Bernard Spiegal

We are witnessing a process of strategic indifference to the fate of the Palestinians, in Gaza, of course, but also not to be forgotten in the escalation of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

By strategic indifference, I mean that the USA, the UK and the West in general, have demonstrated, only too cruelly, that Palestinian lives, their rights, count for nothing. What other explanation can there be? The West’s decision-makers see what we see, hear what we hear, yet see no cause to exert the power they have to end it.  What this augurs, is that whatever settlement is contrived for the future, it will not be to the Palestinians benefit. Quite the contrary.

For the USA and its allies, the Palestinian issue has become a nuisance, a hindrance, stymieing their intentions for the future – essentially, Israel as a dominant regional power allied to key Arab states.

The practical effect of this indifference, is that Palestinians interests will be sidelined, and some sort of technical settlement will be imposed. This technical settlement is likely to comprise some version of a two-state outcome. It will not answer to Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations

International civil society

In what amounts to a parallel universe, Israel’s war on Gaza has touched – galvanised – people worldwide, prompting unceasing demonstrations, student protests, campus occupations and other acts of solidarity in support of the Palestinian cause.

It’s worth setting out in outline the extent of international civil societies’ support for Palestine and Palestinians.  Thirty-seven countries have seen demonstrations in support of Palestine, in particular the call for a ceasefire: Argentina; Australia; Austria; Bangladesh; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Costa Rica; Cuba; Denmark; Egypt; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; India; Indonesia; Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Kuwait; Lebanon; Mexico; Netherlands; New Zealand; Portugal; Romania; South Africa; South Korea; Sweden; Switzerland; Tunisia; United Kingdom; United States; Yemen.

Social media has played a significant role in publicising the issue, especially among younger generations who don’t rely on mainstream media to connect to the news.  The image ‘All Eyes on Rafah’, apparently AI generated, has recently gone viral.

At the institutional, more formal level, the International Criminal Court’s Prosecutor, Karim Khan, is seeking arrest warrants for leaders of both Hamas and Israel; and the International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel must halt any military offensive in Rafah that could harm civilians. However, Professor Yossi Mekelberg of Chatham House, confirms what we all know: …the sad reality is that neither development will bring an immediate stop to the war.

Thus, notwithstanding international civil society’s vocal and sustained call for Israel to cease its genocidal campaign in Gaza, along with the two international courts’ judgments and instructions, the slaughter and dispossession continue unabated.

Credibility of two international courts a function of politics, not law

The two international courts, to date, in matters Israel, are effectively ignored, though it’s an open question as to whether this is sustainable. But the determinants of whether or not the international courts’ judgements will ultimately be adhered to, lie not within law’s compass or its processes, but, rather, in the balance of power between countries, the various alliances to which they are joined, and their individual interests.

The West, at least rhetorically, is committed to supporting a ‘rules-based international order’, though Israel, in practice, is granted exemption. It ignores international courts with impunity. But this may be beginning to change as states, of the West in particular, contemplate just how much structural damage Israel is doing, with their own connivance, to the international system and relationships with the global south. The question that is surely being asked is: What hold have we, what censure can we utter, say, against Syria, if licence to act as they will with impunity is granted to some – in this case, Israel – and not others. This question is not approached as a moral issue, but on realpolitik, political grounds.

The fact that Ireland, Norway and Spain have now indicated they support UN recognition of the State of Palestinian, joining 143 out of 193 other states, perhaps indicates, albeit obliquely, a desire to internationalise more thoroughly the Palestine/Israel issue.  

But these considerations are unlikely to affect positively the next phases of the Palestine/Israel conflict.

America wants out

America essentially wants an end to, and out of, messy, destabilising Israel/Palestinian entanglements, the better to serve its wider interests in the region and further afield. The West travels alongside this agenda.

These interests include ensuring Israel is a dominant force in the Middle East, helping to secure access to oil, and also acting as a bulwark against the perceived threat of the spread of Islamism, ISIS and affiliates. As part of this, the USA wants also to solidify its alliances with at the least parts of the Arab world. But for this to occur, those Arab states must be publicly reconciled to Israel.

Given that the Arab ‘street’ is supportive of Palestine and Palestinians, authoritarian, non-democratic Arab regimes need the Palestinian issue to be resolved and quietened lest their populations baulk at such regimes cosying-up to Israel.

Also a factor, is Israel being thoroughly woven into an international military-industrial-state network, a key player in the development of armaments and highly sophisticated surveillance tools.  Taken together, the factors above cast Palestine, Palestinians and their aspirations, as a distraction from, and a barrier to, America achieving its regional and international goals. A nuisance.

So, America holds Israel’s hand, whilst Israel holds America’s throat via a strong, sometimes fanatical, Zionist lobby, solid Congressional support, AIPAC and the powerful Christian Zionism movement, some 30 million strong in the USA alone.

Strategic indifference

Over a period of eight months (at the time of writing), we have watched Israel, systematically, mercilessly annihilate and maim thousands of Palestinians. Razing to the ground the very means supportive of life, physical and spiritual. Homes eradicated, schools destroyed, mosques and churches violated and erased, vital infrastructure obliterated, hospitals, medical equipment and medicines denied, water supplies cut off and contaminated. A famine enacted. All this continues.

In the light of this, the only conclusion to be drawn is that we are witnessing a strategic indifference, a disdain – by the USA, the UK, and European states more generally – to the plight of Palestinians. This indifference rests on full knowledge of Israel’s actions, and its effects. There is a strong tinge of racism in attitudes to Palestinians.

The practical effect of this indifference, as suggested above, is that Palestinians interests will be sidelined, and some sort of technical settlement will be imposed. This technical settlement is likely to comprise some distorted version of a two-state outcome. It will not answer to Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations.

If Israel does (seemingly) agree to such a dispensation, that Palestinian ‘state’ will be born crippled and constrained – robbed of the greater part of its land, and of its dignity, still under the effective oversight of Israel, and prey to its ‘security’ concerns.

Such a settlement cannot hold, but will be the precursor to a renewed violent conflict as, in particular, the younger generation of Palestinians recall viscerally and intellectually what Israel-generated horrors they have borne.