War in Palestine and its Impact on Western countries

The ongoing war in Palestine is deeply entangled within the Middle East's history and geopolitics; it has a profound impact that goes beyond its geographical boundaries, bringing instability to the Western world; it ultimately results in tensions, challenges, and very complicating dilemmas that transcend through Europe's social and political landscapes. Understanding the Palestinian diaspora, radicalization, political average sway, and its collective role will reveal that the Israel-Hamas war is not a distant and unrelated matter, but an inevitable challenge for the West, whose effects are felt in city streets and in leaders' decisions.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of the conflict in the Israel-Palestine region, it is imperative to delve into its historical context. The roots of this ongoing conflict can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period when Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. During this time, there was a significant influx of Zionist immigrants, leading to a mounting tension between the Jewish and Arab populations.[1] The conflict between Palestine and the Arab population has been a major source of tension in the region since then.

Following the conclusion of World War I, Palestine came under an international mandate entrusted to Great Britain by The League of Nations. In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution to partition the land of Palestine into two separate states, an Arab and a Jewish one. It is crucial to note that this decision was met with strong opposition, both from the Palestinian population and the neighboring Arab nations. Nevertheless, Israel officially declared its independence in May 1948.

The declaration of independence by the State of Israel in 1948 triggered the first Arab-Israeli War. In response to this proclamation, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria orchestrated a military invasion into Israel. Throughout the duration of this war, Palestinians either fled their homes or were forcibly displaced, a significant event commonly referred to as the Nakba, meaning 'catastrophe' in Arabic.

Ultimately, Israel emerged victorious in the war, securing the territories provided for it by the United Nations. Additionally, Israel occupied certain regions that had been intended for the prospective Palestinian state.

In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established with the aim of representing the global Palestinian population, predominantly those living in mandated Palestine prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. The primary objective of the organization was to consolidate the leadership of diverse Palestinian factions. Its prominence heightened following the conclusion of the 1967 Six-Day War.[2] The organization's primary objective was to consolidate the leadership of diverse Palestinian factions.

In the aftermath of the Six-Day War, where Israel acquired control over territories including the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt and the Golan Heights adjacent to the Jordan River, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt extended diplomatic overtures aimed at achieving a peaceful resolution in accordance with United Nations Resolution 242.[3] This resolution outlined the need for Israel to return the territories it had captured. Israel rebuffed these terms, and the ensuing tensions lead up to the outbreak of a full-scale war in 1973, commonly referred to as the Yom Kippur War.

In 1987, following the commencement of the Palestinian intifada, Hamas was established as an organization that opposed the secular approach of the PLO.[4] Diverging from its stance, Hamas embraced the use of violence, including acts of terrorism. The organization's 1988 charter asserts that Palestine is an Islamic homeland, inviolable and not to be relinquished to non-Muslims. Furthermore, Hamas considers the engagement in a holy war to reclaim control of Palestine from Israel as a religious duty mandatory upon Palestinian Muslims.

In the 2000s, the Second Intifada unfolded over five years, proving more violent than its predecessor and resulting in 4,300 fatalities. In response to a severe suicide bombing in March 2002, Israel initiated Operation 'Defensive Shield' to reoccupy parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel also constructed separation barriers. By 2005, violence had subsided. In 2006, Hamas won the legislative election, taking control of Gaza in 2007.[5] In 2007.

The Israel-Hamas War and its economic impact

The conflict in Israel erupted on October 7, 2023, when Hamas initiated a surprise attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip. During this offensive, more than 240 people were taken hostage. Following the attack, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared a state of war, marking the first time such a declaration had been made since the Yom Kippur War. Since then, Gaza has been under daily attacks by the IDF and its land operation in Gaza. Israel issued evacuation orders for over one million Palestinians residing in Gaza. The toll from this conflict has been devastating: by January 2024 around 20,000 Palestinians had been killed, the majority of which were minors; meanwhile, in Israel the toll was 1,200 civilians killed since October 7th.

This conflict holds significant implications for Western countries, particularly in Europe, where neighboring Ukraine continues to grapple with the ongoing war resulting from Russia's invasion. The persistent instability in Ukraine has already disrupted the established international order. With the recent escalation of the conflict in Israel, there is a heightened risk of further destabilization across the region.

The Western world maintains a profound interest in the Israel-Hamas war, primarily due to its potential to disrupt the global order. Furthermore, the Middle East stands as a region of great importance, given its abundant natural resources. Historically, conflicts in the Middle East have often resulted in an increase in oil prices due to the region's significant role in global energy production. The repercussions of the Israel-Hamas conflict on the global financial markets will hinge on the extent of involvement of major powers and the duration of the conflict.

During the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, there was a significant surge in oil prices, reaching a staggering 300%. However, it is unlikely that a similar scenario will unfold in the present context. Despite Israel's historical tensions with Arab nations, the geopolitical landscape has evolved since 1974. On October 18th 2023, Reuters reported a comparatively moderate increase in oil prices, with a rise of over 2% to exceed $92, representing a 7.5% gain over the previous week.[7] On October 18th 2023, Reuters reported a comparatively moderate increase in oil prices, with a rise of over 2% to exceed $92, representing a 7.5% gain over the previous week.

If the conflict carries on, its impact is likely to be more noticeable in countries with direct trade exposure to Israel. These countries, such as the United States, Canada, the member states of the European Union, Mexico, EFTA (the European Free Trade Association) member states, Turkey, and The Mercosur Bloc,[8] may experience more substantial economic effects, including potential disruptions in trade and fluctuations in financial markets, particularly if the conflict continues to escalate or remains unresolved. Other nations with less direct economic ties to the region may still experience indirect effects, such as changes in oil prices and global economic uncertainty.

Over 100 days have passed since the conflict began and the trade through the network Sea is facing challenges, causing a noticeable spike in shipping costs. Ships are actively avoiding the Suez Canal, leading to disruptions in trade between Europe and Asia. According to S&P Global Commodity Insights, the freight rate for a 40-foot container from North Asia to Europe has skyrocketed by more than 600%, now standing at $6,000.[9] If the conflict were to spread to major oil-producing nations in the Middle East, such as Iran, "the global economy could face severe repercussions."[10] Interruptions in energy supply from these regions could lead to a significant spike in energy costs for both businesses and households.

The Israel-Hamas war, in addition to its economic instability, has a significant impact within Western European countries. These regions are home to substantial Jewish and Muslim populations: over 1.3 million Jews and approximately 23 million Muslims, among them 100,000 Palestinians, live in Europe.[11] As the conflict escalates, Jewish communities may find themselves subject to collective attribution for the actions of the Israeli government. Simultaneously, the Muslim community may experience divisions, with some aligning themselves with the ideals of Hamas rather than supporting the people of Palestine. This alignment may manifest in street demonstrations urging governments to support Hamas, condemn Israel, and call for the cut of diplomatic ties with Israel.

In fact, these concerns have materialized, with instances of anti-Semitic incidents and violence against individuals from Palestinian backgrounds. In Oporto a synagogue was vandalized with graffiti on it where it was written "Free Palestine''.[12] The Kahal Adass Jisroel synagogue, in Berlin, was attacked with two Molotov cocktails that fortunately did not cause any damage.[13] In Chicago a 6-year-old Palestinian-American was fatally stabbed 26 times.[14] In Chicago a 6-year-old Palestinian-American was fatally stabbed 26 times.[15] The Kahal Adass Jisroel synagogue, in Berlin, was attacked with two Molotov cocktails that fortunately did not cause any damage.

These actions are indicative of the need to address the potential for radicalization within communities affected by the Israel-Hamas conflict, as it presents a genuine threat to the social fabric and safety of diverse communities in Western countries.

Radicalization and the spread of extremism

The protracted Israel-Hamas war and the presence of the Palestinian and Muslim communities in Western countries have, in some instances, been associated with increased radicalization and the spread of extremism. Radicalization can occur as a result of problems in the country of origin or as a new movement within an otherwise calm immigrant community.

When people from a particular community migrate to different countries or regions, they often find themselves in a confusing situation. If the religion of these communities differs from the predominant religion in the host society, it frequently becomes a central aspect of their identity and experience in the new environment.[15] The following are some of the most important aspects of the migration process.

Religion can play a pivotal role in the dynamics of these communities. Religious leaders often assume an essential role in aiding people in coping with the challenges they encounter in their new environment. Additionally, religion can act as a unifying element, bringing together community members even in the face of internal tensions and divisions.

In the Muslim community in Europe, some individuals may grapple with a profound sense of invalidation and disconnection from their cultural and religious roots. These feelings of alienation can serve as a major factor that drives certain individuals toward the adoption of extreme ideologies, including those associated with terrorist groups such as Jihadists. The core of Jihadist ideologies is the belief that they are in a holy war in the service of God, often justifying acts of violence as a means to achieve their goals.

The escalation of the conflict between Israel and Palestine has heightened tensions in Europe. As a result, there is an increased global risk of terrorism. This situation has raised concerns about the potential for extremist groups to carry out acts of violence and terrorism, as observed in the past, such as the 2015 Paris attacks orchestrated by ISIS.

On October 16th, a shooting occurred in Brussels that tragically resulted in the deaths of two Swedish individuals. This incident was officially labeled as a terrorist attack. According to the BBC, the perpetrator of this attack uploaded a video on social average, in which he declared himself as the shooter and stated that he had been inspired by the Islamic State group.[16] On October 24th, the two individuals responsible for the attack were apprehended and subsequently charged with criminal conspiracy and complicity in murder, all of which were linked to a terrorist plot.

In France, the Palace of Versailles has faced a series of bomb threats, totaling six incidents.[17] These threats have prompted the French authorities to raise the national security alert level. This heightened state of alert follows a tragic incident where a schoolteacher was fatally stabbed by an individual affiliated with the Islamic State extremist group.[18] On December 2nd, a radical Islamist of Iranian descent stabbed to death a German-Filipino tourist close to the Eiffel Tower and made an attempt to murder two British citizens.[19]Understandably, these events have left people deeply concerned about their safety and the security situation in the country.

partner-economic deprivation has been debated in its connection to radicalization. Evidence suggests that partner-economic factors play a role in generating feelings of alienation, contributing to radicalization. Europe's Muslim minorities often face economic challenges, with high unemployment rates and limited upward mobility. The establishment of Muslim ghettos began with post-war migrant workers in the 1950s, leading to a cycle of poverty, limited educational opportunities, and discrimination in the job market.[20] Unemployment and poverty can lead some Muslim youth into criminal activities and, in some cases, radicalization.

Radicalization can also manifest itself through the dissemination of extremist propaganda online, the recruitment of individuals, and the financing of extremist activities in support of the Palestinian cause. Vulnerable individuals, particularly young Muslim children, are often targeted for radicalization efforts. Children are seen as advantageous recruits for these terrorist groups due to their potential for long-term involvement and influence.[21] In addition, the recruitment of children is often a source of conflict.

The use of online recruitment is a complex and potent tool that has been employed effectively by extremist groups. In the context of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the King's College International Centre for the Study of Radicalization conducted a study, which revealed that between 140 and 600 Muslims had traveled to Syria to join the conflict. A significant number of these individuals were from countries such as Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands.[22] It is reasonable to think that their recruitment was facilitated, at least in part, through online propaganda and communication.

Children are highly active on the internet, and approximately 33 percent of children ages between 3 and 17 have access to it.[23] We live in an age where information is readily accessible, often at the touch of a button, and this information flow is often influenced by algorithms. Social average platforms have proven to be especially popular for recruitment efforts by extremist groups. Moreover, targeted advertising plays a significant role in identifying and reaching young children who may be vulnerable to extremist messaging. By tracking online behavior and preferences, extremist groups can pinpoint individuals who are susceptible to their propaganda, making it crucial to address these issues and enhance online safety measures for children.

In some cases, Islamic communities in Europe may support armed groups because these groups are perceived as defending their communities against perceived threats. These perceptions can stem from a sense of insecurity or vulnerability within these communities, which might lead some individuals to view these armed groups as protectors.

It is of utmost importance to understand that the majority of the over 23 million Muslims living in Europe do not share the same ideologies as extremist groups. Blaming the entire Muslim population for the actions of a few individuals is not only unjust but also counterproductive. Discrimination and stigmatization must be avoided, and a proactive approach should be taken to foster inclusion, mutual understanding, and collaboration with Muslim communities across Europe.

Likewise, it is crucial to extend the same principle to the Jewish population, recognizing that they are not collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government. Individual citizens should not be held accountable for the policies and actions of their respective governments, and efforts should be directed toward promoting dialogue, empathy, and cooperation with the affected communities, regardless of their backgrounds. In the broader geopolitical context, the Israeli-Hamas war has been instrumental in compelling Western governments to take a stance on the matter.

Pressure on Western governments

There are several key reasons why governments are facing pressure to address this conflict. Firstly, there are humanitarian concerns, as there have been numerous lives lost, and human rights violations are prevalent. Palestinians are experiencing severe shortages in access to water, power, and food.

Secondly, the conflict attracts attention from political left-wing parties. who may view the situation through the lens of social justice, anti-Americanism, or anti-Semitism. Most B in France the left-wing political party The New Anti-Capitalist party defended Palestinians right to defend themselves, yet did not condemn Hamas attack which resulted in an investigation for advocating for terrorism.[24]

Thirdly, the Middle East, as previously stated, holds significant strategic importance for Western governments due to its influence on regional stability and security. Finally, the historical legacy of Western colonialism in the Middle East and the role of Western powers in the establishment of Israel have left a considerable historical and moral burden. This historical context further compels Western governments to engage with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

During the weeks of the conflict, people have taken to the streets to protest, as discussed earlier. In some countries, the right to march in these protests has been restricted due to concerns about anti-Semitism. However, citizens are expecting their governments to act and make statements condemning Israel's actions in the conflict.

The UN General Assembly on October 27th, called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and demanded aid access to the Gaza Strip. In the vote, 120 countries supported the resolution, 45 countries abstained, and 14 countries, including Israel, the United States, Austria, Hungary, and Croatia, voted against it.[25] It's important to note that Palestine did not participate in the vote as it is not recognized as a sovereign state by the United Nations.

The United States and Israel maintain a close and historically significant relationship. As part of this relationship, the United States provides annual financial assistance to Israel. In 2022, Israel received $3.3 billion in aid from the United States.[26] This assistance is aimed at supporting various aspects of Israel's security and defense needs.

Israel receives support from several Western countries, including France, Britain, Italy, Germany, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. These countries have condemned Hamas, expressing solidarity with Israel. Additionally, the European Union has released a statement supporting Israel on the right to defend itself.[27]As for Palestine they will continue to support them as they have done in the past with financial assistance and humanitarian aid.

Lobbyists play a significant role in shaping public opinion and influencing political decisions. In the United States, organizations such as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and other pro-Israel groups have intensified their involvement in US politics. They have allocated considerable financial resources to support candidates in the congressional primary races that took place in May 2022.[28] This strategic allocation of funds is aimed at countering the increasing support for the Palestinian cause within the political landscape. This trend of pro-Israel lobbying efforts has been ongoing for several years. In 2018, pro-Israel lobbyists spent more than $22 million in their efforts to influence U.S. politics and policy decisions.[29] The pro-Israel lobbyists have spent more than $22 million in their efforts to influence U.S. politics and policy decisions.[29

Lobbying groups have effectively pressured Western governments to take positions in the Israel-Hamas conflict, leading to changes in Western policies and stances in the region. Their influence has contributed to the inclusion of this issue on the international political diary.

Countries like Spain that have expressed intentions to take actions against Israel. The then Minister of Social Rights Ione Belarra called for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to be brought before the International Criminal Court for the alleged bombings that resulted in civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip.[30]In addition to her stance on taking actions against Israel, Belarra accused both the European Union and the United States of encouraging Israel to continue segregation and discrimination against the Palestinians.

South Africa has taken a noteworthy step by filing a lawsuit against Israel in the International Court of Justice, accusing the latter of engaging in genocide.[31] Meanwhile the German government has officially rejected South Africa's genocide allegations against Israel in the ICJ and announced its intention to intervene on Israel's behalf in the International Court of Justice.[32] The German government has officially rejected South Africa's genocide allegations against Israel in the ICJ and announced its intention to intervene on Israel's behalf in the International Court of Justice.[33] The German government has also announced its intention to intervene in the International Court of Justice.

In response to corporate support for Israel, some individuals and groups have initiated boycotts of companies like McDonald's and Starbucks. However, in the United Kingdom, a new discussion has emerged over an anti-boycott bill aimed at banning any anti-Israel movement. This bill would allow for the fining of public bodies in the UK that engage in such boycotts. According to Chris Doyle, the director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, "If the bill becomes policy, Israel would be the only country in the world from which a local British public body cannot distance itself."[33] The bill would allow for the termination of public bodies in the UK that engage in such boycotts.

The role of the average and public opinion

In today's world, social average plays a significant role in shaping public opinion. However, it's important to acknowledge that the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict in Western average can be perceived as biased toward Israel by some individuals. average bias can manifest in various ways, including the framing of narratives, the selection of stories to cover, and the use of language. This perception of bias can impact how the conflict is portrayed to the public and influence public opinion on the matter. It's crucial for average consumers to be analytical and consider multiple sources of information to form a well-rounded opinion of the issue.

average narratives wield substantial influence over public opinion in the West. The portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinian diaspora can significantly shape the perspectives and sentiments of people. These narratives have the power to emphasize various facets of the conflict, ranging from the Palestinian quest for self-determination to Israel's security considerations.

A recent Eurotrack poll has provided insights into the diverse political attitudes regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict across Western nations. The survey shows that a substantial number of individuals in these countries either have little interest or do not care about the conflict. Notably, Germans exhibit the highest level of disinterest, with 73% indicating that the issue holds little significance for them. In contrast, Italians are the least likely to feel this way, with only 35% expressing a lack of interest. In the United Kingdom, over half of the respondents, or 56%, noted a limited interest, while an additional 10-22% responded with 'don't know.' On the other hand, Americans, Spaniards, and Italians are more likely to express a significant level of concern about the conflict, with figures ranging from 43-44%.[34] This variation underscores the divergent levels of engagement and interest in the Israel-Hamas conflict among Western nations.

Social average platforms have opened doors for younger people to access information directly from Palestinians and unbiased news sources. However, while this access to unfiltered information is beneficial, it also has potential drawbacks. Teenagers, by nature, can be relatively more trusting and less experienced in discerning reliable sources from misinformation. This makes them more vulnerable to the spread of inaccuracies and misleading narratives. Hence, while social average platforms provide valuable exposure to diverse perspectives, there's a need for critical average literacy education to help young children navigate the complex landscape of information on these platforms.

On social average platforms, there has been a significant outpouring of support for Palestine. However, it's essential to recognize that public sentiment and online advocacy do not always directly translate into changes in government policies or mainstream average narratives. The influence of public opinion on political decisions and news coverage can be complex, and political and economic factors often play a significant role in shaping the stances of governments and the priorities of news average.

The coverage of the Israel-Hamas war can vary significantly depending on the news source, and these sources may exhibit biases in their reporting. Some news outlets may have a pro-Israeli bias, while others may lean towards a pro-Palestinian perspective. It's important to note that average bias can manifest in various ways, including the framing of narratives, the selection of stories to cover, and the questions posed to interviewees. Critics argue that some news networks may exhibit a systematic bias in favor of Israel, where Palestinian supporters are frequently asked to condemn Hamas, while Israeli speakers are not similarly questioned about their government's actions.[35] These perceptions of bias can contribute to the ongoing discussion about the fairness and objectivity of average coverage in the conflict.

Conclusion

The Israel-Hamas conflict is a complex and deeply rooted issue with far-reaching implications. It's evident that the consequences stretch far beyond the borders of the Middle East. As the economic, social and security implications show, it becomes very clear that this conflict needs to be solved.

The Western world is currently witnessing a shift in the international order, particularly with the ongoing war. If the conflict persists, Europe could encounter heightened challenges, including the risk of financial market disruption. This economic instability, compounded by the ongoing situation in Ukraine, poses a difficult landscape for European leaders to navigate.

Western governments grapple with the task of responding to the conflict diplomatically, given their historical involvement in the region through colonialism. Striking a balance between humanitarian concerns, political considerations and historical legacies is extremely important for Western leaders to manage and prevent civil unrest or radicalization.

Amidst these challenges, the question of a potential shift in the international order arises. The East, represented by states like China, watches closely for any opportunity to capitalize on any weakness in Western response, with BRICS already condemning Israel.[36] The Western countries ability to navigate these challenges will not only determine its own trajectory but shape the dynamics of global politics and the opinion of the public as they are seeing who is aligning with their interests. As it has also the potential to worsen internal division in political parties.

The danger of a political shift towards far-left parties further complicates the partner-political landscape. As these parties gain ground and influence in public discourse, the risk of polarization is becoming evident day by day. Not only is polarization a threat but the increase of danger of terrorism is growing, amidst the war where radicals agree with terrorist messages.

In the coming years, Europe and the United States face the task of not only addressing the immediate consequences of the Israel-Hamas war but also proactively managing the ramifications on its political landscape, international relationships, and the delicate balance of power. The future ahead demands firm leadership, strong diplomacy, and a commitment to foster human rights and understanding within and beyond Western countries borders.