Israel-Hamas war
“Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.” This sentiment, attributed to Mao Zedong, the founding father of the People’s Republic of China, aptly characterizes the trajectory of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. The 1962 Indo-China War embodied Mao’s philosophy. Under his leadership, the Communist regime sought an external enemy to distract the Chinese populace from domestic issues.
War and politics are intrinsically linked, both serving as means to attain power. While one may use overt violence and the other might be marked by bloodshed in more covert ways, each demands strategy and resources. Both parties in this conflict aim to overpower the other in these domains. Even the United Nations hasn’t been immune to sharp criticisms in this context.
The criticism of Israel’s response in Gaza, equating it with the actions of Hamas militants on Israeli soil, has elicited strong reactions from pro-Israeli groups. Tel Aviv has even called for his resignation. However, the UN has consistently held that aerial bombardments of civilian areas are as unacceptable as Hamas’ actions.
Amid increasing global appeals to cease hostilities, Israel’s sustained offensives are devastating Gaza with each passing hour. Yet, retaliatory actions show no sign of abating. Instead of prioritizing the release of over 200 hostages from Israel and other nations, there seems to be an intensified focus on Gaza’s destruction. Key infrastructures, including hospitals and bakeries, are under attack. Women, children, and the elderly are among the casualties. Gaza faces severe shortages, from food to potable water. The economic blockade exacerbates an already dire situation, but the global community largely remains a bystander.
Russia and China have positioned their warships in support of Hamas and the Palestinians. In contrast, the United States, backed by NATO member countries and the European Union, aligns with Israel. Iran continuously warns Israel to cease hostilities or brace for retaliation. Egypt, Sudan, and Morocco underscore the importance of “Muslim unity” in their statements.
Despite their sympathies, Arab nations find themselves unable to aid Hamas. Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, appears alarmed and desperate, urging Muslim countries worldwide, especially Arab nations, for assistance. He pointedly questions Arab leaders, asking them how much more bloodshed and carnage of children, women, and the elderly in Gaza they require before rising in Palestinian defense. A disconcerted Haniyeh also remarked that pro-Israel policies have constructed an unyielding barrier between Western countries, Arabs, and Muslims.
The Abraham Accords, initiated by the United States in 2020, facilitated separate bilateral agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and Kosovo. These accords now face challenges. From their inception, they raised concerns among Middle Eastern countries, Russia, and China. Many perceived the Accords as a game-changer in the contest for dominance in the Middle Eastern market. Indeed, the Abraham Accords seem to intersect with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ambitions to link Asia, Africa, and Europe. As a result, nations like China and Russia have approached this endeavor to foster new relationships with Arab countries with caution.
India has expressed reservations about the BRI and has been supportive of Israel, influenced by its strategic position in global geopolitics. The solidarity between China and Pakistan, especially in the context of the Hamas-Israel conflict, worries India. Furthermore, India recently emphasized its stance that the BRI challenges its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Hamas-Israel conflict has deepened global divisions concerning the Middle East. NATO members, with notable visits from US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, have shown support for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a show of support for Israel, the United States dispatched two warships to the Mediterranean Sea. Conversely, China deployed six warships to the same region.
Arab nations collectively call for an immediate halt to Israeli offensives. Such events indicate the stalling of efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nations party to the Abraham Accords have expressed that, given the prevailing sentiment among Muslims, there’s an urgent call to halt Israeli offensives. Failing this, they might suspend their endeavors to foster normalized ties with Israel. Such reconciliation efforts under the accords have been in progress since 2020.
Thus far, Israeli strikes on Gaza have resulted in over 6,500 fatalities, while Hamas attacks on Israel have claimed 1,400 lives. From Gaza, there are reports of hospitals, including ICUs, facing acute water shortages. Notably, organizations like the Red Cross are absent from Gaza. Supply routes are under attack, making aid deliveries challenging.
Given the circumstances, many in Gaza wish to evacuate, but they’re thwarted by the sealed borders of neighboring nations. Facing such dire conditions, Palestinians are increasingly appearing beleaguered in their struggle for survival.
The European Union and Japan, displaying compassion, have advocated for a temporary ceasefire, but their appeals seemingly go unheeded on the ground.
While the world proclaims its commitment to humanity, the prioritization of peace seems half-hearted at best. The so-called commitment to humanity increasingly appears hollow, as the allure of warfare reveals itself as the grim reality. Global hegemony has fragmented our world. Rather than earnest efforts to cease hostilities, weapons, ammunition, and warships are supplied to the conflicting parties, further inciting aggression. Israel has already engaged in intermittent skirmishes with nations like Lebanon and Syria. Should this conflict extend to Iran, the specter of a world war might loom larger than mere threats. Moreover, Iran consistently issues ultimatums to Israel.
In the prevailing scenario, if Arab nations were to militarize against Israel, the ensuing conflict could entangle the globe for an extended duration. Such a war would not be contained; it would culminate in horrific carnage and might reshape the world’s economic order. Is it this daunting prospect that restrains Arab countries from escalating beyond verbal confrontations? Historically, Arab nations have faced repercussions for opposing Israel. However, it’s undeniable that the present-day Arab world is more formidable than in past years. Yet, confronting Israel and a NATO coalition spearheaded by the US remains a formidable challenge for them.
One wonders to what extent Arab nations can assist Hamas. Additionally, can they evade the combined pressures of Israel, the US, and the European Union? Following the Hamas offensive, the US and Israel have positioned 62 aircraft equipped with advanced weaponry along various frontiers. The US has stationed 15 heavy-lift aircraft in Jordan, alongside two fighter squadrons and Special Forces units. Furthermore, there are 20 US heavy-lift aircraft in Cyprus.
If a global conflict ensues, it’s evident it won’t be confined to just the Arab-Israeli context. The struggle for worldwide dominance could spawn multiple theaters of conflict, potentially involving India-Pakistan and the India-China borders. Such developments pose risks for India. The US isn’t as aligned with India as it is with Israel. Historically, India’s foreign policy has often clashed with the aspirations of dominant global powers, the US included. In such a scenario, India would need to navigate challenges independently. Given the religious dimensions of the Arab-Israel conflict and the significant portion of the Indian population opposing Israel on religious grounds, siding with pro-Israel factions could exacerbate India’s dilemmas. Hence, India has consistently pursued a balanced foreign policy. It’s hoped that the global community will also strive for equilibrium, especially when the very fabric of humanity is at stake.
