The Shifting Weights
Western Condemnation of Israel
The recent surge in Western governments and media criticizing Israeli actions has come as a surprise to many. While this shift is long overdue, it is nonetheless welcome. The justification offered so far is that Israel's recent operations can no longer be framed as "taking out terrorist leaders in Gaza."
Determining the real reason for this shift in tone is challenging. However, I’ve identified 5 broad explanations that might shed light on the motivations behind this new wave of Western criticism.
Theory 1: Genuine Concern for Human Rights
This is perhaps the most widely cited explanation. Conditions in Gaza have reached a horrific level. Following the Trump election, a ceasefire offered a brief glimpse of hope, but it quickly unraveled as both Hamas and Israel accused each other of violations. Roughly a month ago, another round of violence was launched by Israel, prompting the UK, France, Germany, and Canada to publicly condemn its actions.
Many believe Israel has now “crossed a line.” Still, this theory feels somewhat stretched. The scale and intensity of Israel’s actions today are not drastically different from what occurred in 2024, making it hard to accept that humanitarian concern alone explains this shift. I find limited merit in this explanation.
Theory 2: Future-Proofing History Books
History is an unforgiving judge. Leaders once celebrated often become villains in retrospect. Zia-ul-Haq was once called "Mard-e-Haq" by some in Pakistan, yet today he symbolizes much of what went wrong in Pakistan’s political hhistory. Western leaders may now be acting to ensure they don’t meet a similar fate.
They likely realize that history will record their responses to the Gaza crisis, and staying silent would align them with complicity. By issuing statements against Israel, they create a record that may later be used to argue that they did not endorse or support the actions of the Israeli state, even if they did little to stop them. This is reminiscent of Bosnia, where Western powers offered only lip service in the early 1990s but have avoided being labeled accomplices to genocide because of those same public gestures.
Theory 3: ICC Warrants May Target Accomplices
Although many consider the International Criminal Court (ICC) toothless, it remains a symbolic threat, particularly to those seen as complicit in war crimes. The ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants, while largely symbolic, signals a challenge to the existing world order. A world order shaped by the West.
Should these warrants be ignored, the credibility of that order may begin to erode. This poses a significant risk for Western powers, especially those who have supported Israel militarily or diplomatically. By criticizing Netanyahu now, these states may be trying to distance themselves from any future legal scrutiny or charges of complicity.
Theory 4: Bargaining Chip in Trade Negotiations
Trump’s reintroduction of tariffs has fractured long-standing economic ties between the US and the EU. These tariffs challenge the notion of Western unity, a concept that was always more myth than reality. Centuries of intra-European warfare only gave way to diplomacy after immense bloodshed. It was never unity but a realization that diplomacy is a better option that warfare. Western cohesion has always been pragmatic, not civilizational. Unfortunately, many intellectuals like Samuel Hungtington too fell victim of this fallacy and called West as one civilization. It is convenient but utterly wrong to call West or Arabs or other regions as one civilization.
Anyways with the EU lacking leverage in trade negotiations, criticizing Israel may serve as a bargaining chip. The logic: public pressure on Israel could create a friction with the US, giving the EU some leverage to negotiate reduced tariffs in return for quieting their criticism.
Some may question how war and trade intersect, but diplomacy often involves using every available lever. Ukraine's drone strikes during negotiations with Russia were designed to shift the power dynamic at the table. Now Russia realises that they cannot dictate the peace talks. Similarly, EU criticism of Israel might serve as leverage in unrelated but strategic negotiations with Washington.
Theory 5: Dismantling Expansionist Zionism
In geopolitical maneuvering, it is not uncommon to empower one extremist group to neutralize another, only to later remove the empowered group itself. This may be what’s playing out now. After the humiliation of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, many assumed the Palestinian cause was lost. However, the Arab mobilizations of the 1950s rekindled hope, giving rise to both armed resistance and political movements. This belief came to a grinding halt after 1967 and 1973 wars.
By the 1980s, much of the Arab world had pivoted from armed struggle to diplomacy. The PLO embraced talks, leading to the Oslo Accords. However, extremist factions like Hamas and Hezbollah continued on the militant path. Israel’s current operations have, arguably, succeeded in weakening these militant outfits.
But in doing so, Israel has empowered its own extremist faction particularly the Likud party, which traces its roots to Menachem Begin’s vision of "Greater Israel" stretching from the Nile to the Jordan. The slogan "from the river to the river" prompted the Palestinian counter-slogan "from the river to the sea."
If this logic holds, then the next phase would involve dismantling Israel’s own extremist elements. The ICC warrants and increased international criticism suggest this phase may have begun. If a centrist or left-leaning party makes a comeback in Israel’s next election, it would confirm that this political recalibration is underway. Israel’s politics in the 1970s were more open to a two-state solution unlike the current regime, which favors total domination and erasure of Palestinian identity.
Conclusion
As with any geopolitical shift, it’s rarely driven by one single factor. More often, a confluence of motives drives action. The five theories outlined here may be operating independently or in combination. Either way, this recent wave of Western criticism signals a pivotal moment.
The Palestinian issue may be approaching a major inflection point. If not resolved, the current world order may begin to fracture. Western governments appear to recognize this and are moving, if only rhetorically to preserve the existing global structure. Meanwhile, global markets have responded with surging stock prices for defense contractors, hinting at the possibility of broader conflict ahead. If a new world order preceded by massive scale wars is to be avoided, one of the first steps must be confronting and containing the extremist ideologies, whether displayed by Hamas or by Likud.