Avenge fragility through atrocity

Major Western countries have, for the first time since World War II, associated themselves with one of the worst human slaughters. I mean they did that together, but individually, there were American massacres in Vietnam, France in Algeria, and Britain in India, and Germany no longer needed any more after the Nazi killing during the same war.

Why did Western countries move in such a collective manner that was unprecedented in terms of speed and intensity? Not because of American pressure, and not so as not to appear outside of it; In many cases, Europe diverged, differentiated, or lingered, especially regarding similar policies. The reason, or the pretext, or both, is that the issue was immediately presented as an anti-Semitic existential war.

On the one hand, it was the fear caused by the scenes of the bloody ceremony, and on the other hand, it was the panic that struck the West, which saw Israel itself helpless and defeated before a guerrilla team, not a state. This was not the downfall of Israel alone. Rather, this was an event in which the West, with its technological progress and its satellites, saw it as a fragile immunity, incapable of protection, preemption, and the advantage of a first strike.

All of these considerations helped America and Mr. Biden to mobilize allies so quickly, in addition to what we mentioned more than once, that the West shuddered at the idea of a double loss in Gaza and Ukraine. Such a defeat would not mean losing the battle, but losing the war. For Israel, losing the war means losing existence and everything it has built in 7 decades of the aura of a small power superior to the big ones.

This may explain part of the precedent of Europe’s eagerness and abandonment of its policy of “slowness” in solidarity even within NATO, as happened in many cases before, but it is also likely that the Europeans did not expect Israel to drag them into such a scale of Barbaric and abusing response, on the lives, livelihood and dignity of civilians.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak will describe this “War of Heedlessness” as “the harshest blow since we came into existence.” This explains the European rush, but it does not explain the presence of the senior American administration in Tel Aviv at the same time: the president and the foreign minister at the same time. It is as if Washington had become devoid of any pillars of government, or as if Tel Aviv had become a parallel capital.

If the American position in the conflict is merely an increase in a familiar pace, then Europe's position is an unexpected exaggeration in the face of the scenes of disaster in Gaza, as if Europe's role and traditions in such cases tip the humanitarian scale regardless of alliances and obligations.

The European position, even after the displacement of about 800,000 Palestinians and the demolition of their roofs, seemed to be much lower than the position of the Israeli left and the groups that believe - such as Ehud Barak - that Netanyahu wanted to strengthen Hamas in order to undermine the Palestinian Authority.

The European position will be the subject of disagreements and accountability when the war ends, if it ends, but the course of events indicates that it will expand, expand, and divide arenas instead of uniting them. It was frightening that the Iraqi Sadrists gathered on the Jordanian border, of course on the way to Jerusalem.

From Al Sharq Al awsat