Russia’s Position:

Critical of Israel’s military operations: Russia focuses heavily on Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law, emphasizing the mass civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza.
The accusation of U.S. hypocrisy: Russia accuses the U.S. of blocking UN action against Israel, claiming that the U.S. uses its power to shield Israel from accountability while supporting military operations.
Humanitarian Crisis: Russia paints the U.S. as complicit in allowing a humanitarian disaster to unfold, highlighting Israel’s targeting of schools and UN facilities.
Call for a ceasefire: Russia repeatedly pushes for an immediate ceasefire, suggesting that peace will only come through stopping military aggression and ensuring humanitarian aid can flow.

U.S. Position:

Defence of Israel’s actions: While the U.S. acknowledges the humanitarian crisis, it essentially frames the blame on Hamas, citing the group’s use of civilian areas for military operations. This shifts the narrative away from directly criticizing Israel.
Selective condemnation: The U.S. condemns specific incidents like attacks on UN facilities but stops short of holding Israel fully accountable for the larger-scale destruction. It focuses more on improving Israel’s military procedures rather than calling for a ceasefire.
Support for Israel: The U.S. maintains that Israel has the right to defend itself, emphasizing the October 7th attacks as justification for Israel’s actions.
Call for diplomacy: The U.S. advocates for negotiations and a two-state solution, but its emphasis is on pressuring Hamas to accept peace, with less focus on halting Israel’s military operations.

Double Standards:

Humanitarian Concerns: Russia condemns the actions of Israel as the leading cause of suffering, while the U.S. points to Hamas’s actions as the core problem, downplaying Israel’s role in the devastation.
Blame Distribution: The U.S. holds Hamas accountable for prolonging the conflict but avoids full criticism of Israel, even when unmarked UN vehicles and facilities are attacked. In contrast, Russia places sole blame on Israel and the U.S. for obstructing peace efforts and humanitarian aid.
Call for Action: Russia demands an immediate ceasefire, whereas the U.S. calls for negotiations while continuing to back Israel’s military operations.

In summary, the U.S. deflects blame from Israel despite acknowledging some of its actions, while Russia directly accuses Israel and the U.S. of enabling war crimes. This discrepancy highlights the double standards in how international law and humanitarian concerns are applied, depending on the geopolitical interests of the parties involved.

HOW CAN THE U.S. SAY “THIS MUST STOP”?

WHILE SENDING WEAPONS TO ISRAEL? MY PERSPECTIVE

Watching these videos, the double standards are painfully obvious. On one hand, the U.S. representative talks about how the violence and suffering in Gaza “must stop,” but at the same time, they’re actively funding Israel’s military campaign. How does that make sense? It’s clear that the U.S. is not really pushing for peace—it’s pushing its own interests while pretending to care about humanitarian issues.

From what I see in these statements:

Hypocrisy in Plain Sight: The U.S. condemns the loss of life, talks about civilian suffering, and calls out specific incidents like the attacks on UN facilities. But then, they turn around and send billions of dollars in military aid to Israel. It’s like they’re trying to have it both ways—saying they want peace, but at the same time, they’re ensuring Israel has everything it needs to keep fighting. It’s impossible to take their call for peace seriously when they’re fueling the conflict with weapons and cash.
Selective Accountability: They point fingers at Hamas for using civilian sites and prolonging the conflict, but what about Israel’s responsibility? The U.S. glosses over the mass destruction and civilian casualties caused by Israel, only asking them to “adjust” their military procedures. How is that accountability? They aren’t interested in stopping the conflict—just managing how it looks on the world stage.
Backing the Status Quo: It’s painfully clear that the U.S. isn’t committed to any real change. While they claim to support a two-state solution, they’re actively funding one side’s military operations. You can’t keep sending weapons and expect peace to appear magically. By backing Israel unconditionally, they’re ensuring that the violence, suffering, and devastation continue.

MY JUDGMENT?

The U.S. position is a classic case of saying one thing and doing another. Watching these videos, it’s clear that the calls for peace are just lip service. The reality is they’re fully complicit in what’s happening. You can’t preach about ending violence while you’re the one handing over the weapons that make it possible.