Israel is the only nation on earth established by the sovereign command of God” (from Al Jazeera’s “Start Here” program).

The U.S.-Israel relationship evolved from mere sympathy and support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland into a partnership linking this small nation with a global superpower like the United States. This partnership is evident in statements from both U.S. and Israeli leaders:

• President Joe Biden: “We stand with Israel.”
• Former President Bill Clinton: “The bond between the U.S. and Israel is eternal friendship.”
• Benjamin Netanyahu: “We are you, and you are us.”
• Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader (2019, at an AIPAC event): “Advocacy is not the reason for the U.S.-Israel bond. It is based on shared history and values.”
• Virginia Foxx (Congresswoman, 2016): “Israel is a beacon of democracy in a sea of hostility.”

A 2012 report by Michael Eisenstadt and David Pollock from the Washington Institute outlined how the United States benefits from its relationship with Israel, highlighting several points:

• Countering Soviet influence in the Middle East and challenging Arab nationalism through security cooperation dating back to the Cold War era.
• Countering extremist forces in the Middle East, including so-called “Islamic political extremism and violence,” with Israel serving as a counterweight.
• Contributing to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the region by thwarting nuclear programs in Iraq and Syria.
• Sharing intelligence on terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
• Developing advanced military technologies like missile defense systems.
• American-Israeli cooperation has sometimes facilitated improved U.S.-Arab relations, based on the premise that the United States alone can persuade Israel to make concessions in negotiations.

The report suggests that the U.S.-Israel alliance doesn’t rely solely on shared democratic values or Israel’s importance in U.S. politics, but also on tangible mutual interests, which are expected to persist in the foreseeable future.

Based on this, one can conclude that Israel’s presence in the heart of the Arab world, a region of strategic importance to the United States due to its location and abundant resources, plays a critical role in serving American geopolitical objectives. Washington sees itself as a global superpower striving for dominance in key regions, aiming to have a foothold near other major powers like Russia and China.

Second: U.S.-Ukraine Relations The United States recognized Ukraine’s independence on December 25, 1991, when President George H.W. Bush announced the decision following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In 1994, Ukraine signed the “Budapest Memorandum,” guaranteeing its security with assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia after it joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that same year. This came after Ukraine agreed to transfer its nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles to Russia.

The U.S. decision to join the countries guaranteeing Ukraine’s security after it relinquished its nuclear weapons can be seen as an opportunity for Washington to establish a presence near Russia’s borders. This laid the groundwork for strengthening U.S.-Ukraine relations, with Washington aiming to leverage Ukraine to extend its influence in this strategically important region.

Sherman Garnett, in his study on “U.S.-Ukraine Relations: Past, Present, and Future,” observed that the relationship developed quickly after officially starting in January 1992, one month after Ukraine’s independence referendum. Kyiv became a regular destination for top U.S. officials, and the United States and Ukraine formed a bilateral committee led by then-President Leonid Kuchma and then-U.S. Vice President Al Gore to address various political, security, and economic issues. Ukraine became a major recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and in October 1996, the two countries declared their relationship a “strategic partnership.”

American policy gradually distanced Ukraine from its previous alliances and steered it toward Western Europe. This is evident from the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine’s statement on the history of relations between the two nations, emphasizing that “U.S. policy has focused on making Ukraine a democratic, prosperous, and secure country, more integrated into European and Atlantic structures.”

Former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, in early 1994, described Ukraine as “a critical counterweight against Russia and the focal point for the United States’ new grand strategy after the Cold War.” He added, “I must stress that Russia without Ukraine won’t be an empire, but will automatically become an empire if Ukraine is subdued.”

Based on this brief overview, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• Since the end of World War II, the United States has sought to maintain its status as a global superpower and “the leader bringing the world together,” as President Biden stated in his October 19, 2023, address to the American people.
• Washington claims to uphold democracy and fight terrorism worldwide, striving for dominance—under the guise of “spreading democracy” and “countering terrorism”—in regions rich in resources and close to areas of influence of other major powers like Russia and China.
• To achieve these goals, the United States relies on strategic partnerships with nations it can use to serve its interests. Washington nurtures these relationships by providing aid during peacetime, supporting them politically in international forums, and supplying them with weapons, ammunition, and military equipment during times of war or crisis. It also shields them from legal repercussions. This was underscored by Daniel Levy, Director of the Middle East Project, who said, “The key aspect of this relationship is that America guarantees Israel’s impunity internationally, legally, in the United Nations, and elsewhere due to how Israel treats the Palestinians daily.”
• Countries like Israel in the Middle East, Ukraine in the former Soviet Union, and Taiwan in the South China Sea are considered “functional states,” a concept formulated by Dr. Abdel Wahab El-Messiri in his book “Jewish Functional Groups: A New Interpretative Model.”

Third: The Concept of the Functional State The concept of “functional states” helps explain why the U.S. stance on the war in Gaza doesn’t contradict its position on Ukraine. But what does this concept mean?

Dr. Abdel Wahab El-Messiri introduced the term “functional state” in the title of the eleventh chapter of his book, “The Functional Zionist State.” The notion of the functional state extends the concept of “functional groups,” which El-Messiri explained in the preceding chapters, focusing on its origins, reasons for its emergence, and the roles these groups play in societies.

Functional groups could be internal or external, often isolated from broader society and considered outsiders due to the roles they perform. Their relationship with society is contractual, serving a specific function for a fee or other benefits. El-Messiri believed these traits applied to Jewish groups globally, particularly in Europe, and to Israel as the state created after World War II to accommodate these Jewish groups.

El-Messiri suggested that the primary function of the functional Zionist state is combat, established as the front line of defense for England, particularly concerning the Suez Canal. This combat role, termed “legitimate self-defense,” earned the Israeli military the moniker “Israel Defense Forces,” while the seizure of Palestinian land became “Israel’s Declaration of Independence.”

El-Messiri explained that the central hub of Zionist activity moved from Europe to the United States after World War II. Support was initially modest but grew significantly from the mid-1960s, with comprehensive strategic coordination during President Reagan’s term following the signing of a strategic cooperation agreement in 1981. This cooperation escalated after the 1973 October War and reached new heights after Hamas and other Palestinian factions attacked Gaza’s settlements in the “Gaza Strip” on October 7, 2023, leading to unprecedented support from President Biden for Israel both politically and militarily.

President Biden’s unwavering support for Israel in this context is not surprising, as Israel acts as Washington’s and the West’s spearhead, a functional state that serves American interests by combating “terrorism” on their behalf in exchange for political, diplomatic, and international backing, substantial financial aid, and significant military assistance. This support allows Israel to evade repercussions for its conduct in Palestinian territories.

Regardless of certain statements from U.S. officials regarding Palestinian rights, the two-state solution, or humanitarian aid for Gaza’s residents, these pronouncements were never intended to signal alignment with Hamas, which Washington regards as a terrorist group, or to support the Palestinian cause while the U.S. upholds its global anti-terrorism stance. Israel’s partnership with the United States in the Middle East aligns with these broader American interests.

It’s worth noting that the U.S. has historically tried to erase the idea of occupation from public perception. British journalist Robert Fisk recounted in a YouTube lecture that former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell issued a directive instructing State Department employees not to use the term “occupied territories” when referring to Palestinian lands under Israeli control. Instead, they were instructed to use the term “disputed territories.”

Fourth: No Contradiction in Washington’s Positions Given this understanding, the U.S. position on the Israeli war in Gaza shouldn’t seem odd or unexpected, nor does it indicate double standards when compared to its stance on the war in Ukraine. The fact that Washington’s response to both conflicts follows the same pattern underscores that the U.S. is consistent with its foreign policy objectives and strategic interests.

American policymakers may incur reputational damage by aligning with the aggressor and promoting double standards, overlooking Palestinian rights. However, they’re willing to bear this cost in exchange for advancing strategic goals. The question remains: How long can American leaders tolerate this reputational damage given the ongoing massacres in Gaza and the growing protests in the U.S. and beyond?