On 7th October 2023, the global political sphere underwent turmoil as Hamas and Israel ferociously combat each other almost the exact 50th anniversary of the attack that started the Yom Kippur War, Hamas launched an audacious assault into south Israel. The Israeli political establishment, military leadership and intelligence services having been consumed by domestic disarray and internal struggles and diverted to other tasks, were caught again by surprise.
It is however imperative to untangle the events leading to this war; As noted by Al-Jazeera, three(3) factors have triggered Hamas’ attack on Israel at this particular time;
First, the policies of the far-right Israeli government enabling settler violence in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem led to a sense of desperation among Palestinians and growing demands for a reaction. At the same time, the rising tensions in the West Bank caused by these policies necessitated the shift of Israeli forces away from the south and into the north to guard the settlements. This gave Hamas both a justification and an opportunity to attack.
Second, the Hamas leadership felt compelled to act due to the acceleration of Arab-Israeli normalisation. In recent years, this process further diminished the significance of the Palestinian issue for Arab leaders who became less keen on pressuring Israel on this matter. If a Saudi-Israeli normalisation deal had been concluded, it would have been a turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which may have eliminated the already weak chances of a two-state solution. This was also part of Hamas’s calculations.
Third, Hamas was emboldened after it managed to repair its ties with Iran. In recent years, the movement had to reconsider the political position it assumed in the wake of the Arab Spring in 2011, in opposition to Iran and its ally, the Syrian regime. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said he was personally involved in improving the relations between Hamas and Damascus. A Hamas delegation visited Damascus in October 2022 and its political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh travelled to Beirut in April and Tehran in June. Just last month, Nasrallah hosted the Secretary-General of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Ziad al-Nakhalah and the deputy chief of Hamas’s political bureau Saleh al-Arouri.
Below are the latest developments in the ongoing war:
What is the impact of the ongoing war on regional relations?
The unfolding situation is having strong reverberations around the region. Beginning with those most proximate to the conflict, for Egypt and Jordan in particular, the humanitarian crisis and Israeli military response have raised concerns of mass displacement. Accordingly, in response to an Israeli military spokesman suggesting that Palestinians in Gaza fleeing its air strikes should head to Egypt, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi said he would not allow the issue to be settled at the expense of others. King Abdullah of Jordan stressed that Israel’s displacement of one million Palestinians is a redline, fearing the precedent and potential for Israel to call for substantial numbers of West Bank Palestinians to go to Jordan so Israeli forces can confront extremist groups in the West Bank.
This further strain on Israel’s relations with Egypt and Jordan — the “original peacemakers” with Israel, and those Arab countries for which the Palestinian issue resonates most closely — will have repercussions. Israel had to withdraw its diplomatic staff from both Amman and Cairo. This triangle of relations has been the locus of efforts toward Israeli-Palestinian de-escalation, as witnessed by the 2023 U.S.-led Aqaba-Sharm El Sheikh process. Deterioration in these relations will have an impact on the prospects of ending the war and the release of the hostages and prisoners of war — which Egypt traditionally played an important role in achieving — and may affect regional stability. However, Qatar succeeded in persuading Hamas to release two American hostages and indicated that it would continue efforts to release other hostages.
It is important to remember that Hamas’ attack and the ensuing war took place as the United States was diligently working on advancing a historic Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement. Just last month, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had indicated that “every day we get closer” to normalization with Israel. However, reports indicate that the Saudis have informed Washington that they have frozen normalization talks, reinforcing that the Palestinian question is not a marginal issue in the quest for normalization.
It was in this vein that a resolution from the Arab League ministerial meeting called not only for an immediate cessation of the war, warning of the catastrophic humanitarian and security repercussions, but also warned against attempts to displace Palestinians and urged Israel to resume talks to achieve the two-state solution on the ab Peace Initiative.
A key focus of the Saudi interest in normalization has been regional stabilization and de-escalation, a theme also highlighted in the Arab League resolution that warned of the spread of violence. The extent of this concern for regional violent disintegration was underscored when the Saudi crown prince spoke to Iran’s president for the first time since ties were restored, and the UAE reportedly urged Syria not to interfere in the war. But a looming Israeli ground invasion of Gaza could render these efforts moot. For its part, Hezbollah may consider a potential total defeat of Hamas to be a redline that would force it to take more forceful action.
Who are the key players in the ongoing war?
Undoubtedly, the ongoing war as any other war would portend negative consequences on the Global world order. As warned by the World Bank Chairman, Oil prices spiked over $1 per gallon as the World Bank president, the war which is a continuum has put the global economy at a “very dangerous juncture” as Oil prices spiked over $1 per gallon.
Countries supporting Hamas (The Palestinian militant group)
In a world dominated by realist ideologies of international relations in the geo-political space, many countries are driven to pitch their tent of support for or against other nations mainly for the protection of their selfish interest ahead of any other considerations, thus, a hermeneutic understanding could be assumed as to why countries support each other. Amid the state of war, many countries, mainly the Middle East nations, have come forward to support Hamas. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi on Sunday spoke with Hamas, reported Hindustan Times. Besides, Iran has been a generous supporter of Hamas since the last many years. The country is assisting the Palestinian Militant group through financial aid and military supplies.
On the other hand, Qatar, a strong supporter of Hamas, made a statement alleging Israel will be held responsible for the ongoing escalation. Even previously, Qatar has been a prominent player among those who extended financial help to Hamas. Additionally, numerous Lebanese citizens in Beirut have expressed their solidarity with Hamas’ fight against Israel.
Countries Supporting Israel
US, UK, Australia, France, Norway, and Austria supporting Israel
The countries, mostly Western nations, which have come out in support of Israel include; the US, UK, Australia, France, Norway and Austria, among others. These countries have not only been supporting Israel but also backing its rights to self-defence against the attack by Hamas.
To show support for Israel, Indian Prime Minister Modi tweeted that “India stands in solidarity with Israel” extending support to the country. PM Modi also condoled the death of Israeli citizens in the attack by Hamas.
The devastating impact of the war has made the Bank of Israel cut growth forecast while the World Bank warns the global economy is at a ‘dangerous juncture’.
Israel’s almost $500bn economy is one of the most developed in the Middle East despite its decades-long conflict with the Palestinians, is now under serious threat owing to the ongoing war.
The country, known as the nation for start-ups, has low debt, a current account surplus and high foreign exchange reserves.
Now as Israel’s military offensive escalates, the war on Gaza is hitting the economy and putting its resilience to the test.
Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza and the occupied West Bank is much worse. This, therefore, portends global inflation as countries importing commodities from the Middle East are set to suffer the most devastating consequences. Comparatively, the era of Globalisation which spells the global interdependence of states would imply a devastating global consequence.
However, recent research reveals that China has attempted to play a neutral role in terms of who it seeks to show support for in the war through its public display of catharsis to both warring factions. The reason behind this latent show of public support for either warring faction by China could simply be attributed to the ardent desire to protect its public interest. China has been a longtime supporter of Palestine; it recognised Palestine as a state in 1988. While it also went on to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, China has typically offered more support for the Palestinian cause. This solidarity has helped China win friends in the region. “China’s current approach to this issue could resonate with the Arab world—it also could resonate with the broader Muslim-majority world,” said Dawn Murphy, an associate professor at the U.S. National War College, who has studied China-Middle East relations. “And there are many parts of the global south where China’s stance regarding the treatment of Palestinians over decades has resonated.” Moreover, This regional support has also helped China to distract from the human rights abuses against its Muslim minorities, particularly in Xinjiang. The majority-Muslim nations in the Middle East have been largely silent about China’s treatment of the Uyghurs.
Similarly, “On the surface, China and Israel appear to have a lot in common,” said Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat, a research professor at Busan University of Foreign Studies, who studies China-Middle East ties. “Both are high-tech security governments that devote a significant amount of time and energy to regulating and persecuting a Muslim population that is viewed as a security danger. Geopolitics, however, often brings together oddballs.”
China’s realist approach has especially been manifested because its diplomatic ties with the Middle East have historically been largely driven by economics—it seeks stability in the region to protect access to markets and critical resource flows. China is a top trading partner for the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and other countries across the region, and the Persian Gulf is the source of half of its oil imports.
But more recently, China has also sought to strengthen relations with Middle Eastern nations, and the global south more broadly as a counterweight to attenuating relations with Europe and the United States, Murphy said. “The Arab world, and in particular the Arab Gulf, is seen as a region of countries that share China’s interests, and that can have a complementary relationship with China,” she said.
However, despite China’s growing interest in the Middle East, experts said it has little desire to get directly involved in conflicts. Murphy has argued that China, at least for the time being, does not want to contend with the United States for a larger security role in the region. Instead, China has tried to maintain a position of neutrality and serve as a mediator between countries, as it did with Saudi Arabia and Iran. With this context, China’s hesitancy to criticize Hamas, and its effort instead to appear neutral, are only in keeping with the trend line. The diplomatic ideology of China not to engage in a direct conflict with the USA further reiterates the incumbency of a Unipolar world with the USA being the superior economic power.
It is axiomatic that Russia would endeavour to play the Devil’s Advocate in the ongoing Hamas-Israeli war as the war would erode attention from the Russo-Ukranian war. Russia could thereby leverage the war to provide scathing criticism against the USA and the West as A whole to create war to maintain its superior dominance globally. Therefore, to attain global support, Russia would carefully assess its options on who to support in the ongoing war. However, support for Hamas is most likely because
A similarity could however be drawn between Moscow and Beijing’s approach to the war. Putin who has warm ties with Netanyahu. Putin has however called for “his strong rejection and condemnation of any actions that victimize the civilian population, including women and children,” according to a Kremlin readout of the call. He also emphasized the need for a “peaceful settlement through political and diplomatic means,”
Moscow’s stance won quick praise from Hamas, which said it appreciates Russia’s call for a cease-fire. Russia’s statements also play well in the Arab world, where many have accused the U.S. and its allies of squarely supporting Israel while turning a blind eye to the rising civilian death toll in Gaza.
But this position also threatens Russia’s friendly ties with Israel, which hasn’t joined Western sanctions against Moscow or given weapons to Ukraine.
Some commentators described the anti-Israeli sentiments as a throwback to Soviet times.
“Friendship with the Arabs against Israel and the West is an important part of that legacy,” Alexander Baunov of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center said in an analysis. “A global rebellion against the Western order to a certain extent makes Russia and Hamas natural allies and certainly prevents them from being enemies.”
If Russia’s idealist approach eventually breaks the deadlock of the War, it would amass purgation of emotion in its favour. Thereby making it a model of a new world order. Thus, establishing a bipolar world order. When that happens, Russia would want to pursue a cause for an Eastern-led Unipolar world as seen in its intervention in Africa in the case of the military coup, now Asia in the Hamas-Israel war. All in an attempt to extend its sphere of influence. To establish this cause, Russia would globally project the USA’s foreign policy as a necessary evil which must be evaded (which it has already started in the Hamas-Israeli war and Africa). By projecting the USA’s ideology, as devilish and its diplomatic policy as “Messianic”, it would weaken global support for the USA thereby giving Russia a stronger chance to pursue war against the USA as Victory would be certain. A victory for Russia would bring forth an Eastern-led Unipolar world.
Officials handling Hajj affairs in Bauchi have been cautioned against laxity and misconduct in their…
Both Ministers recalled the deep historical and cultural ties between Nigeria and Brazil and agreed…
The Governor outlined several initiatives already being implemented by his administration to support the cocoa…
The Niger State Road Maintenance Agency (NIGROMA) has commenced the third phase of its ongoing…
"we are answering a national call -a call to invest where there is untapped potential,…
The member of the Edo State House of Assembly representing Oredo East Constituency, Frank Uyi…
This website uses cookies.