Israel-Hamas conflict reignites historical contestations

THE Hamas attack and consequent Israeli military action have only reignited historical contestations as the initial sympathy for Israel and revulsion against the October 7 attack seem to have been squandered by the Israeli leadership.

Historically, public sympathy in the developing as well as the Western world has been with the Palestinians, particularly among the influential and articulate left-liberal sections of society, considering they are a weaker party. But the Hamas attack, in which many civilians were killed and abducted, including senior citizens, women and children, evoked revulsion across the world. However, it seems the relentless bombardment of Gaza by Israeli forces, resulting in heavy civilian casualties and damage to public infrastructure, has begun to provoke familiar reactions and may further intensify polarisations, the consequences of which are being felt beyond the affected region.

Recent developments at the United Nations Headquarters are relevant. Israel has had a difficult relationship with the UN. One got a glimpse of this complex engagement when an Israeli representative objected to an excerpt from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ October 24 remarks at the UN Security Council (UNSC) ministerial meeting on the Israel-Gaza situation. Guterres had said: “It is important to also recognise (that) the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinians have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.” He added: “But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”

Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Eli Cohen raised an objection to the use of the term ‘vacuum’. He reportedly cancelled his meeting with Guterres, accusing him of ‘tolerating and justifying’ terrorism.

Notably, the member states have failed to reach a consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Since its 31st session (1976-77), the General Assembly had been debating the issue under various modalities and procedures. Beyond diplomatic niceties, there are serious conceptual differences among member states on the definition of terrorism.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a religious grouping that includes 53 Muslim-majority countries, has taken a stand that it is “vital to distinguish between terrorism and the legitimate rights of people to resist foreign occupation, a distinction duly observed in international law”. Many countries, including the US and Israel, objected to this position. India, in its statement to the exercise this year, suggested that the operative paragraph 3 of Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), which provides a comprehensive definition of international terrorism, could serve as a basis for further discussion.

Paragraph 3 of this resolution has a topical relevance in the context of the Hamas attack as it implicitly defines terrorism as “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all states to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature”.

Broadly, the trends of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism have been reinforced in the last few weeks. On October 23, UK PM Rishi Sunak delivered an oral statement to the House of Commons regarding the Israel-Gaza situation, in which he stated, “Calls for Jihad on our streets are not only a threat to the Jewish community, but to our democratic values too. And we expect the police to take all necessary action to tackle extremism head-on.” In India, unlike in the past, the authorities have by and large not permitted pro-Palestine protests.

Surprisingly, action against pro-Palestine protesters has been reported even from non-BJP-ruled states like Tamil Nadu. In the US, one of the most influential and determining players in the conflict, Ivy League institutions and other campuses are currently witnessing protests from both sides. The ruling Democratic Party faces difficult choices between electoral compulsions (the presidential poll is less than a year away) and consistent bipartisan military as well as diplomatic support of the US establishment for Israel. Young left-leaning voters, who overwhelmingly supported Biden in the 2020 Presidential elections, are expressing strong criticism of the Israeli bombardment in Gaza. This is coupled with the fact that there is electorally significant Arab Muslim population residing in swing states like Michigan and their support played an important role in Biden’s narrow victory in these states.

Biden had already emphasised that Israel should not be driven by anger and should avoid repeating the mistakes that the US made following the 9/11 attacks. The US administration has reportedly sought to persuade the Israeli leadership to refrain from launching an all-out ground offensive in Gaza, citing concerns about unintended consequences such as civilian casualties, harm to hostages, chaos and anarchy, without much harm to the perpetrators of the October 7 attack. Also, the death of innocents creates an atmosphere conducive for future recruitment of terrorists.

Israel should harness its demonstrated comparative strength, such as targeted operations, backed by pinpointed intelligence, by special troops to diminish the ecosystem responsible for the October 7 attack. This strategy requires patience, but with the right-wing leadership in Israel under PM Netanyahu losing popularity, this may not be the actual response.