The West must revisit policy on Israel’s war
Their voices have emerged as the most legitimate in the global narrative of the war. The West must listen to them and balance and moderate its policy.
More than a month after it began, the Israel-Hamas war has seen unmistakable western support for Israel. Led by the United States (US), western governments have expressed strong solidarity and resolutely backed Israel’s stated aim of destroying Hamas. But Israel’s prosecution of this war is producing what the United Nations (UN) has described as an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe for the Palestinians in Gaza. It is difficult to assess to what extent and in what ways Israel would have used its firepower differently had it not had western support. But we can be sure that western backing has given Israel a considerable measure of impunity. What are the larger implications of this pattern of western response to the Israel-Hamas war? Three aspects are worth examining.
First, global geopolitics. It may appear that American involvement in the war and its fallout have opened a third geopolitical theatre — the other two being Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific — testing Washington’s political judgement, consuming its diplomatic energy, stretching its military resources, and adding Iran to the mix of active rival powers that includes Russia and China. While America’s judgement and diplomacy are clearly on trial, its global strategic preeminence and the ability to take on Russia and China aren’t at stake, yet. The deployment of additional military assets in the eastern Mediterranean was aimed at preventing a regional war, and the move may have succeeded. The overall global geopolitical picture, therefore, remains unaffected.
Second, further erosion of the West’s international credibility. In the past few years, the West has been championing a new idea of an international order called the rules-based international order (RIO). Crafted in response to the wide-spectrum revisionism of Russia and China, the RIO supposedly stands for a world order based on respect for international law and institutions, opposition to the unjust use of the power of the strong against the weak, intolerance for civilian suffering in conflict, and an insistence that States play by the rules of inter-State conduct.
The West has emphasised each of these elements as it has called Russia’s war on Ukraine a flagrant violation of the RIO. Israel stands in violation of all the major elements of the RIO. It has disregarded international humanitarian law, shown contempt for the UN, has cared little for the dignity and lives of Palestinians — killing thousands in Gaza and dozens in the West Bank — and remained largely unbothered by calls for restraint. And it is worth emphasising that as Russia has become in Ukraine, Israel has been an occupying power for decades in Palestinian lands. But barring France’s expression of discomfort, not one western chancellery so far has called out Israeli actions.
The reasons for the West’s silence on, if not encouragement of, Israeli excesses can be separately debated. What is clear is that western reputation on non-western streets, never robust, is witnessing rapid erosion. Quite apart from giving non-western States more arsenal for calling the West hypocritical, it could make West-non-West relations more transactional. But this is a moment for the West to ask if it should allow its values, reputation, and interests to be staked in such a fashion to provide cover to actions marked by staggering disproportionateness and contempt for basic norms of international life.
Third, the unravelling of nearly 15 years of progress in relations between the West and the Muslim world.
Since 2009, when President Barack Obama called for a new concord between America and the Muslim world from Cairo, relations between the two sides had been largely on the mend. The West disengaged from Iraq and Afghanistan and scaled back its interventionism, as illustrated in Syria, thus allowing Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players a greater say in regional affairs. This came at a considerable strategic cost as Russia expanded its footprint across West Asia and North Africa. The West also sought to lessen estrangement with Iran even as Tehran played tough.
This revision in approach had been lessening mutual estrangement. By denting the narrative that the myriad problems within the Muslim world were caused by western hostility and interventionism, it was aiding the process of many Muslims overcoming the victim mentality and modernising to integrate with the progressive stream in world affairs. The western approach to Israel’s military actions may have begun to undo this achievement. Yes, Hamas’ actions were barbaric. Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself. Yes, the American response has been nuanced relative to the past, cautioning Israel against expelling Palestinians from Gaza, considering humanitarian concerns and foregrounding the two-State solution.
But all of this dwarfs before the scale of destruction, death, and suffering that Israel has meted out to the Palestinians.
It is noteworthy that perhaps never before have the UN and other humanitarian agencies working on the ground in Palestine questioned Israeli actions and contested its narrative of the Israel-Palestine conflict with such forthrightness. Their voices have emerged as the most legitimate in the global narrative of the war. The West must listen to them and balance and moderate its policy. It could learn from Delhi, which has balanced its solidarity with Israel with strong disapproval of the Israeli occupation and settlement activities in Palestinian lands. Failure to do so fast will have grave and lasting implications beyond West Asia.
Atul Mishra teaches international politics at Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence. The views expressed are personal
Recommended Topics