By fully supporting Israel in its war against Hamas, the West has raised the ire of Arab states and many countries in the Global South that have joined the Palestinian cause. But even beyond this traditional dividing line, tensions within the Western world are increasing as the humanitarian situation in Gaza worsens.
It was supposed to be a historic visit, that of a politically experienced American president, a specialist in international affairs who was able to speak to both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But as Joe Biden stepped off Air Force One and found himself in the arms of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, October 18, the Democrat never seemed far from his image as an “honest broker” in the Middle East.
Joe Biden had initially planned to meet with the Israeli prime minister in Tel Aviv and then with Arab leaders in Jordan. But after Tuesday night’s attack on a hospital in the besieged Gaza Strip, Jordan’s King Abdullah II canceled a planned meeting between the American president, Egyptian President Abdelfatah al-Sisi and Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas.
A slap in the face to Joe Biden and a sign of the apparent lack of confidence in the United States’ ability to reduce the level of violence in Gaza.
In the end, the American president traveled more than 9,000 kilometers to meet with just one of the parties involved, making Washington appear more one-sided than ever before in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“When visits of this kind take place, two things are required (…) dialogue and trust. Both were seriously undermined by the attack on the hospital. And this has seriously impaired President Biden’s ability to present himself as a mediator in this crisis,” explains Philippe Turle, international columnist for France 24.
Israel attributed the attack on Al-Ahli Hospital to the Palestinian armed groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However, in the absence of an independent investigation, the Israeli military’s claim that the explosion was due to a missile firing error failed to dampen anger in the Arab world.
On Wednesday there were demonstrations in the occupied West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iran, Libya and Yemen. Numerous rallies also took place outside the embassies of major Western powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France.
Protesters wave Palestinian flags near the U.S. Consulate in Awkar, Lebanon, October 18, 2023. © Portal / Zohra Bensemra
The countries of the South, criticized for failing to respect the principles of international law during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are now retaliating by citing the West’s “double standards” and its selective response to possible war crimes.
The rules of the game vary
While the war in Ukraine exposed the fissures that run through the international community, recent episodes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have deepened them even further, particularly with the rising powers of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
And this crisis in the Middle East doesn’t just divide the North from the South. It also angers some of Washington’s European allies, who have worked tirelessly to build consensus on respect for international law and human rights since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Two days after Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attack, the leaders of five major Western countries – the United States, France, Germany, Britain and Italy – issued a joint statement expressing their “firm and united support for “the state” of Israel” and its “unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and its heinous acts of terrorism.” The lengthy statement briefly mentions “the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people” but gives no details about how these might be achieved.
A very different statement than, for example, that of South Africa, which issued a statement on the day of the attack without mentioning Hamas by name, calling for “the immediate cessation of violence, moderation and peace between Israel and the Palestinian territories.”
In general, three types of reactions have emerged in recent weeks following the Hamas attack and the Israeli offensive against the Gaza Strip: countries that strongly support Israel, countries that call for a ceasefire and finally countries that support Hamas.
Protesters with Palestinian flags near the US Consulate during a protest in support of Palestinians in Casablanca, October 18, 2023. © AFP / Fadel Senna
“There is no doubt that this crisis is exacerbating divisions because it reinforces the South’s view of double standards.” [de Occidente]“says Michel Duclos, former French ambassador to Syria and special adviser to the Montaigne Institute based in Paris.
“From the South’s perspective, economic and geostrategic interests have exacerbated disagreements over the war in Ukraine. “The abyss that has opened up around the Israeli-Palestinian question is also fueled by emotional elements,” he believes.
For the countries of the South, “there is a form of hypocrisy on the part of the West, which prioritizes not so much its interests as its own feelings. “The West has special feelings towards Israel, Israeli interests and Israeli suffering.” In the countries of the South, this is seen as a selective emotion and selective rules of the game.”
The “surprising” US veto at the UN
“The question is not whether the South is united and has a unified stance; “That’s unlikely under these circumstances,” says Sarang Shidore, director of the South Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft based in Washington, DC. “The question is whether.” There are enough countries in the South that feel driven by this issue and are important actors. Are you ready to respond and express your views? The answer to both of these questions is ‘yes,'” the expert concludes.
According to Shidore, the nature of the southern countries’ response will depend on how the situation in the Gaza Strip develops. If the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, some countries may request a vote in the United Nations General Assembly, while the Security Council appears unable to agree on a common position.
As Joe Biden told reporters in Tel Aviv on Wednesday that he had persuaded Israel to authorize limited humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for “humanitarian pauses,” to enable aid access to the Palestinian enclave.
The resolution, supported by Brazil, condemned violence against all civilians, including “the atrocious terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas.” Twelve member countries of the 15-member Security Council voted in favor of the resolution. Russia and the United Kingdom abstained. The United States, one of the five permanent members, voted against it, enough to reject any resolution. US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield criticized the text for not mentioning Israel’s right to self-defense.
The US vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” to provide life-saving assistance to millions of people in Gaza
Fallen: 12 (Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates)
Against: 1 (USA)
Abstentions: 2 Russia, United Kingdom pic.twitter.com/y4tiAbRMUQ— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) October 18, 2023
This is the second proposed resolution to fail at the United Nations since the conflict between Israel and Hamas began. On Monday, the Security Council rejected a Russian-drafted text that called for an “immediate ceasefire,” “unhindered” humanitarian access to Gaza and a condemnation of “all” killings of civilians, Israelis and Palestinians.
The United States, United Kingdom, France and Japan voted against the Russian resolution. At the time, Linda Thomas-Greenfield criticized Moscow for not mentioning Hamas in the draft text.
No to the “ceasefire”, yes to the “duty to respond”
Semantics is a serious matter at the United Nations, and it was not just Hamas’s omission that derailed the Russian resolution, but also the mention of the term “ceasefire.”
Shortly after Israel began bombing the Gaza Strip last week, the U.S. State Department sent a directive warning American diplomats not to use three specific phrases: “de-escalation/ceasefire,” “end the violence/bloodshed,” and ” Restoration of calm”. according to a Huffington Post report that was confirmed by The Washington Post.
Washington has also changed its commitment to Israel’s “right to respond,” converting it in recent days into an “obligation to respond.”
After the U.S. veto on Wednesday, Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Zhang Jun accused the United States of leading Security Council members to believe the resolution could be adopted even though they had not expressed opposition during negotiations. He called the vote “simply incredible.”
Brazil, a founding member of the BRICS bloc of emerging economies that currently holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council, also issued an angry statement deploring the U.S. blockade.
“Brazil considers it urgent that the international community establishes a ceasefire and restarts the peace process,” the Brazilian Foreign Ministry said.
The European Union’s divisions are coming to light
For the first time since the Hamas attack on October 7, France broke with its Western allies in the Security Council and voted in favor of the Brazilian draft resolution. In a press release, the French Foreign Ministry expressed “regret” that the Security Council had failed to adopt a “good text,” according to its representative to the United Nations, Nicolas de Rivière.
At a special EU summit on Tuesday, several leaders warned that failure to defend the rights of Palestinians in Gaza would expose Western states to accusations of hypocrisy, the Financial Times reported, citing several officials.
EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen was also heavily criticized for not explicitly calling on the Jewish state to respect international law in its war on Gaza during a trip to Israel last week.
Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar publicly stated that the European Commission President’s comments “lacked balance” and stressed that she “does not speak for Ireland”.
“Europeans fear that they are not complying with international law. Ursula von der Leyen’s stance of unconditional solidarity with Israel is seen as one-sided and is causing them to lose soft power in the global south. Europe is more dependent on soft power than the United States, which often relies more heavily on hard power, even though this is increasingly counterproductive, Shidore said.
Both the US and EU have increased humanitarian aid to the Palestinians since the Israeli bombings following the Hamas attack. The EU’s aid to the Palestinians is the “price of their guilty conscience at the disappearance of the prospect of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel,” noted French journalist and writer Gilles Paris in Le Monde.
The question, however, is how long Brussels will tolerate Israel’s repeated destruction of EU-funded Gaza infrastructure. The 27-member bloc has been divided on the issue for some time, but the debate has remained behind closed doors. If the EU decides to shift the debate to the public and political stage, it could receive significant help from the Global South.
The United States has the necessary military equipment to overcome differences with its European allies on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. But it will win no friends in the soft power competition, and both Russia and China are ready and able to take their place in the Global South community that is emerging to transform the existing world order.
*Adapted from the English original