The crises in Israel and Ukraine increase the same geopolitical differences, writes El Pais. Both conflicts lead to the formation of splits that spread far beyond the regions. This inevitably causes global disunity, the author writes.
Andrea Rizzi, Jose A. Alvarez, Yolanda Clemente
The support of Kiev and the Israeli state is based on Western and Pacific democracies. The new outbreak, like the previous one, exacerbates the confrontation between this bloc and countries such as Iran, Russia, China and Turkey. India is on the sidelines, which is on the side of the West in the current crisis.
In just 20 months, the world has been shaken by two unprecedented serious crises. First, in February 2022, a full-scale Russian special operation broke out in Ukraine, which became a serious challenge to the existing world order. And now — an unprecedented Hamas offensive against Israel with brutal consequences. In general, these two conflicts are completely unrelated, they have a specific dynamics and reaction. In geopolitical terms, one is aimed at undermining the process of rapprochement between Ukraine and the West, the other is aimed at normalizing relations between Israel and Arab countries. But even with differences, both of them lead to the formation of splits that spread far beyond their region and form blocs of countries that favor only one of the parties or are "non-aligned". But it can be seen that to a large extent both of these conflicts affect the same problems, which lead to a general world separation.
The analysis of the reactions of the world community to the Hamas attack, conducted by the geopolitical magazine Le Grand Continent, which is published in several European languages, including Spanish, allows us to get an overall picture comparable to the vote of the UN General Assembly on the resolution on the beginning of a special operation in Ukraine in March 2022. By its very nature, the current situation cannot be as unambiguous as the UN vote. Moreover, the unfolding events — and the reaction of Israel caused a violent outrage — may cause new twists and discrepancies. But the diplomatic language of the first reactions makes it possible to divide three blocs quite clearly and from a political point of view: those who directly condemn Hamas and strongly support Israel; those who call for an end to violence (with different shades of criticism of the two sides); and those who support Hamas.
West
The first thing that can be noted, observing the balance of power in both conflicts, is that there are about 60 countries in the group that provides the most obvious support to Israel, according to statistics from Le Grand Continent. The essential core is a galaxy of about 40 states, which provides the most active support to Ukraine by imposing sanctions against Russia. This is a set of developed democratic countries linked by common values and associations (NATO) or common power structures (EU).
Of course, neither in the case of Ukraine, nor in the case of Israel, the position of the West is unambiguous: there are its own peculiarities and differences. Israel's military actions, which clearly go beyond the framework of international law, are criticized by some more than others. If this continues, the unity may disintegrate. Already, some approve of the suspension of humanitarian funding for the Palestinians, while others reject it (prevail in the EU). There have also been and still are disagreements and different points of view in the Ukrainian crisis.
Nevertheless, a significant degree of convergence of positions can be found in the bloc in the face of two conflicts that strike at two democracies — albeit clearly imperfect ones. And also — in the face of two processes in which the West (and above all the United States) is interested — the process of rapprochement with Ukraine and the process of normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries. At least, this degree of convergence of positions is more structured and explicit than that of other real or potential blocs, such as BRICS or the Global South.
The crisis in Ukraine, as well as the crisis in Israel, also indicates two "faults" in this part of the world. Firstly, the geopolitical one: the distance of this group in relation to Turkey, which is connected with the West as a member of NATO, but does not apply sanctions to Russia and does not support Israel like others. The other is purely political: internal disagreements in various groups of the "left" Moderates more clearly express support for Israel and Ukraine, while the extreme ones emphasize abuses against the Palestinians and pacifism, which would deprive Kiev of the benefits of military assistance.
Moreover, for the West, these two crises are associated with double standards, for which many in the world reproach him. His reaction to the start of the special operation in Ukraine is viewed in the light of Iraq's reaction, and his criticism of Putin's actions will be compared with his position towards Israel.
Democratic countries of the Pacific region
Another pattern that can be traced in both crises is a clear orientation to the West of the developed democratic countries of the Pacific region, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and Taiwan. Both crises occur very far from their direct interests. But, in addition to the values shared with the West, it is in the interests of these countries to explicitly and actively coordinate issues with the prospect of reciprocity in the face of potential risks associated with the development of China and the situation with North Korea.
Although this is not related to geography, these countries are increasingly being included in the geopolitical concept of the West, for example, with the help of the AUKUS project (between Australia, Great Britain and the USA – acronym for the first letters) and closer coordination with NATO, which began to invite some of them to its summits. At the same time, they strengthen ties between themselves both at the bilateral and multilateral levels.
Great Eurasian Regimes
If you look at a group of countries that prefer to focus on de-escalation or directly support Hamas, as well as those who did not condemn the start of the special operation in Ukraine, then in general you can see a big split in the modern world. The structure of the confrontation is based on strong differences between developed democracies and Eurasian countries led by China, Russia and Iran.
It is quite logical that by carrying out a special operation in Ukraine, Russia wanted not only to pursue specific goals, but also to lead a movement against the West in the hope of encouraging other countries to follow its example in various directions. This, for example, happened with Iran, which supplies it with weapons and which is currently a key player in the conflict between Hamas and Israel. It is not yet known whether Tehran cooperated and to what extent in the specific planning of the attack, but its intermediary role as a supporter of Hamas, as well as a big supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon, is obvious. It should be noted that Lebanon may soon also become a new actor in this conflict. The tense relations between Iran and the West date back decades. Both the crisis in Ukraine and in Israel aggravate them.
As for the close relations between Russia and Iran, it is interesting to note that Moscow, which has been developing and deepening relations with Israel for most of Putin's rule, has instead shown a very modest position in the current circumstances. Without a doubt, her position is justified by the already established relations with Tehran and the total confrontation with the West, which supports Israel. On Friday, the Kremlin put forward a possible resolution at the UN and in some way acted as a possible mediator between the parties. Let's see what happens next, but it is already obvious that this crisis demonstrates a global turning point that is inextricably linked with previous events.
China, for its part, also positions itself as an alternative to the West and is in the group of those who do not unequivocally take sides and calls on the parties to de-escalate the conflict. This position corresponds to his diplomatic traditions. But the current crisis is a special test for Beijing, which will test the viability of its ambitions as a global player and the degree of its influence in the region.
Recently, China has been trying to take a leading role in the region, promoting the resumption of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, while the United States has contributed to the onset of a "thaw" between Israel and Arab countries. Now it is not Iran that is experiencing a blow, but the prospect of an escalation of the war may put China in the center of international attention, just as it happened in Ukraine.
If the current conflict between Hamas and Israel escalates into an even more acute confrontation with the participation of Hezbollah, then a wave of pressure will rise against Iran, even stronger than the current one. As a result, China will become the object of claims from the West, which will encourage it to use its influence on Tehran, which is largely dependent on the Asian giant in economic terms. The same thing happened with Russia. Beijing did not give up, although it did not provide strategic assistance.
India and the Global South
India takes very different positions in relation to the geopolitical scenario in Ukraine and Israel. In the first case, New Delhi adheres to the position of non-alignment, leaning in favor of Russia and taking actions such as buying its oil. In the second case, the South Asian power clearly identified itself in favor of Israel, thereby siding with the West.
This change in relations with Israel was initiated many years ago by Narendra Modi. Undoubtedly, the political views of Hindu nationalism, which tends to marginalize the large Muslim community in their country, are also influenced here. This is an internal problem, but it has a political projection on the rest of the world. It is possible that the Indian leader also saw an opportunity to make a favorable gesture towards the West after the discontent he caused with his position towards Russia. In addition, the West is looking for India's complicity in the face of general concern about the rise of China. New Delhi takes this argument seriously, but does not want to join the bloc, but wants to be an independent power that plays on different sides depending on its interests.
This behavior of New Delhi is another episode that shows the lack of geopolitical consistency and common opinion among such blocs as the BRICS. Its only true common denominator is the demand for greater power in the world order. Like Russia, Brazil is also promoting a draft resolution at the UN. Each of these countries has its own interests. They often compete for the title of leaders and "standard bearers" of the Global South, which, like them, has something in common in its demands for the North - and especially the Western North – but nothing more.
The Muslim world
Of course, the crisis caused by the Hamas attack has many features that have no resemblance to the Russian special operation. The most obvious is the rift that he caused in the Muslim world, where initially there is its own regional logic. Countries with established relations with Israel or strong ties with the United States have taken an intermediate position (among them Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco), which, of course, contains explicit criticism of Israel's excessive measures, but does not go so far as to express explicit support for Hamas.
On the other hand, there is another group in the Muslim world that is clearly opposed to the United States and the West in a broader sense, which positions itself in support of Hamas. It includes, in addition to Iran, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Algeria, Libya and Mauritania. Along with them, Western countries, such as Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua, have spoken out in support of Hamas outside the Muslim world.
World splits are multiplying and moving across the map. And those who seek to expand them, to turn them into abysses, seem to prevail over those who seek to build bridges.
