The devastating, deeply distressing and unrelenting human suffering in Gaza caused by Israel’s response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities will leave a permanent mark on all who witness it.
The political damage that resulting worldwide revulsion is inflicting on Israel’s main ally, US President Joe Biden, and on the Western-led international rules-based order could also prove irreparable.
Biden reiterated his staunch support for Israel in San Francisco last week.
He said he did not know when the assault on Gaza, where more than 11,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed, would end.
For supporters of a ceasefire, it was a dismaying admission, given the behind-the-scenes influence the US supposedly exerts on Israel’s leaders.
The impression that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not really listening to Washington has strengthened since the Hamas attacks, which killed about 1,200 people, mainly civilians. He continues to reject any form of ceasefire while Hamas remains undefeated and Israelis are held hostage.
Despite its evident isolation, Israel brusquely rejected last week’s UN Security Council resolution calling for extended humanitarian pauses as “detached from the reality on the ground.”
Neither the US nor the UK vetoed the resolution, unlike in earlier votes. Recent statements by both countries are increasingly critical.
That is because pressure on Biden to intervene more forcefully is growing — and he is beginning to bend.
He said last week that a ceasefire was not “realistic,” and resorted to emotive language in warning that Hamas planned more atrocities, but he did not query Palestinian casualty figures, as previously, and appeared to accept Israel’s bombardment had been “indiscriminate.”
It is plain that Biden is out of step with US and global opinion.
A poll found that 68 percent of Americans want a ceasefire, while nearly 40 percent think Biden should act as a “neutral mediator” rather than Israel’s defender-in-chief.
Democratic voters are particularly unimpressed. Another poll found that 56 percent believe Israel’s military response has gone too far, up 21 percent in a month.
Significantly, about 50 percent of under-45s and nonwhite voters believe Israel’s response is “too much.”
These are key constituencies for Biden in next year’s election, where he is already polling badly. He is also losing Arab and Muslim support in swing states — and faces a staff mutiny. None of this bodes well for his shaky re-election chances.
Public outrage over Gaza is roiling the domestic politics of the US’ close allies. In the UK, the ceasefire issue has divided Labour Party leader Keir Starmer’s government-in-waiting. France and Germany are at odds, too.
The EU, like Biden, has fallen back on the fabled two-state solution, recycling it as a sort of magical panacea despite multiple past negotiating failures.
“One horror does not justify another,” European Commission Vice President Josep Borrell told Israelis, although he lacks leverage.
Particular concern centers on how Gaza has eclipsed Ukraine’s fight against Russia. Again, Biden has not helped.
By depicting the wars in Gaza and Ukraine as a common struggle against lawlessness and brutality, he damaged “both his own moral authority and international solidarity with Ukraine,” commentator Fintan O’Toole said.
“The pairing of Israel and Ukraine has not created a single moral cause. It has exposed a double standard,” O’Toole said, pointing to alleged war crimes, which the US loudly condemns in Ukraine but is silent about in Gaza.
To many people in the global south, it seems the West deplores Ukrainian civilian deaths but tolerates those of Palestinians.
In the parallel battle for global opinion, Biden and the West are plainly losing over Gaza. The sheer fury felt in Arab countries — and beyond — at the intolerable human toll is visceral and could have lasting, unfavourable geopolitical consequences.
Most criticism is aimed squarely at Israel — a “terror state,” in Turkey’s words.
However, the US is also under fire from, for example, the Gulf regimes it has encouraged to forge friendly ties with Israel, and from post-colonial African countries that identify with Palestine’s struggle.
As discussed here last week, China and Russia are exploiting perceived Western hypocrisy.
What might Biden have done differently? After Oct. 7, given existing US policy and his personal history, he was bound to back Israel. He visited Tel Aviv, made a great speech, showed genuine empathy, but he went over the top, as he is prone to do.
His advice not to be “consumed by rage” was ignored. Since then, he has appeared to give Netanyahu free rein, or at least failed to rein him in, and Netanyahu, an unscrupulous hard-right nationalist and ardent fan of former US president Donald Trump, is no friend to Biden.
The US would like a time limit on the war, but Netanyahu cannot be expected to stop shooting until he can claim Hamas is wholly eradicated — a practical impossibility.
He frequently talks about a “long war”; it is his best hope of staying in office and out of jail.
Dismissing Biden’s warnings, he aims to retain control of Gaza indefinitely. As ever, he rejects a two-state solution.
Fewer than 4 percent of Jewish Israelis trust Netanyahu to tell the truth about the war, one poll found.
The US has belatedly begun to take a tougher line and Israeli forces might be obliged, in time, to show more restraint.
Yet as long as Netanyahu holds power, Biden and Western leaders can expect to face a continuing wall of defiance in Jerusalem that prolongs the suffering in Gaza, damages their credibility at home, harms their interests abroad and poses the ever-present risk of a wider war. US officials fear the West Bank might soon explode.
Whether the question is Gaza’s future, Palestinian statehood, the Iranian threat or honest democratic governance, Netanyahu is a liability, more so now than before the war.
Memo to Biden: There can be no peace while Netanyahu rules.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS