Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

FILE PHOTO: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (L) greets Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, June 14, 2021. © AFP / Francois Mori

Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen
HomeWorld News
21 June 2024

The outgoing Dutch prime minister and the next likely NATO chief, Mark Rutte, said that the EU would have to build some form of relationship with Russia when the Ukraine conflict ended.

Rutte visited Finland on Thursday for talks with President Alexander Stubb and Prime Minister Petteri Orpo on European security, including military assistance to Ukraine. Reuters reported that Stubb later told reporters that Rutte will likely become the US-led military bloc’s next secretary general.

               ”At this moment, Russia, of course, is our primary adversary, and we have to ensure that Ukraine wins…” Rutte stated at a press conference following his meeting with Orpo.

               “Russia will not go away… and we have to find in the longer term a form of relationship with Russia,” he said, adding, "At this moment, it’s tough to foresee how that will play out.”

NATO’s current Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, will finish his second term in October. The outgoing Dutch premier is reportedly the preferred successor, having secured support among the bloc’s member states. Under NATO rules, the secretary general must be decided “by consensus,” which means Rutte needs the backing of all bloc members.

However, some NATO states, particularly Hungary, have consistently opposed the bloc’s position on the Ukraine conflict, arguing that it is inching closer to war with Russia. Prime Minister Viktor Orban also warned this week of “war psychosis” in the EU over the Ukraine conflict.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte (L) and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (R) meet at an EU summit in Brussels, Belgium, on June 17, 2024. © X/zoltanspox

Despite his grievances, Dutch media reported this week that Orban is moving closer to backing Rutte, having received assurances that Hungary would not be required to send troops to Ukraine or fund its conflict with Russia.

According to the Financial Times, the two men talked at an EU leaders' dinner on Monday night.

Twenty-nine of 32 NATO member states have backed Rutte's candidacy. His replacement must have the unanimous support of all the bloc’s members.

Budapest threatened to veto Rutte’s appointment due to his comments regarding Hungary’s domestic policies. In 2021, Rutte denounced Orban’s anti-LGBT legislation, saying:

               “Hungary has no business being in the European Union anymore.”

He added that, at the time,

               “The long-term aim” was to “bring Hungary to its knees.”

Earlier this year, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that Budapest,

               “certainly couldn’t support the election of a person… who previously wanted to force Hungary on its knees.”

Viktor Orban reportedly said he would drop his objections earlier this month if Rutte apologized for his comments.

The Hungarian leader has also been a vocal critic of the bloc’s stance on Ukraine and of the policy of sending military aid to the country to help it fight Russia. In May, he threatened to “redefine” Hungary’s NATO membership. Last week, Stoltenberg assured Orban that Hungary could opt out of the bloc’s Ukraine-related policies and would not be forced to participate in military action outside NATO territory.

According to the AFP account of the meeting, Orban did not seek an apology. The agency added that Rutte clarified that he had noted the “societal reaction” to his 2021 comments.

Hungary’s prime minister reportedly told the NATO chief hopeful that he would back him if Rutte agreed to stick by the arrangement offered by Stoltenberg. Rutte promised that he would, Financial Times said.

Use of F-16s over Russian territory ‘not escalation’ – NATO chief

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg speaks to the press on June 13, 2024 in Brussels, Belgium. © Omar Havana / Getty Images

Ukrainian strikes anywhere inside Russia using Western-donated F-16 aircraft would not escalate the conflict and would not make NATO member states parties to it, the military bloc’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has claimed.

Several European nations intend to provide dozens of the warplanes once Ukraine has pilots and ground infrastructure to fly them.

Speaking ahead of a NATO defense ministers’ gathering in Brussels, Stoltenberg said, “Different allies have different types of restrictions on the use of their weapons,” and welcomed the recent relaxation of these rules by some member states.

Washington reportedly gave Kyiv the green light to fire American weapons at targets outside of what the two nations insist is Ukrainian territory, allowing strikes inside Russia’s Belgorod Region as part of the fight for the neighboring Kharkiv Region. Other Western countries have also said their weapons can be used similarly.

Ukraine has the right to defend itself, and this includes “striking legitimate military targets” on the territory of Russia, Stoltenberg declared. “Self-defense is not escalation,” he added.

“And we have the right to help Ukraine,” he continued. “By doing that, NATO allies don’t become party to the conflict.”

Moscow perceives the entire conflict as part of a US-initiated proxy war against Russia. It considers NATO’s increasing military presence in Ukraine and its intention to eventually bring the nation into the fold as significant national security risks.

NATO member states arming Ukraine, providing “mercenaries” to bolster its troops, and helping Kyiv to plan and deliver attacks against Russia are de facto participants in the hostilities, senior Russian officials persist.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any attacks using Western weapons deep inside Russia will be retaliated against.

He suggested that Moscow could supply long-range weapons from its arsenal to third parties (Editor: Iran?), who would then use them against Western military assets.

Putin warned that such a tit-for-tat escalation could lead to a major disaster for all parties involved.

Andrey Kartapolov, the Russian State Duma Defense Committee chairman, said last week:

               Moscow would consider any bases used by Kyiv to fly donated F-16s as legitimate military targets regardless of what country they are located in.

Russia perceives the conflict as part of a US-initiated proxy war against it, given NATO’s increasing military presence in Ukraine, and regards the military bloc’s intention to eventually offer membership to Kyiv as a significant national security risk.

Moscow has warned that Western-backed long-range attacks on Russian territory will indeed amount to direct Western participation in the conflict and that Russia will retaliate in kind.

________________________

BREAKING NEWS

NATO agrees on the new chief. Mark Rutte has secured the consent of 32 all-bloc members to replace Jens Stoltenberg, who had been secretary-general since 2014.

Russia will ‘never’ withdraw troops – Putin. Ukraine is making unrealistic demands so it won’t have to make peace or hold elections, Vladimir Putin has said to his audience in Vietnam.

Russia could arm North Korea – Putin. If the West can arm Ukraine with impunity, Moscow has the same right, the Russian president said in Vietnam.

Editor’s note | Does this mean Russia can prosecute a war by proxy like the West … I mean, arm Iran, Cuba, and China too with its supersonic rockets, launched at 25,000 mph?

Isn’t it time for all warring parties to go home and, as the younger generation says, “Chill out?”

_________________________

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen.

FEWER AND FEWER WESTERNERS ARE BUYING THE ‘ATLANTICISM’ IDEA

A recent poll has shown that many US and Western European people are tired of NATO’s professed goals.

FILE PHOTO. Polish (L) and British (R) soldiers prepare for a visit of the Polish and UK prime ministers and the NATO secretary-general in Warsaw, Poland, April 23, 2024. © Sergei GAPON / AFP

Tarik Cyril Amar, a German historian and professor at Koç University, Istanbul, specializes in Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern European studies; the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

@tarikcyrilamartarikcyrilamar.substack.comtarikcyrilamar.com

19 Jun, 2024 20:51

HomeWorld News

As a political de-facto entity, the post-Cold War West has always struggled to articulate a common purpose. The underlying cause of this difficulty is that the real existing (as opposed to the ideologically imagined) West – despite appeals to historical, cultural, and value commonalities – is defined by geopolitics. It emerged out of World War II as a sphere of Cold War US domination and hegemony, especially in Western Europe. The declared purpose is subservience to the US empire. This is not the kind of thing that lends itself to open acknowledgment.

The reach of this American empire, dating back to at least 1823 – the year of the original if somewhat casual announcement of the Monroe Doctrine – has, of course, not been restricted to this West. Ask those it bruised, bought, subjugated, and often killed in South America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. However, the West is unique because it holds a critical and privileged position. Some American strategists – such as the late Polish-born Zbigniew Brzezinski – have made a fetish out of arguing that without Ukraine, Russia cannot be an empire. While it is not clear that post-Cold War Russia wants an empire (not the same as a sphere of influence), the US can inevitably be one without its hold over Europe – that is, the Atlantic edge of the Eurasian ‘heartland.’

And yet, when the Cold War ended, European states had no conceivable good security reason to remain subservient to the US. The Soviet Union and its Eastern European military alliance – the Warsaw Pact, an organization that President Joe Biden can now only remember as “that other outfit” – were gone, and the EU, with all its flaws, could have provided an institutional basis for establishing an autonomous European power bloc second to none in the world.

There would have been no need for abrupt economic or, for that matter, political disruption either. Ideally, Europe could have maintained a cooperative-competitive relationship with the US while gradually but persistently transforming it into one between equals. Now, a third of a century after the end of the Soviet Union, we should be living in that kind of world. If the end of the Cold War liberated Eastern Europe from Soviet hegemony, it should also have ended American domination in Western Europe. Instead, it brought that hegemony to almost all of Europe.

Western European elites – most of all in Paris and Berlin (London would always have been a spoiler) – failed abysmally at what Bismarck called “seizing the mantle of history.” Rather than responding to a fundamental geopolitical shift with a strategy of their own and in Europe’s interests, they held tight to Washington and – with few, ultimately irrelevant exceptions – obediently followed its power-drunk elites into their ‘unipolar moment’ delusions, including catastrophic interventions in the Middle East and the expansion of NATO.

Ironically, the main result of this pusillanimous non-strategy was to produce the world of conflict and extremely high tension that we see now. If Europe had acted as a balancer between the US on one side and Russia and China on the other, it could have made a decisive contribution to making Washington more rational and smoothing the inevitable transition to a multipolar world.

The Europeans could, for instance, have stopped the reckless dead-end policy of offering a NATO membership perspective to Georgia and Ukraine. They knew it was dangerous, so they objected at the Bucharest meeting 2008. But then, of course, they caved. The result: Two wars, one (Georgia) short and lost, the other (Ukraine) long, ongoing, devastating, and with the real potential to go first regional and then global.

This brings us to the present. The ‘unipolar moment,’ which never really was, is well and truly over. Russia has the upper hand in the Ukraine conflict, that is, the single most hubristic and risky undertaking of the post-Cold War West. If, in 2022, Westerners mused about how Moscow could quit the war without a catastrophic loss of face, that shoe is now on the other foot. It is hard to see how the West can wind down its proxy war without suffering unprecedentedly severe damage from a combination of mutual blame-game recrimination and loss of credibility.

Against this background, the New York-based Institute for Global Affairs of the Eurasia Group geopolitical consulting firm has published a report, based on representative polling, that points to some critical divergences within the West. The report's authors acknowledge that their West sample is limited to the US, France, Germany, and Great Britain. The European states were “selected for their geopolitical influence and geostrategic importance to the US,” even though they are “not especially representative of Europe – or even Western Europe – as a whole.”

While the polls were conducted according to professional standards and much of the accompanying commentary is reasonably factual, ideological bias should also be considered. Eurasia Group is deeply in sync with American geopolitics. The dissidents’ voice this is not, as attentive readers can guess, for instance, from the grotesquely cautious phrasing of a question about Israel’s atrocities in Gaza – respondents are coyly asked if they feel that what Israel is doing ‘resembles’ war crimes. Sure, the way Al Capone ‘resembled’ a mafia don.

Yet the mainstream angle of a survey that also comes with lofty rhetoric about the ‘rules-based order’ and ‘beacons of liberal democracy’ makes signs of divergence and dissonance within the West only more pertinent. While the report covers much ground – including attitudes toward ‘democracy,’ China, and Israel – two points stand out about the relationship between the US and its Western European clients. First, the polls found that most of the four countries surveyed favored a negotiated end to the Ukraine war. Second, they revealed that many European respondents distrust the US.

There “is broad transatlantic support for urging a negotiated settlement to end” the Ukraine conflict. Note the details here. These respondents are not simply articulating a desire for peace. Instead, they believe Western governments should push Kyiv to accept a compromise. Across the US and the three European countries, the three factors shaping the respondents’ positions the most are their concern to avoid “escalation to a wider regional war that draws in other European countries,” to avoid “direct war between nuclear-armed powers,” and to prevent “the further suffering of the Ukrainian people.”

Significantly, positions associated with the declared policies and propaganda of Ukraine and Western governments did badly. Compare, for instance, 38% of American and 47% of European respondents in favor of “avoiding escalation to a wider regional war,” against 17% in the US and 22% in Europe who still believe in “fully restoring the pre-2022 invasion borders of Ukraine” (already excluding Crimea, incidentally, and thus a more moderate position than Kyiv’s official war aims). And the answering options: “deterring strong autocratic countries from invading weaker democratic neighbors” and “weakening Russia to punish it for its aggression”– classics of anti-Russian information war – found even less agreement.

Concerning European attitudes toward the US, there is a preponderant consensus – shared, as it happens by the US respondents – that Europe should either “be primarily responsible for its defense, while aiming to preserve the NATO alliance with the United States” (the majority view) or even “manage its defense and seek a more neutral relationship with the United States.” In France, Germany, and Great Britain, 86-93% of respondents chose one of these two options. Conversely, only 8-13% opted for “The United States should be primarily responsible for Europe’s defense.”

Many Europeans do not like their massive dependence on Washington. While many want a cooperative relationship, including NATO, they prefer a Europe that could care for itself. Others wish for that and, in addition, more distance from America, and while this is a minority view, those minorities are substantial. Even in Great Britain, which traditionally is incredibly close to the US, 17% are for more neutrality toward Washington; in Germany, 25%, and in France, once the home of Gaullism, 31%.

One reason for these attitudes is that Europeans do not trust the US very much. While a majority still believes that Washington’s commitment to its security obligations is either ‘somewhat’ (46%) or ‘very reliable’ (6%), almost as many respondents think the opposite: 36% see America as ‘somewhat’ and 10% as ‘very unreliable.’ In Germany, the share of the skeptics approaches 50%, and in France, it reaches 50%.

The survey’s authors speculate that these results could reflect anxiety over a future Trump presidency or “be connected to a perception of a longer-term decline in America’s status as the sole superpower in a unipolar world.” In reality, both factors are likely to play a role. More importantly, in the long run, this is a distinction that will not make a difference. Donald Trump’s isolationism (for want of a better term) is a symptom of America’s decline. As is sometimes the case, the disruptive candidate is uncouth enough to draw the inevitable conclusions in public.

It is ironic, but it also tells us that this survey bears the title ‘The New Atlanticism.’ It's ironic because, if anything, it shows that Atlanticism is tired. Telling because it raises an obvious question: What is this rather ersatz ‘ism,’ haplessly named after an ocean? The authors would probably answer that it has something to do with history, liberal democracy, individualism, the rule of law, civil society, etc. But even if we accept these simple ideological memes and Western self-idealizations at face value – for the sake of argument – how do they add up to a relationship in which the US keeps subordinating Europe?

Indeed, these high ideals contradict the brute realities of the American empire. In that sense, Atlanticism is what modern ideologies usually are—a fundamentally dishonest story rationalizing the powers that be. The most exciting thing about this survey is the evidence that even now, exposed to intense and systematic fearmongering, substantial numbers of Western Europeans are not entirely persuaded by this story.

CARNEGIE EUROPE COMMENTARY | EUROPE’S NEW LEADERSHIP FACES A TEAMWORK TEST

The incoming EU leadership must navigate political turbulence and internal power dynamics. Working together as a real team would help in tackling the challenges ahead.

Source: Getty

By Stefan Lehne

Carnegie Foundation Europe
20 June 2024

Despite some last-minute bickering among party groups, the European Council, representing the EU member states, appears on track to decide who will get the EU’s top jobs at its June 27-28 meeting.

Preliminary talks have indicated broad support for three names. Ursula von der Leyen is set to get another term at the helm of the European Commission, Portugal’s former prime minister António Costa should assume the presidency of the European Council, and Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has good chances to be designated as the new high representative for foreign and security policy.

Of course, several hurdles remain to be cleared. The European Council has to propose the new commission president to the European Parliament, which will probably decide on her election in mid-July. Ursula von der Leyen’s chances of achieving the 361 votes have improved, as the European Parliament elections confirmed the majority for the traditional coalition of the European People’s Party, the Socialists and Democrats, and the Liberals. In the fall, the entire commission will be subject to another vote in the European Parliament after the parliamentary hearings with the individual commissioners have been completed.

There is a clear hierarchy between the three positions regarding real influence. The commission's president is now indisputably on top. Confronting a series of crises, the EU had to move beyond its traditional norm-setting role into executive action. The commission was the only institution to set up a vaccination program, manage a vast recovery fund after the COVID-19 pandemic, or rapidly launch massive support projects for Ukraine. As a result, the commission’s institutional position is more vital now than in decades.

Von der Leyen has steered the commission’s crisis-management efforts ably and displayed authentic leadership during the pandemic and in Ukraine. She has been criticized for concentrating power in her office and for a less-than-collegial leadership style, but the process of internal centralization started long before her time. If re-elected, von der Leyen would be in a better position than in 2019 to influence the selection of commissioners and assemble a more coherent team. However, she might also have to deal with several commissioners from Euroskeptic governments who will be sent to Brussels primarily to advance national agendas.

An even more significant challenge awaits her in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. In both bodies, the presence of populist and radical-right politicians has grown and could further increase. These forces envisage an EU in which the commission’s powers are curtailed and aim to strengthen member states' sovereignty.

Von der Leyen may face urgent challenges that require ramping up collective EU action, such as climate and digital transitions, EU competitiveness and resilience, defense, and support for Ukraine. Still, the political support and necessary funding need to be improved. She will be apprehensive about the situation in France and Germany, where the far right surged. If internal politics in both countries handicap their ability to play a constructive role at the EU level, she might well come to regret having run for a second term.

France initially conceived the role of the permanent president of the European Council as a counterweight to the president of the commission. However, the council’s president lacks the instruments and budget for significant political initiatives. Even on external representation, the commission president, who has actual competencies for critical aspects of external relations, is in a much stronger position.

Today, the president’s critical tasks are setting the European Council’s agenda and working behind the scenes to facilitate consensus among its members. At a time of political fragmentation, this work becomes ever more crucial. As a longstanding member of the European Council—from 2015 to 2024—well-liked by colleagues and respected as a highly skilled negotiator, António Costa seems to be a good fit for this role.

The role of the high representative for foreign and security policy still needs to live up to expectations. Internal crises, geopolitical turmoil, and external factors have weakened the EU’s coherence in foreign policy. Foreign ministers and the high representative who chairs their meetings have lost ground as foreign and security policy decision-making has shifted to member states’ prime ministers and the European Council.

The incumbent, Josep Borrell, faces the added challenge of von der Leyen seeing herself as a significant foreign-policy actor, thus further diminishing his role. As a high representative, Kaja Kallas would have the advantage of being a head of government. She has been and would no doubt continue to be a strong voice of support for Ukraine but will yet have to prove herself on other topics of EU foreign policy. Whether she manages to enhance the profile of her office will largely depend on her ability to forge a constructive relationship with von der Leyen and Costa.

Undoubtedly, one of the worst aspects of the outgoing team was their inability to work together. Von der Leyen and outgoing European Council President Charles Michel regarded each other as rivals, and little love was lost between Borrell and Von der Leyen. From all one knows the future top officials will likely be more agreeable and capable of acting as a team. This would not be sufficient to overcome the EU’s many problems, but it would help.

FYODOR LUKYANOV: RUSSIA NEEDS TO EXPLAIN ITS ‘RED LINES’ TO THE WEST

The US-led bloc will probably keep escalating unless Moscow outlines how to respond.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. © Kenzo TRIBOUILLARD/AFP

By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

2 June 2024

HomeRussia & FSU

There is currently an intense debate in Western Europe about whether Ukraine should be allowed to attack Russian territory with NATO weapons. Some countries, such as the UK, France, Poland, and Finland, have already said they favor it, while Germany, Italy, and the US have been opposed at the executive level. However, the idea has supporters in parliaments and security agencies. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has notably backed such plans.

The very formulation of the question is telling in itself – it reflects the peculiarity of the Ukraine conflict. What seems to be the problem? Countries that consider Kyiv an ally (even if not formally, but de facto) support it against Moscow and provide weapons for combat operations. So, what is the point of restrictions? Let them fight as Ukrainian military leaders see fit.

However, the reality is that Ukraine is not fighting on its behalf but at someone else’s behest. Without Western assistance of various kinds, it would have all ended long ago. This means that NATO is an indispensable part of the campaign, making it an active participant. The bloc recognizes the former but not the latter. Hence, the absurd conviction that the supply and use of increasingly sophisticated weapons does not constitute an escalation of the conflict. Nor does it mean that NATO itself is being drawn into a confrontation with Russia.

Passions over the use of weapons are exceptionally high in Western Europe. The US tends to shy away from the controversy. The White House reiterates its previously stated position that American weapons cannot be used against targets within Russia’s internationally recognized borders (from the American point of view, this does not apply to the former Ukrainian territories, including Crimea). Whatever, to put it mildly, peculiar politicians run the US, the self-awareness that, as a nuclear superpower, it could be involved in a full-blown atomic war still helps to concentrate minds. The Old World, on the other hand, has no such ballast. The dilemma Western Europeans face, or rather have created for themselves, is complex. They see Ukraine as the key to peace on the continent. However, this is not in the sense that it is necessary to find an option acceptable to all, including Russia, to resolve the impasse. On the contrary – there can be no negotiations with Moscow, only a military victory over it.

The occasional skeptics who warn that Kyiv will never achieve its goals cannot change the ideological mood. This is down to how the conflict is interpreted in Western Europe. Ideological and emotional exaltations dominated initially, but this mantra has become an official stance. Hence, the opinion offered as a hypothesis is that after Ukraine, the Russian armada will naturally move on to crush all of Europe, starting with the East.

Never mind that US intelligence officials outline from time to time that they don’t consider such a scenario to be part of Russian strategic planning. Western Europe’s elites think they know President Vladimir Putin better than their American friends.

But if you start from such a false premise, then yes, there is no alternative but to support Ukraine in every possible way. And, of course, lift restrictions on the use of weapons. And possibly even send more specialists who know how to use them. And perhaps eventually send combat units from individual NATO member states directly to Ukraine.

There is an important point to be made here. Whether or not the Western European establishment genuinely believes that Russian tanks will roll across Europe is becoming less important with each round of escalation. The need to build a political narrative and look capable to one’s electorate doesn’t allow for backtracking. And when French President Emmanuel Macron initially announced the possibility of sending a French contingent for the sake of a headline, as he is prone to do, he couldn't go back on what he had said.

The same Macron, followed by members of his government, found an explanation for his statements in the need to create an atmosphere of “strategic ambiguity.” Let the Russians fret over what we mean and be afraid. Such a technique is used in war gaming, but it usually implies or precedes a state of direct and very sharp confrontation. So, I'm afraid the assumption that such tactics can be avoided is incorrect. That is why the US, which understands the level of responsibility better, is not particularly inclined to play this game now.

The story of the acute phase of the military conflict in Ukraine has seen the West constantly raising the ceiling of the possible and lowering the risk threshold. If Western strategists had been told in the spring of 2022 what the extent of their involvement would be by the spring of 2024, they probably wouldn’t have believed it. However, the course is linear, so there is no reason to expect a different dynamic. In other words, everything that is first discussed as a hypothetical escalation will eventually become real. Both in terms of the use of weapons and deployment of troops.

What should be done in such a situation? The time for strategic ambiguity is over, as is the increasingly ritualized talk of ‘red lines.’ At the very least, Russia needs to be very clear about the steps it will take in response to NATO’s actions. Vagueness only encourages flip-flopping and fosters a sense of impunity.

ISRAEL’S ISOLATION: AN ANTI-SEMITIC HORROR STORY OR INEVITABLE OUTCOME?

Opinions are split on the impact of the Gaza war on West Jerusalem, but the trend is worrying.

FILE PHOTO. © Burak Kara/Getty Images

By Elizabeth Blade

Middle East Correspondent
HomeWorld News
19 June 2024

Since the beginning of the war between Israel and Hamas last October, Bolivia and Colombia have severed their ties with the Jewish state. Chile, Jordan, and Brazil have recalled their ambassadors, whereas Türkiye has ceased its economic cooperation with Israel in response to its brutality in Gaza.

Almost ten months have passed since Israel launched its war on Gaza following the deadly Hamas attack of October 7, which claimed the lives of more than 1,500 people and injured over 5,000 others.

In its struggle to dismantle Hamas and ensure it no longer poses a threat, Israel has left no stone unturned in its pursuit of militants. The problem is that in the process of doing so, it has also claimed the lives of innocent people. Although the numbers are disputed, Palestinian statistics show that more than 37,000 Palestinians – mainly women and children – have lost their lives. A recent poll revealed that more than 60% of Gazans have lost relatives in the conflict.

Images of the dead, wounded, and starving, coupled with Gaza’s total devastation, have rocked the world. Mass protests denouncing Israel and calling for an end to its bloody war on Gaza have become a weekly reality; rallies and encampments on university campuses have turned into an ordinary phenomenon.

Growing isolation?

But the dissatisfaction with Israel’s policies doesn’t only stem from the masses. In recent months, the leaderships of various states have also joined the chorus of anti-Israel sentiment. Last November, one month into Israel’s Gaza offensive, Bolivia severed its relations with the Jewish state. Several months later, Colombia took a similar step; states such as Jordan, Chile, and Brazil recalled their ambassadors. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Türkiye announced that his country would cut off economic relations with Israel.

European states have also chimed in. Norway, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia have already recognized Palestine in response to Israel’s ongoing onslaught, and more countries promise to do the same, sending a message to Israel that it will be isolated if it doesn’t cease its current policies towards the Palestinians. Criticism is also heard from states that are generally supportive of Israel, such as the UK, France, Germany, and the US, whose leaders have already indicated that their patience is wearing thin.

Looking at the diplomatic mess his country is currently in, Dr. Alon Liel, a former Israeli diplomat and an ex-director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, pins the blame not only on the ongoing war and the “weaker standing” of Israel on the international arena but also on Israel’s continuous occupation of the West Bank.

According to reports, 2023 set a record for West Bank settlement construction and recognition of illegal outposts. In 2024, Israeli authorities approved the construction of 3,400 new units in the disputed area; a record amount of West Bank land was declared state-owned property.

Liel believes Israel’s standing might be at risk. “It all depends on the continuation,” he says. “If this criticism continues over the next few months, the situation will worsen. It could not only damage Israel’s image and its international standing, but it could also upgrade Palestine’s international status, [something that the current government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strived to avoid – ed.].”

Israel stands strong?

But not everyone agrees. Rolene Marks, spokeswoman for the South Africa Zionist Federation, claims it would be “a stretch to say that Israel is perceived negatively in the world.”

               “We can’t make a sweeping statement that Israel is isolated,” she says. “The opposite is true. There is a phenomenal amount of support [towards Israel]. While many countries have been critical of the state, we haven’t seen any major breaks in international relations so far,” she added.

               One of the reasons for this, she says, is the world’s understanding of “who Israel is dealing with,” referring to Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by many international players.

               Another reason for this could be the realization that Israel is “a strong economic and technological powerhouse” – needed for their success.

               “If these countries cared about the Palestinians, they would have been more vocal when Palestinians were protesting against Hamas or when they were gassed in the Yarmouk camp in 2013,” Marks says.

               “These countries’ comments and deeds are driven by their political agendas. One of our allies, for example, is currently in the middle of an election cycle. Others have massive Muslim communities, which they don’t want to frustrate. So, public statements to the media are one thing. What’s happening behind closed doors – is another.”

Recent data released by Israel’s Bureau of Statistics shows that in 2024, exports by medium-high technology industries increased by 4.8% annually, and consumer goods imports increased by 13.9%.

Military cooperation between Israel and other states has also been given a boost. On Monday, the Israeli Defense Ministry announced that its exports have doubled within five years, with over a third of all agreements signed in 2023, including missiles, rockets, and air defense systems. In April, when Israel was attacked by hundreds of Iranian drones, a coalition of the US, UK, France, and Jordan came to its aid, allegedly backing several Gulf states. Earlier this week, Israel’s chief of staff, Herzi Halevi, traveled to Manama, where he discussed security cooperation with several generals from Bahrain, the UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

The trouble is that very often, generals and governments don’t represent the mood of the general public, and that public seems to have grown more hostile towards Israel since the beginning of the war.

According to a recent poll, 68% of Saudi Arabian respondents said they rejected the notion of recognizing Israel. Similar views have been expressed in Morocco and Sudan, where the rejection stood at 78% and 81%, respectively.

In Europe and the US, anti-Israel flames have also been high. In 2023, America registered a total of 7,532 Jewish hate crime incidents, as compared to 2022, when the official figure stood at less than 4,000. France has seen 1,676 anti-Semitic crimes, as opposed to 436 in 2022; in the UK, 4,103 incidents have been reported; in Germany, they stood at 3,614 – also a significant increase compared to previous years.

               “Since October, we have seen an insane rise in anti-Semitism. It has reached a boiling point and is now bubbling over,” says Marks.

               “It is time world leaders do something about it.”

For Liel, however, the solution is outside the hands of world leaders. The key, he says, is in the hands of Israeli politicians and their policies.

               “All they need to do is to accept the UN Security Council plan [presupposing the return of the hostages and the cessation of hostilities – ed.], stop the expansion of settlements, and [act] to prevent settlers’ attacks against the Palestinians,” he concluded.

FOR NOW, A POLITICAL SOLUTION IS NOT ON THEIR LIST

By voicing support for the expansion of Israel's borders to new territories while they can't even protect civilians in their current homes, Israeli far-right leaders are making it evident that keeping Israelis alive or securing the future by working toward a political solution is not on their list.

By Maya Lecker
Haaretz Israel
18 June 2024

In April, Haaretz reporter Linda Dayan traveled less than two hours north of Tel Aviv to Alonim Junction east of Haifa, where far-right activists organized a demonstration calling on Israel to occupy southern Lebanon and allow Jewish Israelis to settle there. About two dozen people showed up, most of them self-described extremists.

When asked why the idea of erecting Israeli settlements in Lebanon hadn't gained much traction yet, maybe, "It hasn't occurred to anybody."

Two months later, a few hundred people tuned in on Monday for an online conference on the subject, which included a panel titled "Successful Models of Settlement from the Past and Lessons for South Lebanon."

As Anshel Pfeffer writes in his account of what took place, the thought of it not being "an event worthy of coverage" did cross his mind. But then Daniella Weiss – a far-right extremist sometimes dubbed the godmother of the settlement movement in the West Bank – reminisced about breaking ground in Samaria 50 years ago. Later, Hagi ben Artzi, aka the brother of Sara Netanyahu, said: "We're not radical. We don't want a meter beyond the Euphrates River." (Yes, the one that runs through Iraq, Syria and Turkey.) It became apparent that these "delusional extremists" were severe. And they have gotten their way before.

Most Israelis would still chuckle when presented with the idea of moving to an Israeli-occupied southern Lebanon. They are also spooked by the seriousness with which some ministers, military officers, and rabbis discuss resettling the Gaza Strip with Jews. But while most Israelis still think of extremist settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank as a fringe trend taking place somewhere far, far away, a parliamentary caucus advocating for Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip is convening in Israel's Knesset.

On Tuesday, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir participated in its first session, attended by lawmakers, settler leaders, and activists. He promised that the government is "committed to returning to Gaza" and stressed that resettlement "must be accompanied by encouraging emigration" of Palestinians from the area. Former MK Moshe Feiglin, who only this week quoted Hitler fondly, said: "We must return not only to Gaza but also to 'the northern Galilee,' at least up to the Litani River" in Lebanon.

Israel's military response to Hamas' attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 has killed almost 40,000 Gazans and turned vast parts of the Strip to rubble. In the last few months, Hezbollah has made large parts of northern Israel unlivable. Hundreds of thousands of residents have left or are spending their days dodging missiles, exploding drones, and fires.

By voicing support for the expansion of Israel's borders to new territories while they can't even protect civilians in their current homes, Israel's far-right leaders – the people who hold the most political power right now – are being very clear about their intentions and plans. Keeping Israelis alive or securing the future by working toward a political solution is not on their list. If you can't see that, you must be delusional.

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen

Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're in search of the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge promotes understanding, dispels prejudice, and awakens the desire to learn more. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet its misuse can do untold harm, leading to misunderstanding, prejudice, and conflict.

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation