U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has defended Israel’s military actions in Gaza, drawing parallels to American wartime strategies in World War II and suggesting a willingness to accept civilian casualties as an unavoidable consequence of conflict. The remarks, made during a recent interview with Sky News Arabia, have sparked controversy and drawn criticism from international observers.
Graham reportedly dismissed arguments that Israel’s operations, which began in October 2023 and have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians – including the elderly, women, and children – are inconsistent with Christian values, implying those killed were not civilians. This assertion, reported by Turkish media, has not been independently verified but forms a core element of the escalating rhetoric surrounding the conflict.
“What did we do in World War II?” Graham asked, according to the report. “Did we ever think about the Germans starving? Did we bomb all the cities to the ground until they were completely destroyed?” He argued that Israel, like the United States during the war, is engaged in a conflict that justifies similar measures.
The senator’s comparison of the current situation in Gaza to the Allied bombing campaigns of World War II – specifically referencing the destruction of Berlin and Tokyo – has ignited debate. He further likened the events of October 7th to an existential threat to the Jewish people, framing Israel’s response as a necessary measure for survival. He stated, according to reporting from , “I think President Trump has come to believe, and I certainly have come to believe, there’s no way you’re going to negotiate an end of this war with Hamas.”
Graham suggested that Israel should “just flatten [Gaza],” echoing the tactics employed by the U.S. In Tokyo and Berlin. He questioned the morality of the U.S. Use of atomic bombs on Japan, stating, “Were we wrong when we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan to end the terror regime? As far as I’m concerned, if I were Israel, I would do the same thing.” He added that military victory is the only path to dismantling radicalism, referencing the complete destruction of German and Japanese cities during the war.
This is not the first time Graham has drawn such comparisons. In , he compared Israel’s war in Gaza to the U.S. Decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, urging Israel to “do whatever you have to do” to survive. That earlier statement, reported by NBC News, drew criticism from U.S. Military officials who argued that technology and the geopolitical landscape have significantly changed since World War II – a point Graham dismissed as “crap.”
Beyond the immediate conflict in Gaza, Graham also signaled a potential shift in U.S. Policy towards Iran. He stated that a decision regarding the U.S. Approach to Iran has already been made, adding, “All these ships aren’t coming here this time of year for the weather.” This statement, interpreted as a warning of potential military action, underscores growing tensions in the region.
Graham explicitly called for “military intervention” against Iran, suggesting that a joint U.S.-Israeli initiative to weaken Iran’s ability to harm its own people would be a “welcome development.” This stance aligns with a broader push among some Republican lawmakers for a more assertive U.S. Policy towards Iran, particularly in light of its support for regional proxies.
The senator’s remarks come amid increasing scrutiny of Israel’s military tactics and the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza. International organizations and human rights groups have repeatedly called for a ceasefire and raised concerns about the disproportionate impact of the conflict on civilians. The potential for escalation, fueled by rhetoric like Graham’s, raises fears of a wider regional conflict.
Graham’s position, while strongly supportive of Israel, stands in contrast to calls for restraint and de-escalation from some within the international community. The comparison to World War II, while intended to justify Israel’s actions, has been widely condemned as inflammatory and insensitive, particularly given the immense civilian suffering in Gaza. The debate over the proportionality of Israel’s response and the long-term consequences of its actions continues to intensify, with Graham’s comments adding further fuel to the fire.
The remarks also reflect a growing alignment between some U.S. Political figures and a more hardline approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The potential implications of this shift in U.S. Policy, particularly regarding Iran, remain uncertain but could significantly alter the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
