• Western leaders have strongly condemned the Russian attack on Kyiv’s children’s hospital, using it to justify increased support for Ukraine. There has been minimal condemnation of Israel’s similar actions in Gaza.
• The media has highlighted the Ukrainian hospital attack to make arguments for more support to Ukraine, while failing to use Israel’s attacks on Gaza hospitals to advocate for reduced support to Israel.
The recent Russian missile attack on Kyiv’s Okhmatdy hospital, Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital, has led to strong condemnation from Western and UN leaders. This attack, which left many dead and injured, has been described by various leaders as a “war crime” and “the most depraved of actions”. The international outrage highlights the gravity of targeting medical facilities, particularly those treating vulnerable populations like children. However, this condemnation raises questions about the apparent double standards in how similar actions are addressed when carried out by different actors, particularly in the context of the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
Western leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the UN Secretary General António Guterres, have unequivocally condemned the Russian missile strike on Kyiv’s children’s hospital. The attack has been described as “particularly shocking” and has prompted calls for increased military aid to Ukraine. NATO leaders are expected to announce new measures to aid Ukraine, including crucial air defence systems. The intensity of these responses highlights a clear commitment to supporting Ukraine. But is this support coming from moral grounds or is it simply the west defending their own interests?
In stark contrast, the Western response to Israel’s military operations in Gaza, which have included attacks on hospitals and other civilian infrastructure, has been subdued. For nine months, Israel has been bombing Gaza, often targeting hospitals and schools. The Israeli government has justified these attacks by claiming that Hamas uses hospitals as bases and human shields. However, these claims have not been substantiated with concrete evidence, and yet the condemnation from Western leaders has been minimal or non-existent in some cases. Would NATO allow Russia to bomb hospitals if they claimed that they were being used as bases? NATO has determined that it is acceptable to bomb hospitals in some cases and not in other cases therefore with this logic, there would be no problem if Russia simply claimed that Ukrainian soldiers are using “human shields”.
Despite worse humanitarian implications, the absence of a robust condemnation against Israel’s actions reflects a significant double standard. The rhetoric of protecting civilians and condemning attacks on medical facilities seems to be selectively applied, depending on the political and strategic alliances of the countries involved.
Moreover, the contrasting reactions also highlight the complexities of Western foreign policy. On one hand, there is significant financial and military support for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian attacks, which includes attacks on hospitals. On the other hand, Western nations, including the United States and several European countries, continue to provide substantial military aid to Israel, who have carried out even worse attacks against medical facilities in Gaza multiple times. The attack on Kyiv’s children’s hospital is likely to prompt an even greater aid package and increased defence spending from Western nations. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has condemned the attack as “the most depraved of actions”, suggesting a strong likelihood of heightened military support for Ukraine. This potential increase in aid contrasts sharply with the continued support for Israel, despite its actions in Gaza.
The selective condemnation of attacks on hospitals, depending on the perpetrator, reveals an inconsistency in the application of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, the media has played a significant role in shaping public perception and policy responses. Headlines have clearly condemned the Russian missile attack on Kyiv’s children’s hospital, using it to justify increased support for Ukraine. This stands in stark contrast to the lack of similar media-driven arguments for cutting support to Israel, despite its prolonged attacks on hospitals in Gaza. To uphold the principles of international law and human rights, it is imperative that all attacks on medical facilities are condemned and addressed with equal seriousness, regardless of the geopolitical context.
