This is apropos a letter to the Editor by this writer carried by the newspaper yesterday.
In my view, the fate of this stance may mirror the situation in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K), where India has integrated the disputed territory with mainland India, effectively imprisoning its 12 million residents and stripping them of basic rights.
The outcome for IIOJ&K and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may thus become historical examples of larger powers overpowering and subsuming smaller, weaker entities, leading to their eventual marginalization and extinction.
Donald Trump is even more clear and determined to end Palestine from the world map offering near-unconditional support for Israel in its killing spree, without providing any solution no matter how trivial and impractical. When he was the president his record spoke for itself.
He moved the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, actions that showcased his alignment with Israeli right-wing policies.
He even criticized Harris as being anti-Israel, positioning himself as the stronger defender of Israel without any notable concerns for Palestinian humanitarian issues.
One thing is common in both of them: neither has shown a willingness to leverage US influence to pressure Israel into stopping the ongoing military operations in Gaza.
The other two superpowers, China and Russia, that have positioned themselves as maintaining independent stances on global conflicts, advocate for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but do so without exerting significant influence.
China, while supporting Palestinian statehood at international forums, also aims to build economic ties with both Israel and Palestine, balancing its interests in the region.
Russia’s position is somewhat similar to China’s in that it supports a two-state solution and has historically maintained a relationship with both Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Russia has also been involved in peace negotiations and has sought to position itself as a mediator in the conflict but again without having any appetite for kinetic, economic or financial commitments.
Qamar Bashir
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments