When a Talking Point Replaces a Policy
America keeps returning to the same carefully chosen sentence when talking about Israel: “Israel has the right to defend itself.” The line sounds principled, even inevitable. But in U.S. politics, its real function is not to clarify policy. It is to suspend scrutiny.
What almost never follows is a serious discussion of scope, duration, or proportionality. Defense becomes a category so broad that it absorbs nearly any action, while the political cost of asking where the limits are grows higher each time the phrase is repeated. Over time, the sentence stops describing a right and starts operating as protection from further debate.
This is not an argument about Israel versus Palestine. It is an observation about how American foreign policy language works. Certain phrases are designed to signal moral alignment while quietly removing the obligation to explain consequences. Once deployed, complex strategic questions are reduced to tests of loyalty.
When language is used this way, accountability does not vanish overnight. It erodes gradually, almost invisibly. By the time people notice, the space for disagreement has already narrowed.
At that point, the issue is no longer which decision is being made, but why fewer people are allowed to question it at all.
#USPolitics #ForeignPolicy #Geopolitics #MiddleEast #PoliticalAnalysis
