RSS
Here’s How Asia Is Responding to the Israel-Hamas War
Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and Chinese Premier Li Qiang attend a signing ceremony in Beijing. Photo: Reuters/Thomas Peter
On October 7, the terrorist organization Hamas conducted a brutal and unprecedented attack against Israeli civilians. The terrorists committed heinous crimes against the civilian population, with an emphasis on children, women, and the elderly.
In response, the State of Israel launched the Swords of Iron War against the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip.
The countries of the Indo-Pacific have a number of fears arising from the crisis in the Middle East. First, they are apprehensive that the next war (either concurrently with or following the Russia-Ukraine war) is likely to take place in their region, particularly between China and Taiwan. They are also concerned that the Swords of Iron War will have consequences for their energy security. They rely on oil and gas imports from the Persian Gulf that might be undermined due to instability in the region.
China
China’s conduct during the Swords of Iron War has not been neutral. In the past, China has tried to navigate in a somewhat balanced manner between Israel and the Palestinians. But China is Iran’s largest trading partner, and earlier this year it played a significant role in mediating between the two major rivals, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Swords of Iron War raises the potential for entanglement between these two adversaries.
Since the outbreak of the war, statements in the Chinese media and by senior government officials have indicated a shift. This was reflected on the ground in a stabbing incident involving an employee of the Israeli embassy in Beijing, and an unprecedented antisemitic wave on Chinese social media. Alongside Russia, China vetoed the American proposal at the UN Security Council.
China’s ambassador to the UN referred to Israel as an “occupying force,” demanded an immediate lifting of the siege on Gaza, said the root of the conflict is the “illegal occupation” of Palestinian territories, and made no mention of Hamas at all.
China sees itself as an important neutral mediator for peace in the Middle East, but it is no longer perceived as such by the relevant parties. This is a severe blow to Beijing’s diplomatic approach. It aims to strengthen its position in the region and be a meaningful part of shaping the new order, leading to a distancing from the United States that does not create drastic changes in the region. Providing support to extreme Islam could entail possible costs.
In addition, Israel must now recognize that China is not a friend. Countries in the Indo-Pacific expect that Israel’s relationship with China, as well as that of other Western countries, will change, strengthening their support in the face of their own serious tensions with China. There is also concern that China might exploit the conflict in Gaza to implement change in the current order concerning Taiwan.
India
One of the most striking condemnations of the events of October 7 came from Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi. He tweeted, “I am deeply shocked by the news of terror attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel in this difficult hour.”
The UN General Assembly passed an essentially symbolic resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire without mentioning either Hamas or the events of October 7. The resolution passed with 45 abstentions, including India. This marks a continuation of a trend that began in 2014 with Modi’s rise to power. In contrast to his predecessors, Modi significantly elevated the level of relations between India and Israel.
Support for Israel can also be seen as a continuation of India’s positioning as a significant player in the Persian Gulf and the entire Middle East. This was particularly evident in the vision announced by Modi and President Biden in September at the G-20 summit in Delhi, according to which they aim to connect India to Europe through the Persian Gulf and Israel. The importance India places on the region can be seen in its participation in the I2U2 framework (India, Israel, US, UAE), which strengthens its presence vis-à-vis Israel and the UAE. It should be noted that there is one issue where India remains consistent in its stance: the need for a two-state solution to resolve the conflict.
Another common denominator is the challenge India and Israel share in dealing with severe terrorism committed by extreme Sunni Islamist organizations. This bond facilitates the garnering of support for Israel from India, which has been dealing with the threat of these organizations for many years. It has been necessary to continue monitoring the responses of the Muslim population in India, especially in light of the violence that occurred at the end of October in the state of Kerala, governed by the Congress Party. The upcoming year is an election year in India, and Modi is aiming to preserve stability and avoid exacerbating tensions between Hindus and Muslims against the backdrop of the Swords of Iron War.
Japan
In recent years, there has been a trend toward rapprochement between Japan and Israel, particularly in the security domain. In 2022, Israeli Minister of Defense Benny Gantz visited Japan, when the countries marked 70 years of diplomatic relations. Japan, like other countries in the Indo-Pacific region, is adjusting its security policy to incorporate lessons learned from the Russia-Ukraine war.
For many years, Japan refrained from direct involvement in the Middle East. The current war is prompting it to reconsider this approach. The Japanese are particularly interested in cooperation with Israel on missile defense (given the threat from North Korea), as well as cyber defense.
At the center of Japan’s interest in the Middle East is energy security. Approximately 90% of its energy needs are supplied by regional countries, so there is a strong Japanese interest in preserving stability in the region. Hamas’ surprise attack puts a big question mark on this stability. Another Japanese interest during the war is the effectiveness of Iron Dome. Israel’s air defense superiority, of which Israel is proud, is a big contributor to Israel’s prestige in the Indo-Pacific region.
Diplomatically, Japan initially responded to the war in a neutral manner and criticized Israel’s airstrikes in Gaza. Until October 11, Japan did not address Hamas actions at all and did not explicitly acknowledge Israel’s right to self-defense. Only in the past two weeks has there been a noticeable shift in this approach: Japan expressed a willingness to convey messages to Iran to prevent escalation and decided to impose sanctions on companies and individuals transferring funds to Hamas. However, it also called on Israel to suspend its attack on Gaza to allow for the entry of humanitarian aid. Unprecedented expressions of support for Israel are taking place in the streets of Tokyo.
Japan is watching and learning regarding the Western response to events.
South Korea
A few days after October 7, South Korean President Yoon Suk-Yeol condemned the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians and soldiers, and the abduction of hostages to Gaza. While South Korea did not express a clear stance in favor of Israel, this constituted an official public condemnation of Hamas.
Yeol also initiated an emergency cabinet meeting aimed at examining the effects of the war on South Korea’s economy and security. At the meeting, concerns were raised about the impact of the conflict between Israel and Hamas on the regional and global scene.
Another important concern for South Korea is North Korea’s involvement. The Israel Defense Forces revealed that North Korea is supplying military technologies to Hamas, and Kim Jong-Un has declared support for the Palestinians and expressed a willingness to send aid to them. All of this clearly places South Korea at odds with the axis in which North Korea actively participates. As the axis countries take more and more anti-Western action, South Korea’s and Japan’s ability to leverage their own interests and needs is strengthened.
The Swords of Iron War has wide-ranging implications for the Indo-Pacific countries, which are grappling with threats such as radical Islam and the tensions resulting from inter-power competition. While the perceived threats in the Indo-Pacific region include China and North Korea, the overall strategic picture is much more broad and complex.
For these countries, the preservation of energy security is critical, and the situation in the Middle East is posing a threat to that security. In addition, the countries of the Indo-Pacific are concerned by the position of the Iran-Russia-China-North Korea axis regarding the war. While Iran is considered a friend, its alignment with China and North Korea creates tensions with India, Japan and South Korea.
Dr. Lauren Dagan Amoss is a member of the Deborah Forum, a lecturer and a researcher in the Department of Political Science and the Security Studies Program at Bar-Ilan University. She specializes in Indian foreign policy. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Here’s How Asia Is Responding to the Israel-Hamas War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.