EDITORIAL: Until recently, even a mild criticism of Israel’s policies in the US, especially in universities, could invite the accusation of anti-Semitism. Those who went there faced vilification from illiberal storm troopers.
But the genocidal war on Gaza has brought about a sea change in how an increasing number of Americans, particularly young people, see the situation. With the deepening of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, tensions have been rising at campuses across the country.
On last Wednesday as Israeli warplanes kept pounding the Gaza Strip, in Brooklyn — a borough of New York City — some 2000 protesters, including many Jewish Passover Seders, occupied a plaza near the home of Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, a staunch supporter of Israel like President Joe Biden, chanting “stop arming Israel, stop funding genocide” and “Let Gaza live.”
Meanwhile, universities have become a focal point of pro-Palestinian protest demonstrations.
Students at Columbia set up encampments urging the university to disassociate from weapons manufactures with ties to Israel.
Now the student activism on university campuses across the US has led to mass suspensions and arrests of students, although there has been not a single incident of anti-Semitism through harassment or violence against any Jewish student or others.
However, it is important to note that a vast majority of the population in the US views response as disproportionate. In many cases, therefore, that anger has led to public protests, including those on the university campuses. They, along with billions of people on this planet, do not buy Western countries’ rationalisation of sustained arms sales to Israel, and the 26 billion dollars’ aid package approved by the United States last week.
The Western position in this grossly uneven conflict has laid President Reagan’s axis of evil mantra if not to rest than certainly seriously wounded with little prospect of a complete revival.
Another conflict, between Russia and Ukraine, is in its third year. Russia opposed Nato expansion to Ukraine viewing it as a threat to its security while Ukraine opted to walk out of Istanbul negotiations which included clauses demanding Ukraine not join Nato, adopt a geopolitically neutral status while granting special status to Eastern Ukraine – a deal rejected by Zelensky and reportedly scuttled by the Americans promising assistance to Ukraine.
The flexing of US muscles in Taiwan has angered China, though it is unlikely to erupt in anything but a verbal spat, as the two countries are not expected to engage in a military standoff.
Whichever side one may support in the two ongoing and a potential conflict, the fact is, that the outcome has been two-fold: there has been an across the board supply chain disruption which is leading to a rise in the international price of oil and grain in particular that is impacting on inflation worldwide; and sadly the two largest economies today - US and China – have yet to resolve their differences on trade in specific items.
And secondly, a seismic shift in the geopolitical power structure is unfolding with the US losing its status as a unipolar power and China and Russia as a junior partner, emerging as rivals.
And while in the past the Western narrative of a moral high ground was acceptable, yet Israel has smashed that into smithereens with the result that the Western public is not supportive of their present government’s narrative.
With elections due in several Western countries, the US and in the European Union, this element of the emerging scenario is expected to play into the hands of the opposition.
The seismic geopolitical shift will take some time in coming into full force though signs that it is underway are clear.
While sanctions against countries had somewhat limited effect in the past yet recent sanctions, against Russia in particular, have been neutralised by countries not supported by the West.
The rise in non-dollar based international trade and the expansion of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to include Iran prompted the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade to emphasise the need to keep an eye on the group’s expansion especially considering the effect of a potential BRICS+ currency and the consequences for EU trade policy.
And while India has strategically placed itself in a good bargaining position in both the Western and the BRICS camp, no doubt attributable to its large foreign exchange reserves, Pakistan focused entirely on recovering from its ongoing economic impasse, as a consequence of flawed economic policies of the past three to four decades. It is now, understandably, seeking to balance its bilateral ties with the two camps.
We cannot afford to ignore China’s sustained support for Pakistan, extended within its long term policy parameters, or dismiss US support both for the development of social and physical infrastructure (and as one of the few countries with a trade deficit with us) and neither can we dismiss the need to continue to engage with those countries from where the bulk of our remittance inflows emanate.
It is an extremely challenging task and one must wish the current stakeholders’ success.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024