الكاتب: kafej

Over the past weeks, dozens of countries and leaders have asked Israel, directly, indirectly and through the United Nations, to temporarily cease assaults on Gaza. Pleas were ignored or turned down; the UN talks drowned in technicalities and semantics.

In a surprise announcement on Thursday, the White House claimed that Israel would allow “limited pauses” in its military operations “for humanitarian reasons”. None has happened so far, but a promise is a promise.

At the same time, United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Gaza should not be re-occupied by Israel and that Palestinians who fled Gaza City should be allowed to return.

All of this, even as the US has bolstered its military presence in the region, with two aircraft carrier battle groups deployed in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, and additional air and land forces reinforcing friendly bases throughout the region. Some of the 3,400 US troops in Iraq and Syria have nevertheless come under isolated and unprecise missile and drone attacks, apparently from various sub-state armed groups. The US has also rushed massive air and sea deliveries of weapons and ammunition to Israel.

So what is really happening?

Israel is the traditional, strongest and guaranteed American strategic partner in the Middle East, and it is unlikely that, whatever the differences between their administrations may be, that position will ever change. But the US needs its Arab strategic partners, too.

In deciding on its Middle Eastern policies and strategies, Washington has many factors to consider. They include, among other things, regional and global security, its relations with Iran, security and cost of oil and gas supplies, freedom and security of international shipping lanes, and containing the influence of Russia and China. It is a complicated mix, even at the best of times.

When policies are formulated and implemented by amateurs guided by the partiality of private inclinations, it often spoils years of hard work. Such was the case during the four disastrous years of the Trump administration’s off-the-hip approach to the Middle East. The president’s main “expert” was his then 37-year-old son-in-law. His proposed “peace plan” was fodder for Israeli hawks, but stunned and angered Palestinians.

Stepping back from current Gaza-related issues, it is obvious that most American problems in the Middle East originate from two fundamental reasons: the end of the bipolar world and Washington’s relations with Iran.

For 50 years after World War II, the division between the American-dominated West and Eastern Communism led by the Soviet Union directed political allegiances.

In the Middle East, Israel was in the American camp, as were Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states; Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Libya were on the Soviet side. Convincing Egypt to change its allegiance from East to West and sign the peace accord with Israel in 1978 was one of Washington’s major strategic victories in the Middle East during the Cold War.

Under the rule of the shah, Iran probably had the most pro-American regime from the Mediterranean to the Pacific, but that equation flipped on its head after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Overnight, the US became Iran’s biggest enemy.

In the best tradition of pragmatic foreign policy, the US encouraged and helped Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to invade its bigger neighbour, Iran. The war that dragged on for almost 10 years was practically, if not directly, a US proxy war against Iran. The US fought another proxy war through the mujahideen against Soviet-controlled Afghanistan.

While the Cold War was often hard and unfair on the interests of individual small countries involved, the bipolar strategic paradigm had its advantages: Both big protectors took care not to allow local troubles to explode into major wars, usually with success.

When communism caved in, the West allowed itself to proclaim “the end of history,” believing that it had won its big strategic struggle once and forever, and that future confrontations would be small and easily controllable. What a mistake.

In less than a decade, the US allowed its regional oversight and insight into potential trouble spots to wilt.

With much weakened analytical capabilities, the United States ignorantly, arrogantly and overconfidently let itself be led into three successive wars that ended in embarrassing setbacks for Washington.

After years of being bogged down in Iraq, the US hastily pulled out when it realised that continuing there cost too much in soldiers’ lives, money and especially its reputation in the Middle East and Islamic countries. In a similar fashion, it pulled out of Afghanistan a decade later.

Washington repeated the mistake it made in Iraq by getting involved in the Syrian war, although this time it did not invade openly. Its support for anti-government factions ended up helping, of all factions, the pro-Iranian armed groups gain influence and strength. Syria also cemented its ties with Moscow. The end result: Iran spread its regional influence, and the US failed to check it.

Other regional conflicts, too, have shown the limits of US power and influence — whether in its failure to stop the war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis in Yemen, or to end the impasse in Libya.

It is then understandable, that in the year prior to the 2024 elections, Biden wants to appear active in the region with a more balanced approach, aimed at demonstrating that the US still does have the ability to mediate peace.

If that means mentioning some things that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his hardline cabinet don’t want to hear — let alone heed — so be it.

Dozens of pro-Palestinian protesters blocked the entrances to the facilities of military suppliers in the United Kingdom and the United States, demanding an end to arms sales to Israel.

They were joined in their rallies by trade unionists, holding banners and Palestinian flags outside a BAE Systems factory in southeastern England on Friday, targeting the United Kingdom’s biggest military supplier.

“Stop arming Israel”, read one sign at the protest at BAE’s Rochester, Kent, site, where the firm tests and assembles electronic equipment used on military aircraft and in surveillance systems.

Other placards read “no business as usual” and “taxpayers have blood on their hands”. Organisers said they were aiming to shut down the factory “which provides components for military aircraft currently being used by Israeli forces in the bombardment of Gaza”.

They said it was part of an “international day of action for Palestine” organised in response to a call by Palestinian trade unionists.

In the United States, demonstrators had gathered in front of the Northrop Grumman office complex in San Diego, California, on Thursday to protest the sale of their weapons to Israel, raising placards that read, “End the genocide of Gaza now”.

Calls for a ceasefire in Gaza are growing by the day.

But with Palestinians enduring deaths, devastation and deprivation every day, what have they been offered?

A pause in Israeli attacks.

Daily four-hour windows said to be aimed at helping people move around or get to the south.

But that region is being bombed, too.

So, does the White House announcement of a daily pause offer any respite to Palestinians in the territory?

Or is it a way to divide the strip as part of Israel’s offensive strategy?

Presenter: Laura Kyle

Guests:
Omar Shakir – Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch

Trita Parsi – Executive vice president of Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington-based think tank

Joseph Belliveau – Executive director of Doctors Without Borders in Canada

Donald Tusk, the opposition’s candidate for prime minister, said that the group is ‘ready to take responsibility’.

Poland’s opposition parties have signed a coalition deal, paving the way for them to form a new government after winning the majority of votes in elections last month. But they will have to wait.

Donald Tusk, the opposition’s candidate for prime minister, announced on Friday that a deal had been reached. The group includes various ideologies, but united around strengthening Poland’s ties to the European Union.

“We are ready to take responsibility for Poland in the coming years,” Tusk, a former prime minister and head of the liberal Civic Coalition (KO) told reporters.

The parties, which include Civic Coalition, the economically liberal Third Way, and the left-leaning New Left, garnered a collective majority of votes in the October 15 election.

But President Andrzej Duda has given the governing nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party, which took more votes than any single party in the elections, the first shot at forming a government.

That effort is widely expected to fail, and the opposition, calling themselves the “democratic opposition”, have pledged to strengthen democracy in Poland after PiS was accused of undermining the independence of the judiciary during its eight years in power.

A series of judicial changes, instituted in 2019, blocked Polish courts from applying EU laws in certain areas and barred courts from referring legal questions to the top EU court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Those changes spurred the EU to freeze billions of euros in funds from the bloc’s budget apportioned for Warsaw, and the ECJ ruled in June that the changes violated the bloc’s standards on the rule of law.

The opposition parties have emphasised their desire to strengthen relations with Brussels to access those funds. The parties have also signed a series of pledges, saying that they will restore transparency to public finances and depoliticise state-owned firms.

Friday’s agreement also says that the parties will scrap a Constitutional Tribunal ruling from 2020 that instituted a near-total ban on abortion in Poland.

The country’s anti-abortion laws, some of the harshest in Europe, have provoked large-scale protests, including marches in June that kicked off after a woman who was five months pregnant died of sepsis.

There are few exceptions for abortion in Poland, even when the life of the mother is at risk.

“In our agreement, we found a common denominator for the issues we want to implement,” said Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz, leader of the centre-right Polish Peasants’ Party (PSL).

“They concern: support for families, employees, entrepreneurs, the Polish countryside, education, healthcare and women’s rights.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is also a focus of the group, which has promised to bolster Poland’s position in groups such as the EU and NATO amid “the unprecedented threat to our security caused by Russian aggression against Ukraine”.

In just more than four weeks, Israel’s total siege and indiscriminate bombardment of the Gaza Strip killed more than 10,000 civilians, including some 4000 children, and caused global outrage.

People across the world, from the United Kingdom and France to Turkey and Indonesia, are regularly taking to the streets in large numbers to condemn Israel’s apparent war crimes and demand an immediate ceasefire to save lives.

Regrettably, these calls – including one from the UN secretary-general himself – appear to be falling on deaf ears. Israel is not only refusing to entertain the possibility of a ceasefire, but also continuing to target hospitals, mosques, churches, schools, UN-run facilities and other civilian infrastructure across the besieged Strip in direct violation of international humanitarian law.

The United States, meanwhile, is supporting this aggressive mass killing campaign unequivocally, and providing Israel with the funds, weapons and the political backing it needs to continue its assault on Gaza. All this despite knowing too well that the civilian casualties are piling up at an incredible rate.

The US is not alone in facilitating the conditions for Israel to break international law and commit war crimes with complete impunity. The UK, France, Germany and many other Western states are firmly rejecting the growing calls for a ceasefire, claiming Israel is “defending itself” and a ceasefire would only “help Hamas”. These governments are also trying to silence voices calling for a ceasefire within their countries, at times going as far as criminalising peaceful expressions of solidarity with the Palestinians.

Leading Western governments’ indifference to the immense suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and vocal support for Israel’s blatant violations of international law have exposed a deep moral crisis they are all suffering from – a crisis that raises important questions about the viability of the Western-led, rules-based world order.

Indeed, it is becoming impossible for Western powers to claim they stand for human rights and international law while failing to demand a ceasefire in a conflict that, in the words of the UN, turned Gaza into a “graveyard for children”. Their silence in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe and undeniable complicity in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza serves to encourage other actors to commit similar atrocities and expect impunity. Their support for Israel and refusal to demand a ceasefire to save innocent lives is a moral failing that will have grave consequences for the entire international community.

Today, this consequential moral failing is perhaps more visible in the UK than anywhere else.

On Saturday, November 11, the country will commemorate Armistice Day, marking the 105th anniversary of the armistice signed between the Allies of World War I and Germany. The day is meant to be an opportunity for Britons to pay their respects for fallen soldiers, reflect on the cruelty of war, and remember the importance of ending hostilities and saving lives.

Thousands of people in London will be marching on Armistice Day, like they did every Saturday since the beginning of this war, to demand a ceasefire in Gaza. Armistice Day is, perhaps, the most appropriate day for such a protest, as a call for ceasefire fits perfectly with its spirit and purpose.

The UK’s leaders, however, did not see the coinciding of Armistice Day with a march demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as an opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned from past wars, and reconsider their support for Israel’s assault on the besieged enclave. Rather, they doubled down on their morally indefensible position and even attempted to accuse protesters demanding a ceasefire in Gaza of not respecting the UK’s war dead and the values they fought for.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, for example, went as far as to claim that “Saturday’s planned protest is not just disrespectful but offends our heartfelt gratitude to the memory of those who gave so much so that we may live in freedom and peace today”.

But how could a protest calling for “ceasefire”, calling for an end to the killing of children, can be offensive to the memory of those who died in past wars? Or how could such an effort, on Armistice Day no less, be branded “a hate march”, as Home Secretary Suella Braverman shockingly tried to do?

British government’s passionate opposition to an Armistice Day march demanding a ceasefire in Gaza not only exposes its abandonment of some core British values, including freedom of speech, but also underlines the disconnect between the country’s rulers and people. Indeed, according to a recent poll conducted by YouGov, some 76 percent of British adults support a ceasefire in the Gaza war.

The UK’s leaders, like many of their Western allies, appear to have lost their moral compass and forgotten all the lessons learned from the devastating world wars of the last century. Their failure to speak against Israel’s war crimes, and support an immediate ceasefire in line with the British public’s wishes, is a moral failing that will have catastrophic consequences for us all.

This is why, this Armistice Day, we should all come together not only to remember the pain and sacrifices of the past wars, but also to communicate to our leaders yet again the importance and urgency of doing everything we can to put an end to the bloodshed in Palestine – for the sake of the millions of innocents suffering in Gaza, and all the rest of us.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.