The Proxy Security War

The war between Palestine and Israel is not something which started suddenly, it is something which can be traced back decades. Gaza was the biggest open-air prison in the world even before 2019, ever since 1948 the people living their had hardly any agency in their own lives. It is not the widespread destruction which compels people to question the war, and it is hardly the sympathy for fellow man which motivates them. Multiple wars of similar nature and military disparity are going on right at this very moment receiving hardly any attention; what brings this particular war to the forefront is the question of securitisation, particularly by the west.

Israel is a stronghold in the highly militarised and oil rich Middle East for the US, and by extension its allies. With the weapons and military aid it provides as well as the post World War II considerations made to people of Israel by US, it has cultivated not only an extremely secure ally in the form of a militarised state in a region of its interests, it has also created an extremely positive reception of itself in their citizens. With an ally whose people and government are both indebted to them, it has created a foothold in the form of Israel, thus securing its own interests. The reason why it goes so far to maintain and support its stronghold is multifaceted, but simply, it does so in order to maintain an ever more fragile control over its assumed power. The biggest challenge America and its people have faced in recent years is the decline of the US relative to the world and adapting to a world it can no longer presume to lead (Cox, 2010).

The presumed power which the US gained post WW II has been eroded by advancements made by the rest of the world in both financial and military power. While still being used for most of international trade, attempts to undermine the USD monopoly over international markets made by alliances such as BRICS have started to gain traction in recent times. Even if the decline of dollar is a distant event, the very idea of it presents an immense threat to its security. The reason the government of the US presents the issue of Israel as an issue of securitisation is because it is, just not of the people of Israel or the Jewish people. The US and its allies view the issue of Israel with the same perspective of ‘the war on terror’. The October 7 attack by Hamas and the destructive retaliation by the IDF has been interpreted and reinterpreted into Israel’s very own metaphorical 9/11. This is an intentional act to include the actions related to it in the purview of securitisation. It is an issue of security because the powerholders declare it to be so. Israel is a security problem for the US and thus falls under its securitisation policy letting the government be opaque to a certain degree in its processes about this issue (Weaver, 1995).

It is natural that the US’s attempts to secure its interests would cause reactions from parties interested in the region. India’s lack of reaction to the well documented war crimes from the current conflict represent the fact that India’s interests are, if not aligned then not in conflict with Israel’s and the US’s. India, which has had longstanding support for the Palestinians due to its large Muslim population, changed its stance silently yet swiftly in the recent years. Post 2014, the current prime minister Narendra Modi has showed little to no qualms in establishing bilateral ties, becoming the first prime minister to visit the country in 2017. Known for building personal rapport with world leaders, Modi did so with the controversial right wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Co operating in key areas such as defence and cyber security, trade and governmental ties have continued to evolve, with people being recruited from the state of Haryana to find employment in Israel earlier this year. In accordance of Indian policy of maintaining a balance, Modi visited the West Bank in 2018 but notably avoided any critique of Israel’s policies, reiterating India’s basic position on a two-state solution.

The war is a selfish act which cannot not be condemned, however, removing the aspect of human morality and viewing it from an extremely reductive perspective, one might view the whole situation as a problem solving approach (Cox, 2010) employed by the US. It establishes short term security while maintaining long term possibility of maintenance of status quo under the assumption that they can weather the potential fallout. It is a gamble by the western bloc to maintain any semblance of input into one of the most resource rich areas of the world. The developments which follow regarding the state of the war and the end result for the Palestinians depends on the objectives of the war for the invested parties. While bringing benefits such as a new war for the military industrial complex to flourish in and a potential new off shore oil field in Gaza, the Palestinian conflict brings a large amount of negative perception and resistance from non-allied countries and its own citizens. The only reason the war still continues is because of the interests of the powers already invested, if there was nothing to be gained, there would be nothing to fight for. The war, for me is an extremely rational one, religion among other things does not seem to hold as much weight during decision making as profits. It is a stark representation of apathy involved in international decision making when securitisation is involved.

Works Cited

·       Cox, R. (2010). Theory talks. “World Orders, Historical Change and Purpose of Theory in International Relations.” http://www.theory-talks.org/2010/03/theory-talk-37.html

·       Waever, O. (1995). "Securitization and Desecuritization". Columbia University press. https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/assets/pdf/Waever-Securitization.pdf