The killing of more than 1,300 innocent Israelis and other nationals in an unprecedented brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, as well as the kidnapping of more than 150 soldiers and civilians, including women and children, has shaken the world.
Israel’s retaliatory military operation to achieve “a complete siege of the Gaza Strip” has in turn continued to rage.
While the Israeli government has claimed it had recaptured the Gaza borders from the control of Hamas, the current spell of the Israel-Palestine conflict will have a profound impact on the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East and the rest of the world.
The genesis of the conflict between Israel and Palestine goes back to 1948, when the creation of Israel as an independent nation out of the British Mandate for Palestine led to the first Arab-Israel war.
The entry of Hamas — a terrorist organization — into the political space of Palestine in 2006 and its subsequent control over the Gaza Strip intensified the conflict.
However, this time Hamas’ heinous crimes have assumed huge importance for several reasons:
First, firing 5,000 missiles at Israel in 20 minutes, Hamas aimed to destroy the perception that Israel’s Iron Dome — its missile defense system — is impenetrable.
Second, Hamas also wanted to demonstrate its military capabilities.
Third, by capturing and killing civilians, Hamas wanted to leave an everlasting horror in the minds of Israelis.
Fourth, as Hamas had begun to feel isolated because of the Abraham Accords signed by Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and peace talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia, it aimed to garner the support of Arab and Muslim states for the cause of Palestine.
Fifth, some experts also believe that Hamas was encouraged by the Russia-Iran-China axis to launch an attack to divert US attention and resources from Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific region.
Although the international community has remained a votary of the establishment of an independent and sovereign state of Palestine, Hamas’ outrageous terrorist act has drawn worldwide condemnation.
Surprisingly, China, which projects itself as a peacemaker in the Middle East, has distanced itself from criticizing Hamas.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs initially issued a neutral statement calling on “relevant parties to remain calm, exercise restraint and immediately end the hostilities to protect civilians and avoid further deterioration of the situation.”
Although China strengthened its statement to condemn “all violence and attacks on civilians” after a meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, it has not shown willingness to play the role of mediator between Israel and Hamas.
This has surprised many because in June, China expressed a desire to contribute toward resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict. Its move was taken seriously against the backdrop of Beijing’s success in brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
China’s muted response to Hamas’ terror acts has revealed its true image and its limitations as a peacemaker in the Middle East.
As Iran supports Hamas, Beijing does not want to jeopardize its economic, energy and other interests with Tehran by condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization. After all, China has nearly US$400 billion of planned investments in Iran in the next few decades.
China also has a strong strategic and economic relationship with Palestine. From 2019 to last year, bilateral trade surged 57 percent to US$6.41 billion.
China is finding it difficult to play the role of mediator between Palestine and Israel without negatively affecting its economic and other interests in the region.
Moreover, it is still not ready to get involved in conflict-resolution exercises in any major global issues, for example, the Palestine-Israel conflict and the Ukraine war.
Although China has aggressively pursued the modernization of its military, it still appears reluctant or is not in a position to relocate its military resources between regions in a short time to restore peace and security.
While the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group was immediately dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean Sea to deter Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and any other actor across the region from exploiting the situation, China — an aspiring superpower — is happy to appeal to the international community to resolve the conflict.
Taiwan is closely watching the Hamas-Israel war even as it faces security threats from China.
Beijing has increased its activity around Taiwan, conducting two large rounds of war games over the past year, so the missile attack by Hamas has prompted Taipei to consider detailed plans to protect itself if faced with a similar attack from China.
It is in this context that Taiwan has established a working group to draw lessons from the Hamas attack.
Another important issue that should attract Taiwan’s attention is Israel’s ability to mobilize more than 300,000 reservists in a short time and its effective retaliation against Hamas.
While US support for Ukraine and Israel has sent a strong message about its commitment to protecting Taiwan, Taipei needs to be more vigilant against China’s military adventurism, because Beijing might try to use the US’ attention on the Middle East as an opportunity to intensify its assertive military posturing. The government should bolster its intelligence-gathering apparatus.
While lessons from the Hamas attack can help Taiwan’s retaliatory capabilities, China’s cold-handed approach to the crisis in the Middle East and the US-led global support to Israel will be a big deterrent for Taiwan against China.
By condemning the Hamas terror attack, Taipei has shown its commitment to peace, security, development and democracy. Hopefully the international community will realize the need to reciprocate by consolidating close ties with Taiwan.
Sumit Kumar is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Delhi and a former Ministry of Foreign Affairs visiting fellow at National Chengchi University.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS