For about two years prior to October 7, there was a lot of talk about how the world was changing. At that time, this referred to the main international powers, their spheres of influence, and their capacity to handle complicated international affairs and crises, particularly those directly related to the status of world peace and security.
Participants in these discussions in the halls of power and think tanks were pointing fingers at specific countries—the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union (in its entirety and its member states)—in terms of how well-equipped they were to plan their effective engagement and how much they were prepared to adapt to the escalating shifts.
However, the Israeli aggression against Gaza brought the idea of global change under intense scrutiny and even put it to the test, particularly given the war’s unparalleled brutality and unmatched death toll. Questions have arisen regarding the magnitude of the changes that have taken place in the world, how the world can address the situation in the Gaza Strip, and whether the Palestinian cause and Palestinians can receive a distinct international response that accurately reflects these changes. From the outset of the crisis, inquiries were raised, and there were many disagreements over what made up the scene and how it should be interpreted. This was particularly true of Hamas’s intentions and style of attack, which served as the impetus for Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip.
The upheaval resulted in various interpretations regarding the underlying causes of the events and the surprise attack strategy adopted by the Palestinian factions. The end outcome? International stances that remained relatively close to expectations: utter prejudice and incitement on the part of the United States in support of Israel, with nearly unwavering backing from Europe over the legitimacy of Israel’s declaration of war in self-defense. A notable observation is the substantial level of transformation that has taken place in the positions of both US and European entities, often surpassing expectations. Chinese and Russian positions, on the contrary, were so locked into a narrow square that their expressed stances on the Palestinian scene were significantly less influential than anticipated, failing to demonstrate their potential to contribute significantly to the international dynamics at play.
Over the course of the crisis’s seven months, China failed to present any substantial contributions that could be characterized as indicative of a novel international role or a distinctive strategy mirroring the considerable political influence it has been advocating in recent times. Beijing seemed to be adhering to its consistent foreign policy principles, which prioritize maintaining strategic latency as long as its immediate interests remain unaffected. China was very careful not to meddle with a matter that has established sponsors, with the United States being the leading force.
The conflict in Gaza highlighted Iran’s substantial influence in the region, particularly demonstrated by the emergence of the Houthis and their disruptive actions in the Red Sea, impeding global maritime transportation. China, despite being heavily impacted by maritime disruption in the Red Sea, has not taken any significant actions to address the crisis, largely due to its relationship with Iran. China appeared content with absorbing the economic losses and forgoing the chance to exert influence over the entire scene, instead of demonstrating its capability to engage in the most critical and perilous issue in the region.
Likewise, Russia, despite its prior engagement, failed to exhibit adequate efficacy. For decades, Moscow maintained a formal interest in playing these roles; nevertheless, its current preoccupation with the Ukraine conflict and the presidential elections hindered its capacity to devise a viable response to the unfolding situation.
The European side has undergone significant shifts in its positions, initially displaying a strong pro-Israel bias at the onset of the crisis. Nevertheless, several European Union (EU) countries quickly exhibited a greater sense of freedom and autonomy in discerning facts, enabling them to devise more impartial strategies that address the intricacies of the field and the humanitarian situation.
Undoubtedly, there exist variations among EU countries regarding the efficacy of their positions, particularly those of major countries. However, a prevalent characteristic shared by these countries is the increasing sway of public sentiment, which has initiated substantial pressure on politicians to adopt a stance that is more favorable to Palestinian rights and highlights the political and ethical decline of Israel.
The statements made by EU leaders and its foreign affairs representatives marked a significant and concrete international advancement, introducing a novel approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that had not been seen before in history. Interestingly, the prime minister of Britain, in response to the public pressure, was the first to allude to the possibility of recognizing the state of Palestine in reaction to Israeli intransigence in using excessive force and its refusal to follow calls for a ceasefire and to start the political process. The greatest shock and turning point occurred when three major European countries—Ireland, Norway, and Spain—announced their intention to recognize a Palestinian state. While this step is currently symbolic and may appear to have minimal impact on the events happening on the ground, it undoubtedly represents a significant breakthrough in Europe’s relationship with Israel and the Palestinian cause. When we combine this with the unequivocal support that European governments have extended to the International Criminal Court in order to obtain arrest warrants for Yoav Galant and Netanyahu, we are dealing with a very big and noteworthy change.
Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor of the United States, characterized this shift by stating, “We certainly have seen a growing chorus of voices, including voices that had previously been in support of Israel, drift in another direction.” Prior to Sullivan’s declaration, the French Foreign Minister expressed that “the recognition of a Palestinian state is not a taboo for France, but Paris considers that now is not the right moment for it to do so.”
The recognition of a Palestinian state is expected to gain increasing support in Europe, effectively preventing Israel from having the power to veto the establishment of a Palestinian state in the future. The US administration is currently in talks with the Europeans to assume the responsibility of overseeing the border crossings. This could represent an opportunity for Europe to play a significant role in addressing this highly sensitive issue.
Is it time for Europe to step up to the plate and get involved in one of Middle East’s most complex problems? Time will tell.
