Connect with us

RSS

The Gaza War and Europe

An Israeli tank maneuvers, amid the Israel-Hamas conflict, near the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, July 9, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen

JNS.orgEurope borders the Middle East, and the continent cannot insulate itself from events in this region. Its options, however, are limited: Europe is hardly a strategic actor with the political will and requisite capabilities to intervene. Moreover, the Middle East is not easily amenable to foreign intervention. Nevertheless, Europe cannot ignore developments that impact its national security, and if it concentrates its efforts it may have a modest input in ensuring that pro-stability forces gain the upper hand.

The Gaza war reflects two important features of Middle Eastern politics, as well as the ongoing competition in the global system. In large parts of the Middle East, we see failures in grappling with the challenge of state building. The Hamas Islamist militia took over Gaza in a bloody coup in 2007, as the Palestinian Authority failed to maintain a monopoly over the use of force in the territory under its control. Palestinian Islamic Jihad operated alongside Hamas in Gaza, and several clans had armed militias. Similarly, militias are vying for control in Iraq (in the wake of the American departure), in Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Libya. Hezbollah, a Shi’ite militia, has taken over Lebanon, despite the parallel existence of a national government and army. Hezbollah started a war of attrition with Israel in October 2023 without consulting the Lebanese government.

The Gaza war is also a manifestation of Iranian ambitions for hegemony in a region once part of the Persian empire. Iran’s Islamic Revolution has sought to wage perpetual and unbridled holy war against Western civilization and to take over Sunni Arab lands—it also targets Israel in this jihad. Many of the region’s militias have been trained, equipped and supported by a religiously motivated Iran. While not all are fully subservient to Tehran, they act in unison against Israel and Western interests. Iran and its proxies are the main challengers to the status quo and are actively threatening the national security of Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan and Israel. Recently, Cyprus, a member state of the European Union, was added to the list of threatened states.

The Gaza war also mirrors the main struggle in the international system against American predominance, that is being conducted primarily by the quartet of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The war in Ukraine has strengthened this alliance. For years, Iran has conducted a multi-front war against Israel, an American ally, and the only state that has the power to oppose its aspirations in its campaign to drive the United States out of the region. The quartet shares this aim.

In the absence of the capability to defeat Israel on the battlefield, Hamas implements the Iranian-inspired strategy that targets its civilian population, hoping this will leave it under duress. The premeditated atrocities perpetrated and filmed on Oct. 7, 2023, were intended to terrorize Israeli citizens, in the same way as the missile attacks that rained down on Israeli civilians. Israel had no choice but to counterattack and to its dismay discovered global sympathy for Gazans (an overwhelming majority of whom have shown support for Hamas and the evil it committed on Oct. 7), accompanied by a huge wave of antisemitic acts and statements.

Europeans initially expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself, but much of their behavior (including their voting record at the United Nations) undermined Israel’s quest to destroy completely the military capability of Hamas and the efforts to increase pressure on the organization to secure the release of the Israeli hostages. Moreover, several European states recognized the non-existent state of Palestine, thus rewarding the dysfunctional Palestinian national movement and Hamas’s terrorist activities.

How can Europe play a more positive role in making the Middle East more peaceful? What can the Europeans do to curb the current inclinations in the region toward despotic regimes, terrorism, religious fanaticism and nuclear proliferation?

The developments in the Middle East have underscored an old truism. Outsiders have very little influence over Middle East outcomes; these are determined primarily by domestic forces and ingrained local political culture. Despite heroic efforts and vast financial investment, the United States has failed to create an Iraq in its image. Afghanistan was even more resistant to Western reform efforts. This should not be a surprise, as British and French colonial rule over several decades also did not change the way the “natives” conducted business.

Western attempts to intervene during the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Egypt ended in a similar failure. The ambitious project conducted by the European Union to create a “civil society” in the Palestinian territories has only enriched academics and cunning civilian entrepreneurs with little influence over Palestinian political culture. Political engineering by outsiders is doomed to fail in the Middle East. Therefore, an active interventionist European foreign policy to move societies into a democratic track is unlikely to produce positive results. Europeans tend to forget that it took European states centuries to adopt a democratic system.

Nevertheless, Europe or the European Union can do more to support pro-stability forces in the Middle East and weaken sources of instability. First, it should adopt a realpolitik lens and throw away its rose-tinted view of human nature. This is how Middle Easterners view the world. They often muse over European naiveté, which is occasionally despised. Similarly, the discourse about creating trust is simply nonsense in the region’s political parlance. Trust is not a currency used in Middle East politics. The employment of force and fear are more useful.

Some of the actors in the Middle East are evil, and engaging them diplomatically is rarely productive in limiting their mischief. Similarly, applying economic sanctions often has only meager results. Iran has been subject to such sanctions for over two decades without any change in its behavior. Europeans must overcome their reluctance to see military force as a useful tool in punishing and deterring destabilizing actors. Calling for restraint and fearing escalation when a bad guy is being beaten is counterproductive.

This means accepting Israel’s objective of destroying Hamas military capabilities in order to give its citizens a respite from missile attacks. Moreover, trying to save an Islamist mini-state that serves Iranian interests on the shores of the East Mediterranean is strategic folly; over-sensitivity to the human cost in eliminating it makes little strategic sense. Its location near the Suez Canal, an important choke point and sea route, as well as to offshore gas deposits, lends importance to who rules this area. The Europeans should appreciate efforts to minimize the presence on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean of Islamic radicals whose influence has already spread to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon Libya and the Sinai Peninsula.

A new European attitude toward the use of force also means an understanding of Israel’s need to launch a war against Hezbollah to allow its displaced citizens to return home to a normal life. A military blow to Hezbollah may also provide an opportunity for Lebanon to free itself of Islamist influence and become the tolerant and prosperous state it once was. Moreover, it signals to Iran and its proxies that their actions carry costly consequences. Exacting pain for misbehavior is the ABC of international relations.

The timidity of the United States and its European allies in dealing with the Houthis, an Iranian proxy blocking the Bab el Mandeb Strait, an international waterway, is intriguing. Forcing naval traffic to go to Europe around Africa, instead of the Suez Canal, carries financial costs and inflicts significant damage to the economy of Egypt, a pivotal pro-Western state in the Middle East. Tolerating this situation only encourages Iran to become more aggressive in its actions in the region and less fearful of Western retaliation.

Indeed, nowadays Iran is the main source of trouble in the Middle East. If Europe is serious about minimizing the dangers emanating from the Middle East, it must adopt a more confrontational posture toward the mullahs in Tehran. This has become more urgent as Iran progresses quickly toward the bomb. Europe must support all actions, including the military option, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power whose missiles can reach the old continent as well. Everything should be done to halt a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. A nuclear multipolar Middle East would become a strategic nightmare for everybody in the region and its vicinity. An Iranian nuclear umbrella for Tehran’s proxies would further embolden them. The United States, which is geographically remote from Iran and thus has a lower threat perception, needs a more energetic Europe particularly on this matter.

Europe must realize that constraining the activities of radical Islamists does not amount to Islamophobia. For example, the absurd distinction between the political and the military arms of Hamas is still accepted by some European governments. The radical anti-Western ideology of Hamas is inextricably intertwined with its violent modus operandi. Europe should outlaw Hamas in all its forms, forbid its fundraising activities and pursue all its supporters on the continent. This of course also holds true for Hezbollah.

This should not be construed as a pro-Israeli policy, but as a policy that strengthens moderate Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Jordan. They all abhor the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and its offshoots such as Hamas in Palestine, as well as Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and a large part of his Justice and Development (AK) Party. They are all concerned about the freedom enjoyed by the followers of this movement in Europe. The MB is a larger danger for the Arab states than for Israel. Europe should be critical of Qatar, which plays a unique role in destabilizing the Middle East by funding the MB, while its Al Jazeera media network is the MB’s mouthpiece in instigating against Arab regimes. Turkey, which hosts Hamas on its soil and spreads the MB message in Europe and elsewhere deserves similar critical treatment.

Europe should announce its full support for Israel with all its means if the Jewish state is attacked by a terrorist organization. Such a statement amounts to strategic and moral clarity. Europe’s human rights nitpicking for violations during warfare in Gaza are a result of ignorance regarding what a modern battlefield looks like and the unprecedented efforts by the Israel Defense Forces to limit the loss of civilian lives.

Europe should also overcome its obsession with the two-state solution. As noted, the Palestinians have failed miserably to meet the Weberian test of statehood—monopoly over the use of force. They established weak, corrupt and fragmented polities. The Palestinian political trajectory leads toward a civil war waged by a variety of militias, similar to other Arab states, or to a Hamas-dominated entity. Moreover, all polls show that the Palestinians are still far from relinquishing their revisionist dreams and becoming peaceful neighbors of the Jewish state.

The Palestinians’ real problem is not where the border between the Palestinian state and the State of Israel lies, but the very fact that there is such a border, because so many believe that there is no legitimacy for a Jewish nation-state in the Middle East. Pushing for Palestinian statehood at this stage will only increase the chances of a deadly Israeli-Palestinian war in which both sides will suffer, but in which the Palestinian pain will certainly be greater. The status quo—not ideal—is probably the less destructive alternative.

A peaceful Middle East is not on the cards anytime soon. Limiting the power of the bad guys is a realistic objective, however. In addition to a more astute American foreign policy, a coherent and realistic E.U. strategy toward the Middle East could contribute toward attaining such a goal.

Originally published by The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.

The post The Gaza War and Europe first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza

Hamas terrorists carry grenade launchers at the funeral of Marwan Issa, a senior Hamas deputy military commander who was killed in an Israeli airstrike during the conflict between Israel and Hamas, in the central Gaza Strip, Feb. 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed

The Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza has warned residents not to cooperate with the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, as the terror group seeks to reassert its grip on the enclave amid mounting international pressure to accept a US-brokered ceasefire.

“It is strictly forbidden to deal with, work for, or provide any form of assistance or cover to the American organization (GHF) or its local or foreign agents,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement Thursday.

“Legal action will be taken against anyone proven to be involved in cooperation with this organization, including the imposition of the maximum penalties stipulated in the applicable national laws,” the statement warns.

The GHF released a statement in response to Hamas’ warnings, saying the organization has delivered millions of meals “safely and without interference.”

“This statement from the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry confirms what we’ve known all along: Hamas is losing control,” the GHF said.

The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza in late May, implementing a new aid delivery model aimed at preventing the diversion of supplies by Hamas, as Israel continues its defensive military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group.

The initiative has drawn criticism from the UN and international organizations, some of which have claimed that Jerusalem is causing starvation in the war-torn enclave.

Israel has vehemently denied such accusations, noting that, until its recently imposed blockade, it had provided significant humanitarian aid in the enclave throughout the war.

Israeli officials have also said much of the aid that flows into Gaza is stolen by Hamas, which uses it for terrorist operations and sells the rest at high prices to Gazan civilians.

According to their reports, the organization has delivered over 56 million meals to Palestinians in just one month.

Hamas’s latest threat comes amid growing international pressure to accept a US-backed ceasefire plan proposed by President Donald Trump, which sets a 60-day timeline to finalize the details leading to a full resolution of the conflict.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump announced that Israel has agreed to the “necessary conditions” to finalize a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, though Israel has not confirmed this claim.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with Trump next week in Washington, DC — his third visit in less than six months — as they work to finalize the terms of the ceasefire agreement.

Even though Trump hasn’t provided details on the proposed truce, he said Washington would “work with all parties to end the war” during the 60-day period.

“I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,” he wrote in a social media post.

Since the start of the war, ceasefire talks between Jerusalem and Hamas have repeatedly failed to yield enduring results.

Israeli officials have previously said they will only agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and goes into exile — a demand the terror group has firmly rejected.

“I am telling you — there will be no Hamas,” Netanyahu said during a speech Wednesday.

For its part, Hamas has said it is willing to release the remaining 50 hostages — fewer than half of whom are believed to be alive — in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war.

While the terrorist group said it is “ready and serious” to reach a deal that would end the war, it has yet to accept this latest proposal.

In a statement, the group said it aims to reach an agreement that “guarantees an end to the aggression, the withdrawal [of Israeli forces], and urgent relief for our people in the Gaza Strip.”

According to media reports, the proposed 60-day ceasefire would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a surge in humanitarian aid, and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, with US and mediator assurances on advancing talks to end the war — though it remains unclear how many hostages would be freed.

For Israel, the key to any deal is the release of most, if not all, hostages still held in Gaza, as well as the disarmament of Hamas, while the terror group is seeking assurances to end the war as it tries to reassert control over the war-torn enclave.

The post Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest

Police block a street as pro-Palestinian demonstrators gather to protest British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s plans to proscribe the “Palestine Action” group in the coming weeks, in London, Britain, June 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jaimi Joy

British lawmakers voted Wednesday to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, following the group’s recent vandalizing of two military aircraft at a Royal Air Force base in protest of the government’s support for Israel.

Last month, members of the UK-based anti-Israel group Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, a county west of London, and vandalized two Voyager aircraft used for military transport and refueling — the latest in a series of destructive acts carried out by the organization.

Palestine Action has regularly targeted British sites connected to Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems as well as other companies in Britain linked to Israel since the start of the conflict in Gaza in 2023.

Under British law, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has the authority to ban an organization if it is believed to commit, promote, or otherwise be involved in acts of terrorism.

Passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 385 to 26 in the lower chamber — the House of Commons — the measure is now set to be reviewed by the upper chamber, the House of Lords, on Thursday.

If approved, the ban would take effect within days, making it a crime to belong to or support Palestine Action and placing the group on the same legal footing as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Islamic State under UK law.

Palestine Action, which claims that Britain is an “active participant” in the Gaza conflict due to its military support for Israel, condemned the ban as “an unhinged reaction” and announced plans to challenge it in court — similar to the legal challenges currently being mounted by Hamas.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, belonging to a proscribed group is a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison or a fine, while wearing clothing or displaying items supporting such a group can lead to up to six months in prison and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

Palestine Action claimed responsibility for the recent attack, in which two of its activists sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft and used crowbars to inflict additional damage.

According to the group, the red paint — also sprayed across the runway — was meant to symbolize “Palestinian bloodshed.” A Palestine Liberation Organization flag was also left at the scene.

On Thursday, local authorities arrested four members of the group, aged between 22 and 35, who were charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

Palestine Action said this latest attack was carried out as a protest against the planes’ role in supporting what the group called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.

At the time of the attack, Cooper condemned the group’s actions, stating that their behavior had grown increasingly aggressive and resulted in millions of pounds in damages.

“The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton … is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action,” Cooper said in a written statement.

“The UK’s defense enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk,” she continued.

The post UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians

Palestinians collect aid supplies from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, June 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-backed nonprofit operating aid distribution centers in the Gaza Strip, is pushing back forcefully against an Associated Press report alleging that its contractors opened fire on Palestinian civilians.

The GHF is accusing the AP of withholding key evidence and relying on a “disgruntled former contractor” as a central source.

“In response, we are pursuing legal action,” the organization said in a statement released Wednesday.

GHF said it conducted an “immediate investigation” after being contacted by the AP, reviewing time-stamped video footage and sworn witness testimony. The group concluded that the allegations were “categorically false,” stating that no civilians were fired upon at any of their distribution sites and that the gunfire heard in the AP’s video came from Israeli forces operating outside the vicinity.

“What is most troubling is that the AP refused to share the full video with us prior to publication, despite the seriousness of the allegations,” the statement read. “If they believed their own reporting, they should have provided us with the footage so we could take immediate and appropriate action.”

The nonprofit’s public rebuttal raises sharp questions about the AP’s reporting process, suggesting the outlet declined to engage with the organization in good faith and instead leaned on a source GHF describes as having been terminated “for misconduct” weeks prior. The group also claimed the AP’s recent coverage of its activities had begun to “echo narratives advanced by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health.”

The AP has not yet responded publicly to the GHF’s accusations or provided clarification about its decision not to share the video footage before publication. The original report alleged that American contractors employed by GHF had fired weapons near or toward civilians.

The GHF statement confirmed that a contractor seen shouting in the AP’s video had been removed from operations, though the group insisted this was unrelated to any violence and did not constitute evidence of wrongdoing.

GHF, which describes its mission as delivering food to Gaza “safely, directly, and without interference,” said it remains committed to transparency but would not allow its operations to be “derailed by misinformation.”

The dispute highlights the fraught information environment in Gaza, where limited access and competing narratives frequently complicate the verification of on-the-ground events.

The post US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News