Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Introduction  The historical legacy of the Israeli-South African relationship has contributed to the current ambiguity between the two parties. During the early stages, South Africa’s political landscape was divided between a regime that pursued racial discrimination and viewed Israel as an ally from 1948 to 1994. This relationship intensified after the Arab-Israeli War of 1967 and continued to develop rapidly until 1987, when international efforts to isolate South Africa’s apartheid regime began. Over these two decades, Israeli-South African relations expanded across various fields, including cooperation on the Israeli nuclear project. With the collapse of the apartheid regime and the victory of the nationalist forces led by the African National Congress (ANC) in 1994, South Africa’s relationship with Israel began to diverge without completely rescinding its recognition of Israel as a state. At that time, Israel maintained an embassy in Pretoria and a commercial office in Johannesburg, while South Africa had an embassy in Tel Aviv. There were also reciprocal visits between officials of the two countries. Notably, South Africa’s first president, Nelson Mandela, visited Israel in 1999, though he had previously hosted Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasir ‘Arafat in South Africa a year earlier. Current Nature of the Relationship  The Israeli-South African relationship is characterized by South Africa’s support for Palestinian statehood in the 1967 occupied territories, while still maintaining recognition of Israel despite occasional strains. These strains have included several notable events: the recall of the South African ambassador in 2010, the operation of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement in South Africa since 2012, the hosting of a Hamas delegation in 2015, the withdrawal of the South African ambassador and embassy staff from Israel in November 2023 following the first month of Operation al-Aqsa Flood, and finally, South Africa’s filing of a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of “genocide of the Palestinian people” in December 2023. Major Changes Following Operation al-Aqsa Flood  In the aftermath of Operation al-Aqsa flood, the relationship between Israel and South Africa experienced two key developments that will shape the future of their relationship: 1. The results of the June 2024 elections in South Africa, which saw 52 parties contesting, with 18 parties securing seats in parliament. Notably, the outcome of these elections highlights: a. The ANC, which has been the strongest advocate for the Palestine issue, has diminished in influence. Comparing its seat count from the 2019 to the 2024 elections, the number decreased from 230 to 159 seats, representing a loss of 71 seats, or 31% of its total voting power. b. This outcome suggests that the ANC will no longer be able to unilaterally pass its decisions, particularly in foreign policy, as it has been able to since 1994, when it enjoyed a comfortable majority to advance its governmental decisions. c. To further complicate the situation, other political forces that, to varying extents, opposed the ANC’s stance on the repercussions of Operation al-Aqsa Flood have made significant progress and are now part of a national unity government. These forces include: • The Democratic Alliance (DA), which primarily represents white communities and supports Israel, increased its seats from 84 to 87 between 2019 and 2024. • The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), representing Zulu communities, grew its representation from 14 to 17 seats. • The Patriotic Alliance, which declared its support for Israel following Operation al-Aqsa Flood, secured 8 seats. These election results have diminished the ANC’s ability to monopolize decision-making, placing it in a difficult position as it balances its commitment to Palestine with its interest in maintaining the government coalition. 2. A growing number of countries have joined South Africa in bringing the genocide case against Israel before the ICJ under Articles 62 and 63 of the Court’s Statute. The following countries have formally requested to join the case: Nicaragua (February 8), Belgium (March 11), Colombia (April 5), Turkey (May 1), and Libya (May 10). Additionally, several countries have expressed their intention to join, including Egypt (May 12), Maldives (May 13), Mexico (May 24), Ireland (May 28), Chile (June 2), Spain (June 6), not to mention Palestine (June 3), and Cuba (June 22). However, the court has not yet ruled on any of these requests. The growing number of accession requests strengthens the credibility of South Africa’s case, reflecting the increasing international criticism of Israel. Future Role  South Africa is a significant center of influence on the African continent, ranking sixth in terms of population. However, its internal situation will play a critical role in determining its ability to maintain its political stance on the Middle Eastern conflict. The structure of the coalition government—led by President Cyril Ramaphosa of the ANC, with a deputy from the DA—complicates decision-making, as previously noted. Additionally, traditional power dynamics suggest a country with diminishing regional and international influence. Beyond South Africa’s moral authority, rooted in its history of overcoming apartheid, the country faces considerable challenges. It ranks first globally in the Gini index [Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution]. Furthermore, its score of –0.72 on the Political Stability Index, coupled with a 33.55% unemployment rate, undermine its capacity to exert influence. An essential facet of South Africa’s international diplomacy is its efforts to shape global rules, aiming to achieve a “soft balance” with dominant regional and international powers. South Africa has effectively leveraged its diplomatic resources to strengthen its ties to various international networks and to reshape the global framework to its advantage. This success is exemplified by its early membership in the BRICS group, its active role in conflict resolution in Africa—having contributed to the settlement of nine African conflicts—and its efforts to enhance the African Union’s role. Notably, South Africa outpaced many global powers in drafting resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly between 1994 and 2023. This achievement is reflected in South Africa’s rise on the political globalization index, moving from approximately 47 points to about 89 points between 1994 and 2022. Additionally, South Africa’s leadership in raising the issue of “genocide” against Israel and the influx of countries from all continents seeking to align with South Africa further underscores this diplomatic trend, which the Palestinian resistance should strategically leverage. Conclusion  South Africa will continue to support the Palestine issue in the foreseeable future, though this support may be less effective due to the recent election results. However, it is crucial to strengthen ties with the ruling ANC and leverage its alliance with Al Jama-Ah Islamic party (which holds two seats) and other pro-Palestine parties, especially in advising on managing relations with South Africa. Additionally, it is important to capitalize on South Africa’s moral standing and its advancements in political globalization indicators.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Introduction Qatar emerged as a key player during Operation al-Aqsa Flood conflict, solidifying its role as the leading mediator in the region’s crises and conflicts. Despite the potential challenges posed by the operation on 7/10/2023, given Qatar’s hosting of much of the Hamas leadership, it effectively transformed this challenge into an opportunity. This bolstered Qatar’s influence, strengthening its political standing on both regional and international fronts. First: Determinants of the Qatari Position The Qatari stance on Operation al-Aqsa Flood was shaped by several key factors, foremost among them: 1. Qatar’s unwavering commitment to the Palestine issue and its consistent support for Palestinians in both the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS). Alongside significant contributions to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) budget, the Qatari grant, ongoing since 2018, has been a crucial financial resource in bolstering the resilience of the people of GS against the severe blockade imposed on them since 2007. 2. Qatar’s proactive policy and continuous ambition to enhance its regional and international presence and political influence have been evident through its strategy of serving as a mediator in various conflicts. Over the past years, this approach has solidified Qatar’s reputation as a trusted and preferred mediator, particularly by the US, as demonstrated in its mediation efforts between the US and the Taliban, Iran and Venezuela. Its recent attempts to mediate between Palestinian resistance movements and Israel represent the culmination of a sustained record of diplomatic successes. 3. Qatar’s openness to various Palestinian factions, its ability to maintain positive and balanced relations, and its hosting of Hamas’s political bureau since 2012 have significantly contributed to building strong ties with the movement. This, in turn, has bolstered Qatar’s role and influence in the Palestinian issue, establishing it as a preferred mediator for Hamas, which has openly expressed appreciation for Qatar’s efforts to support the Palestinian people and to manage constructive and neutral mediation during critical phases. 4. Qatar’s strategic relations with the US have enabled it to play significant roles in the Palestine issue, including hosting Hamas leadership under Qatari-US agreements. In 2022, US President Joe Biden designated Qatar as a major non-NATO ally. 5. Qatar possesses many elements and tools of influence and soft power in the diplomatic, media and economic fields, and its success in utilizing its soft power efficiently has contributed to many political achievements. Second: Aspects of Qatari Position Regarding Operation al-Aqsa Flood Although Qatar, like other political actors, was initially taken by surprise by Operation al-Aqsa Flood , it swiftly adapted to the evolving situation. Key aspects of Qatar’s response during Operation al-Aqsa Flood include: 1. Qatar condemned the Israeli war on GS, attributing the escalation and regional instability to Israeli policies. It also denounced the massacres and acts of genocide committed by the Israeli forces against the Palestinian people in both GS and WB. 2. Throughout Operation al-Aqsa Flood , Qatar consistently called for a ceasefire, de-escalation and the restoration of calm in the region. The country actively engaged in political and diplomatic efforts to halt the aggression against Gaza and played a prominent role in the joint extraordinary Arab and Islamic Summit held in Riyadh on 11/11/2023. Qatar also pushed for concrete actions to stop Israeli crimes. During his speech at the summit, the Emir of Qatar stated, “You all know the position and feelings of our people regarding what is happening…. we must take deterrent steps to stop the ongoing war crime, in a way that will also project the weight and leverage of Islamic states.” 3. Qatar addressed the political and media campaigns that sought to incite against it and blamed it for the 7/10/2023 attack due to its hosting of Hamas leadership and financial support for GS with calmness and resolve. On 13/10/2023, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani stressed that the “State of Qatar’s commitment to its role as a partner in peacemaking and a mediator in resolving conflicts should not be used to harm its reputation by leveling accusations that were proven to be false and the bad faith of its promoters exposed.” A statement from the Qatari Foreign Ministry on 16/10/2023 clarified that “Qatar is not a financial backer of Hamas. It provides aid to Gaza, and the destination of the money is crystal clear.” “Qatari aid to the Gaza Strip is fully coordinated with Israel, the United Nations and the United States.” 4. During the crisis, Qatar’s most notable official role was its active diplomacy and leadership in mediating a ceasefire and facilitating prisoner exchange deals between the Palestinian resistance and Israel, with direct US supervision and sponsorship. 5. The Qatari media played a pivotal and influential role during the war, effectively delivering detailed on-the-ground reports and covering political and popular movements both within and beyond Palestine. This represented a significant milestone in media coverage of the war’s developments. In response, on 5/5/2024, the Israeli government unanimously voted to shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in the occupied territories and confiscate its television equipment, citing allegations of incitement and threats to national security. Third: Projections Qatar’s numerous achievements in political mediation underscore the success of its strategy, which emphasizes building long-term relationships with diverse global actors. This approach has afforded Qatar significant leverage, enabling it to effectively mediate many crucial issues. Moving forward, Qatar is anticipated to continue its strategic and active mediation efforts, aiming to secure a ceasefire agreement in GS, despite the obstacles posed by Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence and his insistence on continuing aggression. The effect of possible regional escalation on Qatar’s mediation efforts is still unclear, especially if Israel ramps up its confrontation with Iran and Hizbullah in the wake of the recent assassinations of Hamas political bureau chief Isma‘il Haniyyah and Hizbullah military official Fuad Shukr. Additionally, the potential impact of a Donald Trump victory in the upcoming US presidential election on Qatar’s diplomatic and mediation roles in the Palestine issue remains uncertain.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Photo credit: Flickr/Sailing Nomad - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ Ambassador Frederic Gateretse-Ngoga, Farea Al-Muslimi, Lisa Boström and Veera Tuomala In recent months, the Red Sea has drawn global attention, particularly due to Houthi attacks on shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, as well as the deal between Ethiopia and the self-declared Republic of Somaliland on access to the Gulf of Aden, which sparked a dispute with Somalia. The rising tensions and increasing military responses risk worsening conflicts in a highly volatile region. The renewed focus on the Red Sea, however, also provides an opportunity to redouble commitment to multilateralism and enhance the collective action needed to address threats facing the region. This blog post gives an overview of current issues in the region and possible ways to address them, building on the outcomes of a panel discussion at the 2024 Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development. Geopolitical competition in the Red Sea region The Red Sea has become a major flashpoint for global and regional contestation, with local, regional and global conflict dynamics deeply intertwined. Regional and global powers are constructing naval bases and military installations around the Red Sea to enhance their power projection, fuelling existing tensions and exacerbating ongoing conflicts. This has aggravated already dire humanitarian conditions, contributing to fragility across the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and North Africa. In Sudan, competition between Gulf states is widely considered a driving factor behind the civil war. In Somalia and Yemen, external influences have fuelled internal disputes and aggravated tensions, undermining state-building efforts and incurring particularly devastating consequences in Yemen. Climate change and a scramble for scarce natural resources and critical commodities, including water, agricultural land and food supplies, may reinforce this dynamic. Gulf states, in particular, have invested billions in agriculture and manufacturing in the Horn of Africa in recent years to secure food production and tap into the region’s burgeoning labour markets. Regional insecurity escalates Insecurity in the Red Sea region reached a critical point in early 2024 when the Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in response to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, further threatening regional and international stability, upending trade and disrupting global markets. In response, the United States and the United Kingdom carried out airstrikes against targets in Yemen, while the European Union took a more defensive approach with the launch of Operation ASPIDES to protect vessels. This escalation delayed peace negotiations in Yemen, weakening the fragile trust needed to agree on an extended ceasefire and a roadmap to peace. The Houthi attacks also further compounded humanitarian challenges, disrupting the flow of essential goods and humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea region more widely, thus worsening shortages and human suffering. In Sudan around 26 million people, more than half the population, are suffering acute food insecurity. In Yemen, around 22 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, with about 17 million facing acute food insecurity. Instability on both coasts has also increased migration across the Red Sea. The number of migrants from the Horn of Africa arriving in Yemen has nearly tripled in recent years, with tens of thousands making the dangerous crossing annually in search of better economic opportunities. Additionally, the rise in piracy off the coast of Somalia has exacerbated regional insecurity, with reports of coordination between the Houthis and the Al-Shabaab armed group in the Horn, increasing the risk of human trafficking and forced migration. Opportunities to strengthen multilateralism, cooperation and collective action The barriers to effective cooperation in the Red Sea region are significant but not insurmountable. Historical rivalries and political instability have eroded trust among countries in the region, and the diverse priorities and strategic interests of these countries complicate collaboration. Despite these challenges, the region holds immense potential for growth and development. The strategic location and resources of countries on both shores, if harnessed constructively and collectively, could spur economic prosperity and regional stability. However, the region can realize its potential and accelerate socio-economic development only through inclusive growth, innovation and addressing long-standing developmental challenges. In this regard, prioritizing economic and regional integration is critical to unlocking the region’s vast potential. Indeed, the geographical proximity between the Horn of Africa and Yemen across the Bab el-Mandeb Strait has brought about initiatives such as the Bridge of the Horns, proposed in 2007 between Djibouti and Yemen, which represented a bold vision for a more integrated, peaceful and prosperous region. While the project did not materialize, it is symbolic of the potential for deep and mutually beneficial economic, cultural and political ties across the Red Sea. While there are currently no operational overarching mechanisms or forums for multilateral cooperation around the region, the establishment in 2020 of the Red Sea Council—formally the Council of Arab and African States bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden—could fill this gap. Once operational, it could help to mitigate tensions and foster cooperation towards a shared vision for the region. Moving forward There are several areas where enhanced cooperation is achievable and could benefit the Red Sea region as a whole. For example, establishing joint coastal patrols and information-sharing mechanisms could significantly enhance maritime security and combat piracy, smuggling and terrorism along the vital maritime corridor. Developing regional trade agreements and infrastructure projects could boost economic growth and interdependence, reducing the likelihood of conflict. Collaborative efforts to address climate change, manage shared water resources and protect marine ecosystems could promote sustainability and reduce resource-related tensions. Coordinating humanitarian responses and development programmes could address the root causes of instability, such as poverty, food insecurity, and poor access to education and healthcare. Finally, establishing platforms for dialogue and mediation could help to resolve disputes peacefully, preventing the escalation of conflicts. By focusing on these areas, the countries of the Red Sea region could move towards a more cooperative, stable and prosperous future. Strengthening cooperation through robust multilateral frameworks is vital to addressing the factors that underpin regional insecurity as well as to promoting sustainable development. Regional solutions should be led by the region, rather than relying on external entities whose priorities and resources are currently focused elsewhere. Countries on both coasts of the Red Sea need to view each other as partners for common goals and stability, prioritizing cooperation to connect their needs and interests effectively. As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres notes in the New Agenda for Peace, rebuilding consensus around shared norms and developing new ways for states to act cooperatively is crucial to addressing collective challenges and meeting shared objectives. SIPRI is pleased to share a series of guest blog posts from partners of the 2024 Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development. This blog builds on a panel discussion at the Forum on the topic ‘Red Sea Security in a Time of Disorder’, which was organized by CMI–Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Introduction Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Indian politicians believed that rapprochement with the US could best be achieved through strengthening ties with Israel. Consequently, India quickly established diplomatic relations with Israel, leading to significant developments in various fields, particularly in security and military areas. As a result, the Palestine issue became a marginal concern for India. However, the relationship has gained significant attention in the Arab world with the onset of Operation al-Aqsa Flood, which this paper will explore. First: Key Aspects of India’s Position on Operation al-Aqsa Flood In the early hours of Operation al-Aqsa Flood on 7/10/2023, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted a strong condemnation of the Palestinian side, echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rhetoric. It was later revealed that this statement was made without consulting the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, which released a more measured response the following day. This was followed by a series of actions aligned with the policies of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Notably, Indian authorities, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, imposed restrictions, including arrests, on demonstrators showing sympathy for Palestinians facing a genocidal war in the Gaza Strip (GS). Similar actions were observed in other states, including the capital, Delhi, suggesting that this was an Indian official policy. In contrast, Hindu right-wing extremists were permitted to express support for Israel’s war and accuse Palestinian sympathizers of being jihadists and unpatriotic, despite widespread sympathy for Palestinians on social media. At the media level, despite the reluctance of official authorities, particularly the Ministry of External Affairs, and their tendency to take ambiguous stances on the issue, mainstream media has generally maintained a professional and somewhat sympathetic tone towards the Palestinians. Second: Unrestricted Collaboration It was notable that India’s partnership with Israel remained unaffected despite Israel’s crimes against humanity against the Palestinians. In fact, this partnership, particularly in military manufacturing, appears to have a direct impact on Israel’s war efforts. Some drones used by Israeli forces were jointly manufactured with the Indian company Adani. Additionally, munitions originating from India were found in the field, with further discoveries made when Spanish authorities intercepted an Indian ship attempting to bypass the Houthi embargo in the Red Sea. India’s military cooperation with Israel is well-established, having previously participated in the Israeli Blue Flag exercises. Beyond military and security cooperation, India is also deeply involved in the economic sector. Following the withdrawal of Thai workers from Israel’s agricultural sector after 7/10/2023, which severely impacted the Israeli economy, India stepped in to address the labor shortage by sending 100 thousand workers to Israel, where work is already in progress, in an environment that is dangerous, to say the least. Third: Duality of Positions Regarding India’s performance in international organizations, it has generally aligned with the majority of global countries and adhered to the “two-state solution,” notably omitting any reference to East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. This represents a significant shift in India’s position. However, at the bilateral level, India continues to steadily develop its relationships across various fields. This is interpreted as a gesture of gratitude to Israel, which was the only country to supply India with weapons during the Kargil War with Pakistan. India has also sought to avoid antagonizing the US administration by not adopting a policy that contradicts the US stance on Ukraine and Palestine. It is noteworthy that some Arab positions, particularly those of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, are in alignment with India’s stance. Fourth: The impact of the Recent General Elections on the Indian Government’s Stance on the Palestine Issue It seems that the decline in the ruling party’s performance in the Indian general elections held in May 2024 did not affect its stance on the Palestine issue. This can be attributed to the persistent determinants that have shaped this position from the outset. Key among these are India’s desire to strengthen its relationship with the US, particularly in the context of countering China through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD), commonly known as the Quad, and its aim to enhance economic performance by attracting foreign investment. Additionally, there is ideological alignment between the ruling party and the Zionist movement. Most notably, the Arab push towards normalization and the establishment of relations with Israel has alleviated any pressure on India to reconsider its policies regarding Israel. Consequently, India finds itself in a favorable environment that aligns with its current position. Conclusion India’s policy has focused on strengthening ties with Israel at various levels, while maintaining formal and limited relations with the Palestinian Authority. Its approach to the Palestine issue has been through the framework of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Unlike Russia and China, which have established relations with Hamas and hosted Palestinian delegations in the name of reconciliation, India has not taken this route. The Indian press often deliberately conflates Palestinian resistance with terrorism, despite the fact that India has not officially designated any Palestinian movements as terrorist organizations. A ceasefire that aligns with Israel’s acceptable conditions, which India views as a potential alleviation of the “Palestinian headache,” would be in line with the policy of the current Indian government. This administration appears receptive to any solution supported by the US and the Arab countries. Such a stance enables India to uphold its partnerships with Israel, the US and its Arab allies while avoiding ethical dilemmas related to the beliefs held by some Indian elites regarding India’s historical anti-colonial stance and its support for the Palestine issue. The possibility of India following the example of Russia and China by establishing open relations with Palestinian resistance movements seems unlikely. India’s entry into the Arab world has been facilitated through countries that hold negative attitudes towards these movements, and India may be cautious not to antagonize both the US and the Arab leaders who have normalized relations with Israel.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Introduction Major powers shape their foreign policy with a global view, positioning each region based on their opponents’ strategies there. Russia has recognized the need to develop its strategy in the Middle East to counter Western efforts to further disintegrate the Russian Federation after the Soviet Union’s collapse, particularly by fueling separatist inclinations within it. This is crucial for Russia, which includes 22 republics and 89 federal entities, with minorities making up 19% of its population. Russia recognized this trend through the following indicators: 1. The US call at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Council Conference in Prague in 2003 to expand NATO’s work east and south, i.e., in an area extending from the Maghreb to Central Asia. 2. NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011, a practical implementation of NATO’s expansion. 3. In 2021, the Israeli army was shifted from the US European Command (EUCOM) to the Central Command (CENTCOM), whose work covers the area of NATO’s expansion. Russian Strategy in the Middle East The “core” of Russia’s strategy in the Middle East is security and defense, evidenced by its foreign interventions in regions where NATO competes, including Georgia, Crimea, Syria, Libya, Belarus, Ukraine and the Sahel, as affirmed in Shanghai Cooperation Organization discussions. This focus is underscored by 40–50% of Russia’s military sales being directed to the region, alongside efforts to establish military bases in Syria, Libya and Sudan. Additionally, the development of the Russian-Chinese-Iranian strategic triangle, consolidated in 2019 with joint naval maneuvers, has deepened following the war in Ukraine. The Russian Strategic Framework Regarding Operation al-Aqsa Flood The above outlines Russia’s strategic approach to Operation al-Aqsa Flood and the Israeli war on Gaza Strip (GS) as follows: 1. Russia perceives Iran from two perspectives: as its strongest ally in the region and as the central figure in the axis of resistance. Operation al-Aqsa Flood has tested the Russian-Iranian relationship regarding its consistency. The Russian reaction to Israeli attacks on Syria remains insufficient. However, this does underline how Israeli policies are widening the rift in Russian-Israeli relations and gradually nudging Russia towards aligning with the resistance axis, especially given Israel’s support for the Western side in the Ukraine conflict. 2. Russia has feared that the GS war would impact its social stability for the following reasons: a. Riots erupted in Muslim-majority Dagestan following the arrival of Jewish immigrants from Israel shortly after Operation al-Aqsa Flood. b. Many of the Jews who immigrated to Israel from the Soviet Union hail from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Russia is concerned that differences among these countries could destabilize its internal situation. 3. Russia exploited Western social unrest on the streets, in universities and within institutions to highlight double standards in comparing Western attitudes toward Israel and Russia. Operation al-Aqsa Flood diverted attention from Russia’s actions in Ukraine. 4. Operation al-Aqsa Flood redirected some US and Western aid from Ukraine to Israel, easing pressure on Russia. 5. The Israeli stance aligning with Ukraine prompted Russia to seek closer ties with Hamas. Russia utilized this approach to bolster its standing in Muslim countries and the developing world, bridging gaps with Islamic factions concerning its 2015 intervention in Syria. This was underscored by Russia hosting a Hamas delegation on 26/10/2023, resulting in the release of 3 out of 6 Russian captives, and another delegation on 24/6/2024. 6. The Ukrainian conflict compelled Israel to take a firm stance, publicly condemning Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which subsequently strained Russia’s willingness to mend relations with Israel post-Operation al-Aqsa Flood. 7. If the Ukraine war has unified Western positions against Russia, Operation al-Aqsa Flood has created disparities that Russia is attempting to exploit, particularly following the stance of several European countries, spearheaded by Spain, on recognizing Palestine. 8. Russian public sentiment towards Operation al-Aqsa Flood and its aftermath is mirrored in the findings of a poll conducted by the Levada Center on 25/10/2023: • 88% of Russians are aware of the new escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in comparison with a poll regarding events in Ukraine, in which 86% stated they are closely following events. • 66% are not ready to support either side in the conflict. • 21% rather sympathize with the Palestinians, and 6% sympathize with Israel. • Older Russians are nearly four times more likely than younger people to express sympathy towards Palestine, a contrast to the prevailing sentiment in the West. • Only 46% of Russian Muslims sympathize with Palestine, mirroring the sentiment in Central Asian countries. • Respondents noted that the main responsibility for what is happening lies with the US and NATO countries (45%), while 12% place responsibility on Israel, and 8% of respondents place the blame on Hamas/Palestinian side. Russian diplomacy aligns closely with the Axis of Resistance in UN voting on international resolutions. However, regarding the decisions of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued rulings against Putin similar to those against the Israeli prime minister and defense minister, Russia does not adhere to the ICC’s rulings, as it is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the court. Concerning the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the genocide case involving Israel, Russia supports the court’s recognition of the principle of Palestinian genocide, emphasizing the urgency of halting violence. Russia’s General Attitudes Toward Operation al-Aqsa Flood Russia’s general stance on Operation al-Aqsa Flood and the Israeli war on GS can be outlined as follows: 1. Endorsing a two-state resolution with a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem as its capital, with full UN membership for this Palestinian state; treating the West Bank (WB) and GS as a unified territory; calling for cessation of Israeli settlements and displacement of Palestinians; and upholding Hashemite guardianship over holy sites. 2. Choosing not to mediate between the resistance groups and Israel, deferring this role to the US, Qatar and Egypt. Nonetheless, Russian statements have reiterated the call for a lasting ceasefire in GS and the urgent release of captives without conditions. This stance was underscored in the April 2024 (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) BRICS statement. Russia has also implicitly criticized Ansar Allah’ activities in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea, citing their impact on international maritime navigation freedom. Additionally, Russia has been unable to halt Israel’s ongoing airstrikes on Syrian targets. 3. Inviting delegations from the resistance to consult or assist Palestinians in resolving their internal political issues, seen by Israel as Russian recognition of the legitimacy of all resistance forces. 4. Enhancing Russia’s perception in the Arab public opinion, particularly within segments critical of Russia’s involvement in Syria since 2015. 5. Highlighting the double standards in the Western value system, particularly in how GS and Ukraine are positioned and compared. 6. Russia’s relatively advanced political stance contrasts sharply with its limited financial assistance to Palestine. 7. Between 2018 and 2023, Russia saw a 58.3% increase in exports to Israel and a 27.4% increase in imports. However, the Ukraine crisis and subsequent events have slowed down this growth.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Introduction Consistent with past behavior observed in previous instances of wars against Gaza Strip (GS), European capitals swiftly and predictably condemned the attack by Palestinian resistance forces on Israeli targets on 7/10/2023 in strong terms. This event was often portrayed with a clear bias towards Israel’s narrative, overlooking its background and context, and disregarding its military objectives, which primarily targeted Israeli occupation bases and barracks. Some European capitals took considerable time to reassess their positions and strive for a more balanced approach. Hasty Initial Positions In the first weeks of the war, political and media narratives in most European countries leaned towards portraying Israeli occupation as the victim, depicting the resistance’s actions as typical terrorist attacks akin to tragic events in Western countries. This narrative provided propaganda support to justify the brutal assault on GS. The aggression was justified by emphasizing “Israel’s right to self-defense,” echoing Israeli leadership’s claims of the resistance “using civilians as human shields,” all while neglecting international law and the safety of Palestinian civilians. Some European countries reacted vehemently during the genocidal war. They suspended aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) for a period, then penalized the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) by withholding funding following Israel’s inflammatory accusations against the agency, only to later reverse these actions. Trends in European Positions Generally speaking, European positions during the GS war diverged along at least three lines, with relative differences in attitudes within each line: • Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other countries adopted an overwhelmingly pro-Israeli position that remained almost unchanged. • A trend that increasingly criticized the genocidal war and moved in a positive direction. This was evident in Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Malta, Norway and Slovenia. • A third trend avoided clear criticism without being at the forefront of partisanship, or vacillated in some positions, as in the case of France, which relatively modified its position in the second month of the war. These trends were evident in the positions on the ceasefire during the first months of the war, in voting behavior in international bodies, in taking punitive measures against the PA and UNRWA, and in the position on imposing sanctions on settlers. Implications of Positions on the European Union (EU) This divergence in positions has placed a burden on the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell to articulate a coherent position representing the Union during this war. Non-EU member states, such as Britain, have adopted positions aligned with the US, while Norway has expressed critical attitudes toward the war. The prolonged duration of the war, the exposure of its brutality, and the growing public and elite opposition to it have led to a weakening of support for the war within Europe and have encouraged the opposite front. The divergence in positions was evident in that the EU was only able to reach a joint resolution supporting a ceasefire in GS in March 2024. This came with great difficulty due to the intransigence of capitals overwhelmingly aligned with Israel, which obstructed this step for almost half a year of the war. European positions have been weakened and discredited due to their contradictions, particularly regarding the Ukraine war. Positions favoring a brutal genocidal war have severely tarnished the image of the concerned European countries. Germany was even brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) after Nicaragua filed a lawsuit against it for “facilitating the commission of genocide” against Palestinians in GS via its arms exports to Israel. It is clear that the positions of many European countries are causing significant losses in terms of image, soft power and the privilege of moral guardianship that they once enjoyed as traditional defenders of “human rights” and “universal values.” These positions have also galvanized massive public protests within European countries, although these protests have not prompted significant political responses. Weaknesses in European positions have become apparent due to the lack of diplomatic initiatives from the EU or any of its member states, despite the active involvement of European actors across the region. Calls for a diplomatic solution, an end to the war or even statements advocating “restraint” have notably been missing from the primary European positions on the GS war. This omission can be attributed to the current alignment with the US administration and the influence of the prevailing support for the Israeli narrative of the war within Europe. Position on the Two-State Solution Merely expressing support for the “two-state solution,” pledging aid, and expressing concern for the humanitarian situation of Palestinians in Gaza Strip often serves as a superficial gesture, aligning more with the ongoing occupation and the devastating war on GS. These positions may also involve condemning Israeli “settler violence” in the West Bank (WB) and issuing threats of punitive actions against certain individuals, while simultaneously absolving the Israeli military of any accountability and deflecting criticism from the war on GS. The critical position toward Israel became evident through early voting behavior favoring a ceasefire in international forums, initiatives within EU bodies supporting this inclination, and the near-simultaneous recognition of the State of Palestine in Madrid, Dublin, Oslo and Ljubljana. This exerted pressure on other European countries, despite their customary declarations of support for the “two-state solution,” to reconsider their positions. However, major European capitals of influence, such as Berlin, Paris, London and Rome, still refrain from taking clear positions in pressuring Israel or recognizing the state of Palestine. Efforts to Contain War Expansion Since the war began, European capitals involved in decision-making have been eager to contain the war within GS. The prolonged duration of the war exerts pressure in this direction, particularly amidst concerns over potential escalation at the volatile Lebanese front and ongoing tensions and attacks near the Yemeni coasts and in the Red Sea region. European countries have taken noticeable steps in response, highlighted by French diplomatic efforts in Lebanon and the surrounding areas. Concurrently, European countries have refrained from participating in military maneuvers in the Red Sea, aligning themselves distinctively from US and British forces, thereby signaling a strategy to avoid direct entanglement in regional tensions. Western Strategic Polarization The positions of European decision-making centers have been notably influenced by the manifestations of Western strategic polarization in the wake of the Ukraine conflict, with Europe notably aligning with the US administration. Western powers seem to acknowledge the potential geopolitical ramifications of either losing the current war in GS or allowing it to escalate regionally. Moreover, the ongoing war serves as a significant test for the effectiveness of Western weapons, security and defense systems, particularly following the sudden blow on 7/10/2023. European parties’ concern for the strength of the Western alliance and transatlantic ties also motivates them to avoid weakening the position of President Joe Biden’s administration. Biden faces a challenging electoral test to renew his presidential term against Donald Trump, whose potential return to the White House raises concerns among Europeans. Conclusion Despite the mounting European criticisms of the Israeli occupation and the brutal genocidal war, the influential European position continues to refrain from imposing significant censure or punitive measures against Israel. Furthermore, it appears to align with the positions of its US ally on this matter, actively seeking harmony with them. However, Israel is increasingly posing a burden on Europe. While there is a gradual and hesitant shift towards greater recognition of the impossibility of Israel remaining above the law, along with an increased acknowledgment of the rights of the Palestinian people and the urgency to address them, this trend is becoming increasingly apparent. This is accompanied by waning confidence in the ability to overcome Palestinian resistance. Moreover, there is a growing unity among the Palestinian population in support of resistance, in the wake of the failure of the Oslo process and the pursuit of a peaceful solution.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском I would like to extend a warm greeting to the ministers and other senior representatives who are present in the Security Council Chamber. Their participation in today’s meeting confirms the persisting relevance of the topic under discussion. In accordance with Rule 37 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure, I would like to invite the representative of Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Türkiye, UAE, Uganda, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and Vietnam, to participate in this meeting. It is so decided. In accordance with the Provisional Rules of Procedure and established practice, I propose that the Council invite the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine, which has observer state status at the United Nations, to participate in the meeting. There are no objections, it is so decided. In accordance with Rule 39 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure, I would like to invite E.Rattray, Chef de Cabinet of the Secretary-General, to take part in this meeting. I would also like to invite the following persons to take part in this meeting: – His Excellency Mr Maged Abdelaziz, Permanent Representative of the League of Arab States to the United Nations, – His Excellency Mr Sven Koopmans, Special Representative of the European Union for the Middle East Peace Process, – His Excellency Mr Sheikh Niang, Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. It is so decided. The Security Council begins considering Point 2 on the agenda. The floor goes to Mr Courtenay Rattray. *** Ladies and gentlemen, Your excellencies, The Middle East is facing unprecedented risks for the security, well-being and peaceful life of its peoples. The waves of violence surge far beyond the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict destabilising the situation in the Persian Gulf, Red and Mediterranean Seas, and in North Africa. We need a frank and honest conversation about how to stop the bloodshed and sufferings of the civilians without delay and move towards a long-term solution to both long-standing and relatively new conflicts. Our country has been historically maintaining good relations with all the countries in the region. The USSR was the first state to recognise Israel de facto and de jure, having established diplomatic relations shortly after it declared independence in May 1948. Meanwhile, Moscow invariably advocated the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state and the realisation of the Palestinians’ legitimate and fundamental right to self-determination. In 1949, we supported Israel's application for UN membership, subject (I emphasise this) to the implementation of General Assembly Resolutions 181 and 194 on the Palestine Partition Plan and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. This was clearly stated when we voted in favour of Israel's admission to the United Nations. Likewise, today we support Palestine's admission to our Organisation. Its sovereignty as a state has already been recognised by nearly 150 countries that are UN members. We stand for the position based on the rules of international law within the framework of various international formats for the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and, more broadly, the Middle East conflict. We proceed from the imperative of implementing the UN decisions, including the first General Assembly resolutions mentioned above and key Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, adopted after the end of the Six Day War and the Doomsday War, as well as Resolutions 478 and 497 on the status of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. We attach special importance to the dialogue with Arab countries and their neighbours Iran and Türkiye. From the very beginning we appreciated the constructive potential of the Saudi Arabian peace initiative announced in 2002. At the same time, we respected the decision of a number of Arab countries to bring their relations with Israel back to normal even before settling the Palestinian question. We advocated the inclusion of pan-Arab and Islamic organisations – the LAS and the OIC – in the collective efforts under the Quartet of international mediators, which, unfortunately, was "buried" under the ruins of the US "Deal of the Century." The history of the colonial and mandated territories of the Middle East and North Africa has been and remains a heavy burden for the regional countries. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration and the White Paper have planted the time bombs that have been exploding since then. The situation has been further complicated by new Western geopolitical experiments. We firmly believe that the regional countries should themselves choose their paths towards stronger sovereignty and independence, as well as socioeconomic development for the benefit of their nations without foreign interference. This would open up the global historical, civilisational, religious and cultural significance of the Middle East and North Africa in the interests of peace and stability. The Palestinian problem is the most pressing issue today. It is the fourth time in the past 10 months that the UN Security Council is holding a ministerial meeting. It has adopted four resolutions, but the continuing bloodshed in the occupied Palestinian territories shows that all these decisions remained on paper. Russia has consistently denounced all manifestations of terrorism. We implicitly condemned the terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. However, we regard the current developments in Gaza as unacceptable collective punishment of the civilian population. A military mopping up operation has been underway for nearly 300 days in the Gaza Strip, the most densely populated area in the world that has been known for years as an open-air prison. The statistics of death and destruction of the large-scale military operation, which Israel is waging jointly with its American allies, is shocking. Over the past 10 months or 300 days, nearly 40,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed and 90,000 wounded. The majority of them are children and women. This is twice as many as the number of civilian victims on both sides of the conflict in southeastern Ukraine over the past 10 years. The number of civilian victims [in Gaza] over the past 10 months is twice as large as the number of civilian victims in Ukraine over the past 10 years since the state coup in February 2014. According to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry that examines violations of international human rights law, Palestinians aged below 18 make up approximately half of Gaza’s population. It means that they were born and grew up in conditions of a total blockade. Apart from the current escalation of violence, they have seen other Israeli military operations, namely Summer Rains and Autumn Clouds in 2006, Hot Winter and Cast Lead in 2008-2009, Pillar of Defence in 2012, Protective Edge in 2014, and Guardian of the Walls in 2021. Gaza is in ruins today. Residential buildings, schools and hospitals have been turned into rubble, and the critical civilian infrastructure facilities have been knocked out of service. There is an epidemic of infectious diseases and mass hunger there. It is a real humanitarian disaster. There is no safe and reliable access to the victims and those in need amid the ongoing hostilities. The number of casualties among the humanitarian staff of the United Nations and NGOs is approaching 300. This is the largest one-time loss for the UN in modern history. Many of these people have been killed together with their families. We express our condolences to their families and loved ones, as well as to their colleagues. On May 7, Israel began the operation in the city of Rafah, the last shelter for the 1.5 million Palestinians who have fled there from all over Gaza. The Rafah crossing was closed, again turning the Gaza Strip into “the only conflict in the world in which people are not even allowed to flee.” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said this in 2009, when he was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The situation has not improved since then. It is only deteriorating. The use of crossings in the Israeli territory has been hindered by major restrictions. The volume of cargo allowed to use them has plummeted compared to the pre-confrontation period, even though the requirements have seriously decreased. The situation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is also dramatic, with military raids by the Israeli military and the settlers’ aggression, which leads to casualties on both sides. Contrary to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, Israel has not slowed but is accelerating the construction of illegal settlements. In addition to seizing Palestinian land and destroying their houses, Israel is retroactively legalising settlements there, even though their establishment has been declared illegal by Israel’s legislation. Such unilateral actions to create irrevocable “facts on the ground,” as Chef de Cabinet of the Secretary-General Courtenay Rattray said, amount to a gross violation of Israel’s responsibilities as an occupying power. I would like to point out that, ironically, these responsibilities are rooted in the Geneva Conventions adopted 75 years ago to protect Jews, who had been subjected to inhuman suffering during the Second World War, and to prevent future persecution of people on grounds of ethnicity. Colleagues, The current unprecedented outbreak of violence in the Middle East has largely been caused by the well-known US policy in the region. This is the result of US diplomacy about the “effectiveness” of which US representatives have been telling us for the past ten months demanding that work at the UN Security Council be curtailed. My colleague, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, also made this call. They are using their veto right time and again to block calls for an immediate and all-encompassing ceasefire. When UN Security Council Resolution 2728 on a ceasefire during the Ramadan holiday was adopted, the United States promptly stated that this was not a legally binding document. In exchange, we received the so-called “Biden plan” that the Americans wanted to approve even before the Israeli response. Everyone knew that the response was negative because Israel did not need any plan with a hint of peace. Today, we became convinced of this once again. I would like to ask the US representative whether they had the impression (while listening to the Israeli representative’s remarks) that they had entered a wrong room and were attending a wrong discussion, rather than the one that was announced. I hope you understand what I am talking about. For precisely this reason, we abstained while voting for UN Security Council Resolution 2735 because we knew that Israel had a priori silently rejected it. While providing diplomatic support for Israeli actions and supplying weapons and ammunition, Washington (everyone realises this) has become a direct party to the conflict, just like with the situation in Ukraine. The bloodshed would stop if this support ends. However, the United States either does not want or is unable to do this. It appears that various manoeuvres making it possible to score additional points during the election campaign, rather than efforts to save human lives, are the most important thing. I would like to outline Russia’s principled approaches once again. We condemn the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack that, nevertheless, cannot justify current Israeli actions and undermine the very idea of establishing a Palestinian state. We advocate a permanent and all-encompassing ceasefire. This will make it possible to release 120 Israeli hostages and about 9,500 Palestinians who were arbitrarily arrested since October 7, 2023. We call for providing safe and adequate humanitarian access to all affected and needy people. We reaffirm the key mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) as a unique organisation for aiding the Palestinians on occupied territories and in neighbouring Arab countries. We insist on the immediate cessation of unlawful settlement activities. The accomplishing of these urgent objectives would create favourable conditions for resuming peace talks on a generally recognised international legal foundation in the interests of establishing an independent and sovereign Palestinian state coexisting in peace and security with Israel. Only in that case, the historical injustice with regard to the Palestinian nation and its fundamental right to self-determination would be corrected. The reinstatement of intra-Palestinian unity also has major significance. We have always tried to facilitate this process by allowing representatives of various Palestinian movements to conduct this essential dialogue at the Moscow platform. We are convinced that the Palestinians can independently determine their future without foreign interference, no matter how much someone may want to do this for them and against their will. This also concerns the future of Gaza as an inalienable part of the Palestinian state. All of us know about behind-the-scenes contacts and plans that are being hatched. They predetermine the future organisation of Gaza and the entire Palestinian state. However, they virtually make no mention of the state. I believe that everyone should respect a principle implying that nothing should be said about Palestine without Palestine itself. Our proposal regarding a meeting of all external players who have influence on various groups in Gaza and the West Bank, and who can help overcome the split in the Palestinian ranks provided they speak with one voice, remains on the table. An important step in this direction was taken last February, when representatives of all Palestinian political parties met in Moscow and reaffirmed their support for restoring unity on the basis of the PLO platform. Today, we all have a responsibility to stop the unfolding human tragedy. In addition to the military operation in the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel’s other neighbours are in danger of being drawn into an all-out confrontation with Israel. Tensions on the Blue Line dividing Lebanon from Israel are mounting day by day. Top Israeli officials publicly announce plans to open the northern front. Hezbollah never misses a chance to reply in kind either, promising it is ready to repel the invasion. The Israeli Air Force has significantly intensified attacks on Syria, now also targeting the areas of Damascus, Aleppo, Lattakia and the Golan Heights, and striking at key airports and seaports, which played an important role in the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid, including in response to last year’s deadly earthquake. Colleagues, A ceasefire and cessation of violence in Gaza and the West Bank can do more than enable the negotiation of a lasting settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It can help in alleviating other hotbeds in the wider Middle East in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions, not with some rules the West is trying to replace the UN Charter with, and not feeding someone’s geopolitical ambitions. An important role in upholding the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people belongs to pan-Arab and pan-Islamic organisations, whose activities we support, as well as to all truly responsible members of the international community. In particular, I would like to note the high potential of the Gulf States. Now, after the early elections in Iran and the first statements by president-elect Masoud Pezeshkian, it is hoped that all the countries that share the coasts of the Gulf will come closer together to overcome their long-standing disagreements and mistrust, and will unite efforts on a generally acceptable foundation to be able to determine the parameters of mutual security without external interference and speak with one voice to fulfil the aspirations of the Palestinian people and build an architecture of stability and neighbourly relations in the region. Progress on the Palestinian track in full compliance with the UN resolutions, in the normalisation of relations between the Gulf countries, could be an important contribution to the ongoing process of forming a common Eurasian architecture based on the principles of indivisible security, equal collective responsibility, mutual respect and a balance of interests.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Whether or not Israel claims responsibility for the death of Ismail Haniyeh, his assassination abroad may not have improved Israel’s prospects at home. Bringing the war to a conclusion will require a credible correlation of ends and means. In diplomatic history, the “primacy of foreign policy”—with its emphasis on managing external threats, dealing with geography, and the uses of diplomacy—is a concept associated with nineteenth-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, and with the calculations by which Otto von Bismarck brought a Prussian-led Germany into existence. In twentieth-century historiography debates, Eckart Kehr was one figure who argued from the opposite corner, proposing that the primacy of domestic politics exerted its force on statecraft through economic interests, social conditions, and other factors shaping foreign policy from within. In the United States, interactions between domestic interests and foreign policy were analysed by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their 2006 paper “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” The authors argued that their country’s Middle East policy was “due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’.” Their paper, and subsequent book, have been both influential and contested—though of course the idea that such a lobby exists was not new. The 1961 memoirs of Sherman Adams (President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff) include remarks on the “many well-organized pro-Israel lobbies that were always effective and influential in the Capitol.” In the case of Israel itself, management of security at and within sovereign borders has been distinctively complicated since Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948, which provoked five Arab states to send in their armies in contestation of the borders Israel had proclaimed. The status of these borders, and what constitutes Israel’s rightful contiguous territory inside them, have been the subject of ongoing contention and intermittent war ever since. With the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords) of 1993, it was thought by some that political, territorial, and institutional dimensions of a Palestinian state were now realities that could be brought into existence alongside Israel. Whether noble or credulous, such thoughts have not produced political realities during three subsequent decades of administrative activity overseen by the Palestinian Authority (PA)—an entity that has rested on an unpromising basis, especially since the Middle East Quartet disqualified Hamas from being its governing party, following Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006. Financially dependent on external beneficence and Israeli tax and banking, and cooperating with Israel in managing security in the West Bank, the PA since 2006 has also operated without obvious popular legitimacy. While Israel has not been threatened by the forcible establishment of a Palestinian state over these decades, managing Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and especially in Gaza has been an ongoing challenge for Israel’s government and security establishment. Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 ended what Tareq Baconi has described as the containment of Palestinian resistance in Gaza. Over the following ten months, Israel’s siege on Gaza and responses to volatility in the West Bank have had aims that could be called domestic policy; to eliminate Hamas militarily and kill its leaders, to rescue Israeli hostages in Gaza, and to restore domestic security in Israel by preventing a Hamas-led threat from ever confronting Israel again. As of August 2024, Israel’s war aims have yet to be achieved, although Hamas’ military capabilities have been reduced, senior figures have been killed, and a small number of hostages have been rescued. Meanwhile violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank, civil unrest in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and difficult domestic matters such as the drafting of haredi (ultra-orthodox) Jews into the Israeli Defense Forces have accompanied disunity in Israel’s government and divisions and disagreements between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister and military Chief of Staff. With the domestic objectives of the war unachieved, and the restoration of post-war stability not yet within Israel’s grasp, the primacy of international factors has come more obdurately into view over the course of the year. This is not only a matter of international threats (arising from an incipient multi-front war), but also a matter of international progress toward a ceasefire—since internationally-mediated hostage diplomacy (via Qatar and Egypt) is the only mode in which limited negotiation between the adversaries has been possible, and was the only means through which, in November 2023, a large number of Israeli captives could be released. But while internal and external factors have neither merged into an Israeli victory, nor been resolved into separately successful domestic and foreign policies, the assassination of Hamas’ leader Ismail Haniyeh on 31 July, and the subsequent appointment of Yahya Sinwar as head of Hamas on 6 August, have now brought domestic and international aspects of Israel’s war into newly fraught relations. The combination of volatility and stasis can be seen both abroad and in Gaza. Abroad, Israel has not claimed responsibility for the death of Haniyeh. But since the assassination happened in Iran (during Haniyeh’s visit to attend the swearing-in of new President Masoud Pezeshkian), Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said it is Iran’s “duty” to “avenge the blood” of Haniyeh. The threats may not lead to significant Iranian action, considering the consequences that Iran might then face from an Israeli counter-attack. But regardless of the prospect of retaliation by Iran itself, regional tensions have only risen as a result of Haniyeh’s death—and this can only be a source of increased uncertainty for Israel. In Gaza, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh abroad has produced a condition for Israel that we could call the primacy of foreign policy in reverse. This condition pertains to headship of Yahya Sinwar, and to the internationally-mediated ceasefire and hostage talks through which Israel aims to save its citizens’ lives. Third-party mediators have played an essential role in the successes of hostage diplomacy thus far. But mediators—Qatari, Egyptian or others—can only mediate on the basis of demands made by the parties themselves, and those demands will necessarily be made by the senior decision makers on each side. Having eliminated a political chief who could operate independent of the siege on Gaza, it might be thought that Israel’s aim to dismantle Hamas is now coalescing in the prospect of killing one senior terrorist, contained in the coastal enclave. But such embodiment of war aims in one Hamas target is obviously spurious, and, as Khaled Hroub wrote a quarter of a century ago: “Even if the current organization is eliminated, it will reproduce itself once again in a new guise.” But the greater uncertainty following the assassination of Haniyeh pertains to the future of hostage negotiations with a Hamas now led by Sinwar. Assuming Sinwar is still located somewhere in Gaza, it does not seem likely that he will be any more accommodating as a hostage negotiator than he has been detectable as a target for assassination. Prime Minister Netanyahu may be drawn to accept US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recommendations for the talks’ next steps—but Blinken is expecting a lot by stating “It’s now incumbent on Hamas to do the same.” In these new conditions, the primacy of foreign policy in reverse consists in the fact that, having successfully eliminated a senior Hamas leader abroad, Israel may have reduced its chances of bringing its hostage citizens home alive.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском “This article was originally published here by the International Crisis Group” The ceasefire deal the U.S. has tabled represents the best – and perhaps last – hope for both ending the Gaza war and getting the hostages held in the strip back any time soon. Israeli and Hamas leaders should accept it. Efforts by Egyptian, Qatari and U.S. mediators to reach a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas have reached a decisive juncture. The proposal on the table comes closer than its predecessors to getting past the main sticking point regarding a permanent ceasefire, which Hamas demands and to which Israel refuses to commit. It envisages an immediate truce and partial hostage/prisoner exchange, with talks to follow on Gaza’s governance and security. Though the deal on offer fully satisfies neither side, no better one is likely to emerge any time soon that can both end the fighting that has devastated Gaza and secure the release of Israeli hostages held in the strip. Moreover, the longer the war continues, the graver the risk that tensions on the Israel-Lebanon border, or between the U.S. and Iran-backed groups elsewhere, set off a regional escalation that could further draw in Washington and Tehran. Israel and Hamas should embrace the deal on the table as a humanitarian imperative and because neither side can achieve strategic victory and each has long passed the point of diminishing returns. Continued war will neither destroy Hamas as Israel seeks nor strengthen Hamas’s hand, let alone improve prospects for Palestinians. It guarantees only greater suffering to a people who desperately need relief. Three Phases, Many Questions Full details of the deal on offer have yet to become public, but the rough outlines have been widely reported. They follow the model in the mediators’ previous proposal in early May, a draft of which Hamas accepted, albeit with caveats, and which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government then rejected. The new version, which U.S. President Joe Biden announced in a White House speech on 31 May, appears to leave key elements in place: a ceasefire in three phases, with each consisting of steps that together would end the war. In the first phase, of six weeks’ duration, Israel would withdraw its forces from all “populated areas” of Gaza. Hamas would release Israeli civilian, elderly and wounded hostages, as well as the remains of some deceased hostages, in exchange for Israel freeing an agreed-upon list of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. Israel would also allow displaced Palestinian civilians to return to their homes including in Gaza’s north and allow the entry and distribution of more goods and fuel into the strip. The transition from phase one to two would follow talks between Israel and Hamas. Critically, the proposal states that the ceasefire is to hold as long as the parties continue their negotiations even if these extend beyond the allotted six weeks. The deal’s second phase would see the release of all remaining hostages, including soldiers, and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. At that point, the phase one ceasefire would turn into a permanent cessation of hostilities. In the third phase, Hamas would hand over the remains of the last of the deceased hostages. The import regime also would be relaxed, with Israel lifting its blockade to enable the movement of people and entry of goods as full reconstruction gets under way. The provision on a “permanent cessation of hostilities” in phase two is the most significant modification to the earlier proposal, which had referred merely to a “sustainable period of calm”. It seeks to bridge the gap that caused previous negotiations to break down, namely between Hamas’s demand that a ceasefire be permanent and Israel’s that it not. Since Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack, Israeli leaders have repeatedly stated that they are still committed to destroying Hamas (or at least its military and governance capability) in the long term. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and Minister Benny Gantz within the war cabinet and the military establishment have been more willing to halt fighting, at least temporarily, to get the hostages back, though that position is hindered by the fact that Netanyahu has a personal interest in refusing to enter any ceasefire deal, as it would almost certainly mean he would lose power. Hamas, for its part, has been unwilling to hand over hostages, especially the military officers which it considers to be key bargaining chips, in exchange for anything less than explicit guarantees that a ceasefire be permanent. The Biden administration, with the new proposal, has attempted to mollify both sides. It posits an immediate cessation of hostilities; a mechanism to maintain that ceasefire in place if good-faith negotiations on implementation continue; and a permanent cessation of hostilities as the end point of the second phase. That sequence can be read from the Hamas side as achieving a permanent end to fighting. It can be read by Israel as preserving some room for manoeuvre to return to hostilities. By encouraging each side to tolerate the ambiguities that make the deal feasible for the other, Washington is signalling to Hamas that it will make sure the ceasefire holds if the movement embraces the deal while reassuring Israel that even should the deal hold and a permanent ceasefire take root, its military campaign has rendered Hamas incapable of reprising the kind of attack it staged on 7 October. Implicit in the U.S. approach is a belief that a functioning ceasefire will create incentives for both sides, generating momentum and raising the costs of breaking the agreement. Still, even if the two sides sign up, their mutually exclusive positions will make the agreement fragile and contingent. Achieving its primary purpose – stopping the bloodletting and getting the hostages home – will be subject to the completion of phase one and negotiations toward phase two. The absence of detail in the proposal regarding terms and mechanics, presumably even in the full unpublished text, is both its strength and its weakness. Mediators see the ambiguity as necessary for getting both sides to sign up and end a war that is devastating Gaza and its population, tanking Israel’s global standing and risking a wider regional escalation. But the lack of clarity on the most divisive disputes, in effect, punts those issues to talks in the first phase. Fraught negotiations loom. For example, what would constitute Israel’s “full withdrawal” from all “populated areas” of Gaza is open to interpretation, meaning details of even the deal’s initial phase are ambiguous. How will the areas from which Israel withdraws be delineated? Will Israel launch incursions into those areas, as military officials have said it would continue to do after the war? Who would they target in such operations? It is widely assumed that Israel will continue to go after Hamas’s senior leadership, but how widely that is interpreted will bear on the sustainability of a ceasefire. Getting to the second phase and beyond will require addressing the still more challenging questions of post-war governance and security in Gaza. Once even a temporary ceasefire is in place, humanitarian aid is supposed to ramp up and some reconstruction begin, though precisely what material Israel will allow in is unclear. The proposal does not address the political status of Gaza after hostilities end or whether Israel will maintain its systems of physical and administrative control of the strip. It does not address how Gaza would be governed after the war, much less who would govern it, nor the core question of Hamas’s future role. Nor does it lay out a process that could decide these questions. Trying to resolve those questions ahead of time, however, would rule out an immediate stop to the fighting. The focus now is on whether Washington’s assurances will convince the two adversaries to proceed. On Israel’s side, the U.S. president’s decision to make a public statement outlining the proposal, asserting that Israel had already accepted it, caught Netanyahu off guard and put him on the spot. U.S. officials reportedly notified Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog, Gallant and Gantz of the main points in Biden’s speech just an hour and a half before the president delivered it. Netanyahu’s initial comments seemed to hedge, not rejecting the proposal or denying that Israel had agreed to the wording, but offering his broad interpretation that it would allow Israel to keep pursuing its cardinal war objective of destroying Hamas and its governing capability in Gaza. Whether his statements aimed to manage domestic politics or undercut ongoing diplomacy, they have reinforced Hamas’s suspicions about Israeli intentions. The war cabinet has closely guarded the proposal’s full text – which reportedly runs four and a half pages – lest spoilers, especially to Netanyahu’s right, try to torpedo it. While Netanyahu appears to have the votes in the coalition to see the ceasefire deal approved, and polls suggest that a plurality of Israelis favour a hostage deal, two of his far-right ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, have threatened to leave the coalition government should he proceed, which could precipitate the government’s collapse, forcing Netanyahu to either form a temporary alternative coalition or leave office and hold elections. As for Hamas, for now it insists on an explicit, up-front guarantee of an end to hostilities and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as the final outcome of the staged process. It welcomed Biden’s statements, and has continued to do so, but said it would not agree to a text that diverges from them; asserting that the proposal, which Hamas called “the Israeli paper … does not guarantee a permanent ceasefire, but rather a temporary ceasefire, and it does not closely link the three stages stipulated”. Hamas also called on Biden to “ensure that the occupation government agrees to [his statements] and that they are reflected in the text of the agreement”. Hamas argues, based on past experience, that once it appears that the war is over, even if only provisionally, pressure on Israel and the Biden administration will abate, the process will bog down, and Gaza – already destroyed – again will be forgotten and Israeli military operations will resume. In addition, while recent Hamas statements have prioritised a complete Israeli withdrawal and permanent ceasefire, a senior movement official claimed that the latest proposal imposes unacceptable restrictions on the release of politically prominent prisoners and insists on sending many of them into exile. Time for a Deal By making the proposal’s outlines public, Biden has vested significant personal credibility in his administration’s ability to produce a ceasefire ahead of the November U.S. elections. He is unlikely to be able to use his own authority in another big push for an end to the war before the November vote. His objective appears to be to deny Israel and Hamas negotiating space, making it difficult for either to say no. To put muscle behind his move, the U.S. circulated a draft resolution on a ceasefire in the UN Security Council to mobilise international support for the initiative. Prime Minister Netanyahu should accept the Biden proposal – which the U.S. has gone to lengths to make ambiguous enough for him to work with and that the Israeli defence establishment supports – and avoid public statements to the contrary. For Israel, its eight-month assault has underlined the sobering reality that it has been unable to deal a decisive, strategic blow to Hamas. Nor is Israel’s war effort diminishing Hamas’s power as a political movement; to the contrary, its popularity has surged in the West Bank and beyond. Some vestige of Hamas’s power in Gaza will remain for the foreseeable future, to be diluted, if at all, primarily through politics. Continuing the war will bring further destruction of civilian infrastructure and further damage to Israel’s international standing, not the body blow it hopes to deliver Hamas. It would also mean the continuation and possible escalation of the intensive war of attrition with Hizbollah on the Israel-Lebanon border, which could quickly spiral out of control and has already left tens of thousands of Israelis (and even more Lebanese) displaced. An end to the fighting in Gaza is necessary to halt these exchanges: Hizbollah will only stop rocket fire with such a ceasefire in place. The potential ensuing calm could allow residents on both sides of the border to return. As for Hamas, while the group may not set great store by the U.S.’s signalling that it supports a permanent ceasefire, it has shown that it can survive Israel’s onslaught but is unlikely to achieve anything more than small-scale tactical victories in territory it can neither protect nor fully control. Maintaining the current trajectory in the hope of extracting a higher price from Israel by killing and wounding its troops, draining its resources, undermining perceptions of its military prowess, sullying its international reputation and straining its relationship with the U.S. is unlikely to yield a better deal, while inflicting more suffering and destruction on Gaza. The deal on offer includes an important concession from Israel, based on the communicated proposal – that the phase one ceasefire will be extended as long as negotiations continue in good faith. It is an opportunity for a prolonged cessation of hostilities that many Palestinians would blame Hamas for wasting. Further, if Hamas rejects the current proposal, the Biden administration will almost certainly also blame the group for the collapse of talks and, as November approaches, would be more likely to throw up its hands and let Israel follow its own war logic. The two sides’ acceptance of the ceasefire deal would be just the start of difficult talks, requiring concerted diplomacy from the U.S., Egypt, Qatar and pressure and support from others, to bridge what for now seem almost unsurmountable differences and sustain negotiations. But a rejection of the proposed plan will make arrangements for the day after more complex than they already are. Far better to stop fighting now and seriously discuss what should happen next than to put off what is an inevitable reckoning yet again while, in the meantime, thousands more Palestinian civilians are killed, starved, displaced and further immiserated, and hope of getting the hostages out alive fades.

한국어로 읽기Leer en españolIn Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربيةLire en françaisЧитать на русском Iran’s leadership crisis may have come at an important time for the US, amid an ongoing political slugfest at home in an election cycle and a litmus test for US relations with Israel. In the wake of the helicopter crash that tragically claimed the lives of President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iran finds itself at a critical juncture, grappling with both internal and external challenges. Foremost among them is its relationship with the US. Iran is in the middle of a tense regional competition with Israel over the latter’s war in Gaza with Hamas. Washington is invariably drawn into what constitutes a historically contested triad shaping stability and instability in broader West Asia. Iran’s leadership crisis may have come at an important time for the US, amid an ongoing political slugfest at home in an election cycle and a litmus test for US relations with Israel. Two factors, however, are likely to dampen any US expectations from Iran. Iran’s topmost leadership remains intact under the aegis of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the next president will be expected to meet the benchmarks set by previous leaders. For the US, the Iran challenge is likely to remain complex, both due to the leadership transition inside Iran and the growing regional power and influence projected by Tehran. If the Biden administration, despite its initial will, couldn’t bind Iran within the constraints of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a possible Trump presidency would be even less likely to succeed. Regional anti-American sentiments in West Asia, especially among Iran and its proxy groups, seem further entrenched. However, the Biden administration has an opportunity to mitigate regional hostilities by fostering a Saudi-US détente, which remains on the table but is heavily dependent on how much influence Washington can wield with Israel’s highly conservative cabinet in restraining its behaviour in Gaza. Iran’s regional outlook and relations with the US may not be poised for significant shifts, given the predictability associated with the regime, yet the challenge of nurturing inter-generational leaders looms large for Iran. Leadership succession in Iran’s internal politics has always been meticulously planned and nurtured over the years, undergoing a rigorous process to ensure continuity. Internally, Iran faces a crucial test of its leadership amid a situation it has not encountered in decades. However, there is solace in the fact that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei remains alive, poised to select the most suitable candidate. Internally, the vacuum left by the untimely demise of two top leaders presents a crisis as well as an opportunity. However, the socio-cultural divergence with the West, exemplified by the Iranian leadership’s lingering reluctance to embrace any change, may continue to strain the relationship. The crisis in leadership compounds this internal struggle, as no state wishes to appear leaderless during times of uncertainty. Externally, the challenges for Iran are manifold, particularly in filling the leadership void that has been growing since the death of General Qasem Soleimani in 2020 after a US-targeted strike. The new leadership in Iran will be tested in how it continues to project its regional influence and maintain the momentum of clandestine efforts it has propagated across its axis. Internationally, the Iranian leadership’s challenge will primarily be in its tussle with the West on the one hand and maintaining poise in its relationships with varied actors such as China, Russia, and India, all while avoiding Western sanctions. Iran, which has been persistently characteristic in its distinct political stance even in the face of sanctions and regional tensions, has found an alternative axis of support, most notably through partnerships with China and Russia. Besides, Iran has fostered a network of regional support through proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Kataib Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and others. This solidarity axis is now bolstered by a shared commitment to the Palestinian cause. However, the post-October 7, 2023, landscape has seen a nuanced shift in perceptions, including those of regional Arab leaders. As such, the current period is particularly tumultuous in West Asiawith the unabating Israel-Hamas conflict. The loss of key figures in Iran’s leadership couldn’t have come at a worse time, especially as Iran finds itself at a crossroads, balancing unfinished conflicts and shifting regional loyalties. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran is now enriching uranium to as much as 60% purity and possesses enough of this material that, if further enriched, could be sufficient for two nuclear weapons. Now that the ‘breakout’ time is close to zero, there are strong incentives for keeping Tehran engaged through the IAEA, if not bilaterally. Despite the seeming belligerence of Iran’s leadership, avoiding war and efforts towards regional peace and stability lie at the core of Tehran’s long-term regional vision. Just a week before the fatal crash, Iran’s foreign minister met with the IAEA chief, and Iran engaged with US officials through intermediaries in Oman on how to avoid the risks of a wider regional war. If anything, these efforts show that both the Biden administration and the Iranian leadership are still willing to sit at the table. That may not be bad inspiration for the next generation of leaders in Tehran to pick up from. This commentary originally appeared in Deccan Herald. The views expressed above belong to the author(s).