Shifting Alliances and Global Ripples
By: Bev Goldman
“The escalation of violence between these two enemies has put these alliances under immense pressure.”
“Israel’s global perception today is highly polarised and multifaceted, shaped by its political actions, by the historical context it inhabits, and by ongoing regional tensions.” (International Journal of Communication)
The war currently being waged between Israel on one side, and Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and countless other terrorist groups on the other, has far-reaching implications for Middle East geopolitics, influencing the regional balance of power, alliances, and the broader international relations landscape. Although initially centred in the Gaza Strip, it has today exacerbated existing divisions and has the potential to reshape geopolitical dynamics not only within the Middle East but also globally.
One immediate impact is the strain it places on regional alliances, particularly those forged most recently. The Abraham Accords, brokered in 2020 under US leadership, normalised relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These agreements were seen as a watershed moment in Middle Eastern diplomacy, potentially signalling a new era of cooperation between Israel and the Arab world. While these deals have been largely viewed positively in the West, they have drawn criticism and intense hostility from the Palestinian side. The escalation of violence between these two enemies has put these alliances under immense pressure. Today, governments that normalised relations with Israel face internal pressures to condemn Israeli actions. Countries like the UAE and Bahrain, which have invested in economic and diplomatic ties with Israel, must also navigate domestic and regional outrage over the Gaza conflict. These governments must weigh the risks of alienating their populations against maintaining strategic alliances with Israel.
“This war strengthens Iran’s position as the Shia leader of the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’ against Israel.”
Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, through Hezbollah, remain strongly opposed to Israel’s existence. In their opinion, it is an illegitimate state or adversary, fuelled by anti-Israel sentiments where historical grievances and religious-political dimensions energise and inflame ongoing hostility. Iran has long supported Hamas, providing financial aid, weapons, and political backing, which it views as part of its broader strategy to challenge Israel and project power across the Middle East. This war strengthens Iran’s position as the Shia leader of the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’ against Israel, which includes groups and states that oppose both Israeli and Western influence in the region. Sunni-majority Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan face dilemmas regarding how to balance their opposition to Iran’s regional ambitions with their internal politics and relationships with the West.
Then there is the involvement of external powers, particularly Russia and China. These two countries have also positioned themselves strategically in response to the conflict. Both powers view this war as an opportunity to expand their influence in a region where US dominance has waned in recent years. Russia, which maintains close ties with both Israel and Iran, has called for de-escalation, seeking to present itself as a mediator while continuing to maintain influence in Syria and other regional hotspots. Meanwhile, China’s intensifying engagement with the Middle East represents a larger shift in its geopolitical strategy: that of achieving a leadership role in the Global South with the aim of promoting its own political power, economic interests, and ideological vision for a new world order.
United Nations criticism of Israel’s policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict focuses particularly on settlement expansion in the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza, and Israel’s military actions. The recent extraordinary turmoil caused in Lebanon by thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah members, which exploded in a synchronised attack, resulting in some deaths and many more injuries, shattered any ideas of complacency the world might have held regarding Israel’s technological genius. This is despite the fact that (at the time of writing this piece) Israel had not claimed responsibility for the explosions. These attacks will have devastating consequences for Hezbollah’s manpower, communications, and morale.
We cannot forget the global BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement, which is growing exponentially, particularly in parts of Europe and on a number of US college campuses. This advocates for complete economic and cultural boycotts of Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians and the “genocide” it is allegedly perpetrating in Gaza.
The United States has long been Israel’s most significant ally, providing extensive military, financial, and diplomatic support. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the US has viewed Israel as a key partner in the Middle East, bolstering its defence capabilities and offering unwavering diplomatic backing in international forums like the United Nations. US support is rooted in several factors: shared democratic values, strategic interests in countering terrorism and Iran’s influence in the region, and the influential pro-Israel lobby within the US political system. The Biden administration (however long its current policies may last) has reiterated its commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself but has made its calls for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid for Gaza very loud and clear.
During periods of escalated violence, such as the 2021 and 2023 conflicts, the US acted as a diplomatic intermediary, calling for ceasefires and working to de-escalate tensions. However, Washington’s unequivocal support for Israel has been a point of contention both internationally and domestically. Critics argue that US support emboldens Israel’s military actions in Gaza, contributing to civilian casualties and worsening the humanitarian crisis.
Other Western powers, particularly in Europe, also play significant roles in the conflict. Countries like the United Kingdom, France, and Germany maintain close relations with Israel but adopt a more nuanced stance compared to the US These countries generally support Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas attacks but have also expressed greater concern for Palestinian civilian casualties and the broader humanitarian impact of the conflict. Western European countries often call for a two-state solution as the most viable resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, advocating for negotiations that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. They have also provided substantial humanitarian aid to Gaza and the West Bank, particularly during periods of intense fighting, when civilian infrastructure is devastated by Israeli airstrikes.
At the United Nations, European countries tend to support resolutions that call for ceasefires, humanitarian access, and investigations into potential war crimes committed by both sides. However, these countries face political constraints, as they must balance their relationships with Israel and their desire to maintain credibility within the broader Arab and Muslim worlds. This often results in European powers adopting a more conciliatory approach compared to the US, aiming to mediate and advocate for diplomatic solutions.
The conflict also has global implications for the relationships of Western powers with other nations. For example, US and European support for Israel can strain their relationships with Muslim-majority countries outside the Middle East, including Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where public opinion is largely sympathetic to the Palestinians. This can have broader diplomatic and economic consequences, particularly as Western powers seek to forge alliances in regions like Asia and Africa.
The US and Europe also face domestic political pressures to do more to mitigate the suffering of Palestinians. In the US, progressive voices within the Democratic Party have increasingly called for a re-evaluation of unconditional support for Israel, advocating for greater attention to Palestinian human rights and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza; and similar debates are taking place across Europe, where public opinion is often more critical of Israeli military actions than in the US In addition, younger generations and progressive movements in these two regions tend to be more critical of Israel’s policies than previous generations, aligning more with Palestinian rights advocacy.
Add to this the media, which is especially polarised in the West, where some view Israel as a bastion of democracy and a victim of terrorism, while others, fiercely protective of the rights of the Palestinians, continually condemn Israel’s handling of the Palestinian issue. Among these are the ‘influencers’, typically associated with fashion, fitness, and lifestyle content, who have joined the discourse. “The sudden politicisation of such previously apolitical figures raises fears that influencers may spread biased political agendas… because they wield persuasive power by cultivating ‘parasocial relationships’ with their followers. On Instagram in particular, influencers foster trust and create emotional connections, which render their messages more impactful, and ostensibly harmless.”
“As this war continues, the long-term impact on diplomacy, security, and regional stability remains uncertain.”
As this war continues, the long-term impact on diplomacy, security, and regional stability remains uncertain, but it is clear that the conflict will play a significant role in shaping the future of the Middle East.
