Share This

Friday 22 December 2023

GT investigates: How does US-led G7 wage cognitive warfare against China over South China Sea?

An aerial view of Qilianyu Islands in Sansha, South China's Hainan Province. Photo: VCG

An aerial view of Qilianyu Islands in Sansha, South China's Hainan Province. Photo: VC


Editor's Note:


"Cognitive Warfare" has become a new form of confrontation between states, and a new security threat. With new technological means, it sets agendas and spreads disinformation, so as to change people's perceptions and thus alter their self-identity. Launching cognitive warfare against China is an important means for Western anti-China forces to attack and discredit the country. Under the manipulation of the US-led West, the "China threat theory" has continued to foment.

Some politicians and media outlets have publicly smeared China's image by propagating false narratives such as the "China economy collapse theory" and "China virus threat theory," in an attempt to incite and provoke dissatisfaction with China among people in certain countries.

These means all serve the seemingly peaceful evolution strategy of the US to contain China's rise and maintain its hegemony.

The Global Times is publishing a series of articles to systematically reveal the intrigues of the US-led West's cognitive warfare targeting China, and expose its lies and vicious intentions, in an attempt to show international readers a true, multi-dimensional, and panoramic view of China.

This is the eighth installment in the series. In this story, the Global Times looks into how the Group of Seven (G7) attempts to tarnish China's image and jeopardize the peace and tranquility in the region with various cognitive warfare tricks.

A Chinese Coast Guard ship drives away a Philippine vessel (right) in the South China Sea, on December 10, 2023. Photo: Visual News

A Chinese Coast Guard ship drives away a Philippine vessel (right) in the South China Sea, on December 10, 2023. Photo: Visual News


The Group of Seven (G7) has been hyping the South China Sea issue synchronously under the US leadership. In the latest statement released earlier this month, the G7 once again claimed to oppose China's militarization activities in the South China Sea, and, not surprisingly, mentioned the so-called South China Sea arbitration.

These cliché accusations, as well as G7's repeated hypes of the South China Sea issue, have become "a part of the group's carefully planned cognitive warfare against China," said some Chinese observers reached by the Global Times. They pointed out that, through consistently creating strife in the South China Sea, provoking conflict between China and related countries in the region, and even inciting the latter to initiate troubles against China, the G7 attempts to harm China's sovereignty, denigrates China's international image, and jeopardize the peace and tranquility in this region.

The media disinformation campaign is far from the only means used, the Global Times found. Within the framework of the G7, governments, legal professions, media outlets, and academic institutes have largely participated in this cognitive war targeting China in terms of the South China Sea issue.

Murky blue sea interference


The G7, as one of the most powerful and influential intergovernmental political and economic groups in the West, is very good at attacking China over the South China Sea issue in the form of a joint declaration or statement by government heads or top officials among its members, to delegitimize China's rights and interests in the South China Sea at superficially "official" and "formal" occasions.

Apart from the latest statement, the G7 has released several similar joint statements detailing its "concerns" over the South China Sea issue in 2023 alone.

On November 8, 2023, G7 foreign ministers released a statement in Tokyo, stating that they "remain seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas," and "strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion." Similar sentiments were also seen in another statement released after they met in New York in September.

Earlier in May, the G7 also hyped China-related issues in the G7 Hiroshima Leaders' Communiqué and other documents adopted at the G7 Hiroshima Summit, including irresponsible comments on the situation in the Taiwan Straits, and accusations regarding regions like the South China Sea.

Uniformly, these statements mentioned the South China Sea arbitration, saying the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in 2016 "is legally binding upon the parties to those proceedings, and a useful basis for peacefully resolving disputes between the parties."

The fact is that the arbitration, without actual legal effect, has been widely considered a political farce under the cloak of law, said scholars of boundary and marine studies.

"The South China Sea arbitration was conducted by an arbitral tribunal without jurisdiction in violation of the procedures set out in Articles 283 and 298 of the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). There is no basis in international law, and it (the arbitration) has no legal binding force on China," said Wu Wei, an associated professor in China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies of Wuhan University.

Wu said that in 2023 since the US and the Philippines released the "Joint Statement of the US-Philippines 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue" in April, the US-led G7 has further meddled in the South China Sea issue.

"At the level of international law, it has violated the DOC (Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea), the UNCLOS, and the basic principles of non-intervention in domestic affairs," she told the Global Times.

Similarly, the "Limits in the Seas No.150" report that the US Department of State released in January 2022, which said it "examines the maritime claims of the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea" based on the UNCLOS, was also no more than a political tool of attack by the US against China under the guise of law, observers commented.

"The US itself has not ratified the UNCLOS," noted Wu. "Washington's interference in the South China Sea issue has hindered the normal implementation of the Convention."

The US and the Philippines conduct the so-called joint air and maritime patrols in the South China Sea, on November 23, 2023. Photo: Visual News

The US and the Philippines conduct the so-called joint air and maritime patrols in the South China Sea, on November 23, 2023.


Hypes from media, academy community


G7 members have continually added fuel to the fire in the South China Sea issue, with Western media outlets amplifying their incendiary talking points. This year, US media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time magazine have extensively reported on the maritime conflicts between China and the Philippines.

Throughout 2023, when the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) stirred up trouble in the South China Sea, it contrived the accompaniment of local and Western media entities on many occasions, with mainstream Western media outlets such as the New York Times, NBC, and AFP being invited to join Philippine journalists. The Foreign Correspondents Association, representing foreign media in the Philippines, has also been in contact with the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and Department of Defense to coordinate journalists' boarding for interviews.

Presumably dissatisfied with journalists' inability to capture good photos on board, the US military has dispatched P-8A anti-submarine patrol aircrafts to assist the PCG in their resupply operations at Ren'ai Jiao (Ren'ai Reef). These aircrafts captured high-definition videos and photos, which were used for sensationalist purposes by Western countries and Philippine media outlets.

In an effort to assist the Philippines in its dispute with China, some third-party countries are seeking advice from their own think tanks. One notable case is that of Project Myoushu at Stanford University in the US, which focuses on South China Sea security issues.

In February, Project Myoushu claimed that "China harasses PCG vessel." Subsequently, the PCG asserted that a Chinese ship had directed laser at the PCG, and the US State Department spokesperson, Ned Price, further fanned the flames by stating that the US stands with their ally in the face of alleged laser incidents.

In the context of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's clarification of the facts and emphasis on the Philippine side's baseless accusations, Raymond Powell, Project Myoushu team lead and a retired US Air Force colonel, claimed that the actions of Project Myoushu pushed the Philippine government to finally decide to expose the maritime dispute between China and the Philippines.

In addition, the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is also a major project in the US that focuses on researching the South China Sea issue.

Over the years, this project has repeatedly accused China of "disrupting the status quo" and "threatening regional security" when releasing information about China's rights protection and law enforcement activities in the South China Sea.

However, it selectively ignores unilateral actions such as island construction and militarization by other claimant countries in the disputed waters.

In recent discussions between several US and the Philippine think tanks, various ideas regarding the US-Philippines cooperation in occupying Ren'ai Jiao were generated. In terms of logistical support, some have suggested that Western military forces should assist the PCG in delivering supplies to the grounded vessel, or even consider airdropping them using military aircrafts.

Currently, the Philippines is intensifying its propaganda campaign in the South China Sea in collaboration with foreign media sources and think tanks, using various tactics to overstate the severity of the conflicts between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. Behind this is a mindset of sensationalism, deliberately portraying China as aggressively attacking and bullying a smaller country - the Philippines, Peng Nian, vice president of the Regional National Research Institute at the Hainan Normal University, told the Global Times.

"The more they exaggerate and amplify these negative incidents, the more it seems beneficial for the Philippines and the West. It not only maligns China, but also magnifies the South China Sea issue, continuously attracting international attention," Peng said. However, in reality, apart from escalating tensions in the South China Sea, these performers are only deceiving themselves with the illusion of enhanced influence, he noted.

A 'test site' to suppress China


The South China Sea is another "test site" for some Western countries, including the G7, to isolate and contain China, said observers.

By constantly hyping the South China Sea issue, they try to influence the international community and the Chinese public to force the Chinese government to change its foreign policy, Chen Xiangmiao, director of the World Navy Research Center at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, told the Global Times in a previous interview.

To safeguard China's legal interests in the South China Sea, and to contribute more to the peaceful and stable development of the region, Wu from Wuhan University suggested that China should actively take countermeasures from multiple aspects, which include hosting summits for peaceful consultations between China and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries on the South China Sea situation, further encouraging fishermen to conduct fishing operations in the region with more guaranteed protection.

"It's also necessary to further promote international law studies on the South China Sea issue, to gain more say for China in today's global international law community on topics regarding this region," Wu told the Global Times.

Gone are the days when a handful of Western countries could willfully meddle in other countries' internal affairs and manipulate global affairs, said the Chinese Foreign Ministry on May 20, in response to the G7 Hiroshima Leaders' Communiqué released that same day.

"The international community does not and will not accept the G7-dominated Western rules that seek to divide the world based on ideologies and values. Even less will it succumb to the rules of exclusive small blocs designed to serve 'America-first' and the vested interests of the few," it noted. "G7 needs to reflect on its behavior and change course."


RELATED ARTICLES

#ASEAN needs to be wary that the #remilitarization of #Japan will be a threat to not only East Asia, but also Southeast #Asia. I don’t think anyone will serve him or herself well by forgetting about the atrocities that Japan committed in World War II. #ThinkBigger #VictorGao

Relaxed MM2H a boon to property sector

PETALING JAYA: The relaxation of the Malaysia My Second Home (MM2H) programme, with changes to the eligibility criteria and financial requirements aimed at attracting a large pool of foreigners, may be a much needed boost to the property sector.

However, more needs to be done to encourage more uptake of the programme, given the competition from the neighbouring countries looking to woo foreigners with similar programme.

Professor Geoffrey Williams, who is an economist and Provost for Research and Innovation at Malaysia University of Science and Technology, agreed that the revised MM2H is better than the previous version, but still gives the impression that this is a revenue-raiser for the Immigration Department rather than a scheme to encourage expatriate residents in Malaysia.

“It is still relatively unfriendly, with a bad feeling for foreigners, and would only be attractive for tax avoidance to provide multiple residency for high tax payers to avoid paying tax at all in any single country.

“People with less than half a year’s residence pay no taxes so if you can get residence in three places you have one third residence in each and pay no taxes,” he told StarBiz.

He added that the MM2H programme will not have much of an impact on the economy.

Last Friday, the Tourism, Arts and Culture Ministry unveiled a revamped version of the MM2H programme. introducing a three-tiered structure along with updated financial requirements. The revised guideline brings several changes to the eligibility criteria.

The government has lowered the minimum age requirement to 30 years from 35 years previously, widening the accessibility for individuals who seek to make Malaysia their second home.

A measure aimed at streamlining and fortifying the application process requires that applications are now exclusively accepted through licensed MM2H agents accredited by the ministry under the Tourism Industry Act 1992.

Another significant change relates to the expanded range of eligible dependents. The programme now covers children between 21 and 34 years old, who are neither employed in Malaysia nor married. Parents and parents-in-law are now considered eligible dependents.

“I do not believe it will boost the economy much. The claims of a big economic impact for previous MM2H were not really delivered, which is why the Malaysia Premium Visa Programme (PVIP) scheme was introduced to raise more money quickly,” Prof Geoffrey said.

PVIP, which was launched in September 2022, is a “Residency Through Investment” concept that allows wealthy foreigners to invest and reside in Malaysia for 20 years, with an option to extend for another 20 years.

“The damage done to Malaysia’s reputation is serious and competition from other countries with better schemes and lower costs of living is intense,” he added.

He explained that the changes under PVIP were to attract “the right type of people” with lots of money.

“These changes attract more people but even the rich are likely to choose the lower tier options because the main incentive is residential access not other perks. So you may attract the wrong type of people in the form of tax avoiders,” he said.

Prof Geoffrey stressed that the government needs to create a positive sentiment and a welcoming environment, which is essential for foreigners when choosing long-term options in life.

MM2H was launched in 2002 with the purpose of attracting foreigners to retire and live in Malaysia for an extended period.

The programme was suspended in November 2019 and was re-launched in October 2021 with more stringent application conditions.

According to RHB Research, the stricter conditions led to the collapse of the MM2H market whereby there were only 1,905 MM2H applications approved between November 2021 to September 2023 (23 months) versus 5,610 in 2018.

During the same year, there were 197,385 transactions in the residential market according to National Property Information Centre.

The research house said this meant the MM2H approval represented 2.8% of the residential transaction volume, which is a rough gauge of the potential addressable market from MM2H holders.

“PVIP struggled to gain traction given the large upfront processing fees of RM200,000 needed versus RM5,000 for MM2H. PViP had only processed 57 applications where 28 were approved as at October 2023,” RHB Research added.

Nevertheless, RHB Research believes UEM Sunrise Bhd, Sunway and Eastern & Oriental Bhd are key beneficiaries under the new MM2H programme.

“We reiterate our ‘overweight’ call on the sector, as government policies, investment flow, infrastructure developments and the US Federal Reserve’s signal of a potential rate cut next year are favourable to stimulate demand for property,” the research house said.

Meanwhile, HLIB Research said the revised MM2H programme, with better clarity on the relaxed conditions, gives developers a better picture and visibility of the market and could potentially translate to more launches in the high-end residential segment.

“The development is an overall positive for the sector, especially for the high-end residential segment. Maintain ‘neutral’ for the sector with top picks Sunway BhdOSK Holdings BhdSime Darby Property Bhd and IOI Properties Group Bhd,” it said.

The research house pointed out that given the main nationality of the MM2H holders are Chinese (32.8%), this may potentially benefit Sunway’s development in Velocity, Jalan Cochrane, as there is a high proportion of Chinese residents in the area.

It added that the MM2H programme should also have spillover economic benefits to tourism and healthcare, benefiting in particular Sunway through its senior living, healthcare and hospitality businesses.

“Having said that, we also cautioned about increased competition from neighbouring countries like Thailand and Indonesia which had in recent years launched similar programmes.

“Thailand launched its Long-Term Residence Visa programme in September 2022, while Indonesia launched its 10-Year Visa Second Home Programme in December 2022,” HLIB Research said.

Similarly, TA Research, which maintained its “overweight” stance on the property sector, anticipated it to be a main beneficiary of increased domestic activities, driven by a surge in infrastructure projects and investments.

“This adjustment could attract more foreigners to our shores, positively impacting the real estate market.

“Moreover, by relaxing the MM2H programme, Malaysia can continue to vie for highly skilled foreign individuals, fostering their contributions to the nation’s growth through residency and investment,” it added.

However, TA Research suggested that the government remove the high RM40,000 monthly income requirement introduced in the 2021 revamp to enhance the appeal of the new MM2H programme.

“If the government reintroduces a monthly income requirement later, we propose setting it at RM10,000.

“This adjustment is particularly relevant when compared to countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and Cambodia, which do not impose a stipulated minimum income for enrollment in their long-stay visa programmes,” it added.





Tuesday 19 December 2023

The UK's 'sunset fleet' should just stay surfing the internet

 


The UK's Carrier Strike Group will visit Japan in 2025, as announced by Defence Secretary Grant Shapps recently. This visit is a part of the "Hiroshima Accord" agreed upon by the leaders of the UK and Japan in May of this year. Normally, fleet visits are a normal aspect of military exchanges between countries, but Shapps claimed that the deployment of the Carrier Strike Group "sends a strong deterrence message," which has added a significant geopolitical competition element to this potential visit. He even said, with a somewhat threatening tone, "The strength and global reach of the UK's Armed Forces should never be underestimated."

Shapps did not specify whom his threat was directed at, but he mentioned the Taiwan Straits, which is believed to be an attempt at "restraining China." If that is the case, it is indeed an overestimation of UK's capabilities. If his target audiences are countries in the Asia-Pacific region, apart from a few allies, most countries in the region would simply laugh it off and not take it seriously. The UK once had many colonies in the Asia-Pacific region, but it should not misjudge the current times. Today, this region is the most dynamic in the world, with a majority of countries pursuing independent and autonomous diplomacy.

In fact, no one "underestimates" the UK. It is the UK itself that cannot position itself correctly. Some Europeans criticize the UK, saying "there are two kinds of European nations; there are small nations and there are countries that have not yet realized they are small nations." This satirizes the UK's lingering "imperial dream."

The British Royal Navy currently has two aircraft carriers, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales, both of which have been plagued with problems and have experienced serious water leakage incidents, earning them the nickname "sieve ships" by foreign media. As early as 2021, the HMS Queen Elizabeth embarked on a "global cruise mission," during which a fighter jet crashed into the Mediterranean Sea, becoming a laughingstock. Now, the British Royal Navy is unable to assemble enough aircraft and escort fleets for two aircraft carriers. The fate of this "sunset fleet" reaching the Pacific without encountering any breakdowns along the way is uncertain, and even if it manages to reach its destination, it is likely to do so with diminished capabilities.

London should have some understanding of these issues. Why did it set the deployment of the Carrier Strike Group for 2025? There is a mystery behind this: 2024 is the year of the general election in the UK, so this is like an empty promise made in advance to the voters. Regardless of the reasons behind the British side's considerations and whether the Carrier Strike Group will actually be deployed to the Asia-Pacific region in two years, such hype and performance will not enhance the international image of the UK but only bring it closer to becoming a laughingstock.

In recent years, the UK and Japan have promoted a lot of bilateral and multilateral military security cooperation, including joint development of next-generation advanced fighters, and the signing of a reciprocal access agreement and so on. The two countries have praised each other as "closest security partners" in Europe and Asia. Some mentioned the "Anglo-Japanese Alliance" over 100 years ago during the imperialist era, excitedly claiming that the two countries are forming a "new Anglo-Japanese alliance." The "Anglo-Japanese Alliance" in history was signed, renewed and expanded three times, each time accompanied by aggression and division of Asia-Pacific countries. It can be said to be a complete imperialist axis, a tool for oppressing the people of the Asia-Pacific region.

Today, the British and Japanese governments are not ashamed but rather proud of that period of history. This shows that the failure to thoroughly reflect on and hold themselves accountable for the mistakes they made at that time is the root cause of the two countries continuing to go astray in the international arena. The history that the two countries are proud of is precisely what regional countries hate the most. Shapps claimed that the group will work alongside the Japanese Self Defence Forces and other partners to help defend peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. Such rhetoric is unlikely to win the trust of regional countries.

A previous column in a Hong Kong media outlet commented that the great power game situation provoked by the US has allowed some countries with a history of colonialism and imperialism to once again rekindle the "great power dream" of participating in changing history. This comment vividly depicts the current inner state of Britain and Japan. They hope to get a free ride on America's global competition. It is for this reason they do not hesitate to take the initiative to take on the role of pawns for the US. In this sense, although both Britain and Japan face many internal and external difficulties, they are seeking to enhance their presence in the US global military strategic system. However, trying to regain glory by showing off power is simply drinking poison to quench one's thirst; acting as a scaffolding for the US' foreign strategy will only diminish their own significance.

Peaceful development is the trend of the times, and militarism cannot bring about a better world. Perhaps London still retains some of its old dream of "gunboat diplomacy," making it look even more bizarre and lacking in self-awareness in today's era. In the eyes of the outside world, Britain's "sunset fleet" should just stay surfing the internet. After all, this is less harmful and possibly less costly for them.


RELATED ARTICLES

United Nations Honor, United States Shame in Gaza

United Nations Honor, United States Shame in Gaza
United Nations Honor, United States Shame in Gaza Injured Palestinians are brought to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital for medical treatment as Israeli attacks continue in Deir al Balah, Gaza on December 11, 2023. (Photo by Ashraf Amra/Anadolu via Getty Image

https://youtu.be/wm4qLWc_Co0?si=b7ptJa9SHc_50J7r

When Washington vetoed a ceasefire in Gaza Friday, it stood alone against international law as the U.K. — its tutor in imperial brutality — dutifully abstained, writes Jeffrey Sachs.

Long Island City, N.Y., skyline, with full moon behind the sculpture “Let Us Beat Our Swords into Ploughshares” at U.N. headquarters, Sept. 21, 2021. (UN Photo/Manuel Elías)

By Jeffrey D. Sachs
Common Dreams

The nearly unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council on Friday calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza is a moment of honor for the United Nations and shame for the United States.

By voting to stop Israel’s war on Gaza by a vote of 13 yes, one no (U.S.), and one abstention (U.K.), the vast majority put itself on the side of international law. The U.S. stood alone against international law, with its sidekick and tutor in imperial brutality, the United Kingdom, dutifully abstaining.

[Related: What US Got Most Crucially Wrong in UN Veto]

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres honored the U.N. and human decency by invoking Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, calling for the U.N. Security Council to stop the killing in Gaza as a basic responsibility under the U.N. Charter.

Each day, U.N. officials on the ground in Gaza heroically struggle to feed, shelter and protect the population from Israeli bombs. More than 100 U.N. staff have been killed in the Israeli assault.

The situation in Gaza is as clear as it is brutal. The State of Palestine, recognized by 139 nations, has long suffered from the brutalities of Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza has been called the world’s largest open-air prison by Human Rights Watch.

After the Hamas-led horrific terrorist attack on Oct. 7, in which 1,200 Israelis died, Israel began to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Legal specialists at the Center for Constitutional Rights regard Israel’s actions as a genocide.

To date, more than 17,400 Gazans have been killed, and an unfathomable 1.8 million Gazans have been displaced. Tens of thousands are at risk of imminent death. Last month, Guterres warned that “Gaza is becoming a graveyard for children.” Israel pushed the population from northern Gaza to the south, and then invaded the south. Israeli authorities told Gazans to flee for their life to zones within the south, and then bombed the places to which the Gazans had been directed.

The U.S. is more than a protector of Israel. It is an accomplice. The U.S. supplies, in real-time, the munitions Israel uses for mass murder, even as U.S. authorities pay lip-service to Gazan civilian lives.

Robert A. Wood, deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N., centre at table, on Dec. 8, when the U.S. cast the lone vote against a ceasefire in Gaza. (UN Photo/Loey Felipe)

The President of Israel Isaac Herzog justifies the slaughter by declaring that there are no innocent civilian Gazans: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.”

The Israeli government’s biggest lie is that Israel has no options other than the mass killing of Gazans, supposedly to defeat Hamas.
The fact that Israel was lulled by its arrogance into letting its guard down on Oct. 7 does not make Hamas an existential threat. Hamas has only a tiny fraction of Israel’s military might.

Oct. 7, like 9/11 in the U.S., was a colossal security blunder that should be immediately corrected by stepped-up border security, not an existential threat that in any remote manner justifies the killing of thousands or tens of thousands of innocent civilians, with women and children constituting 70 percent of the victims. 

The killing frenzy is being led by the very same politicians who were responsible for the Oct. 7 security failure and who now manipulate the deepest anxieties of the Israeli population.

There is a larger and far more important point. Hamas can be demobilized through diplomacy, and only through diplomacy. Israel and the United States need finally to abide by international law, accept a sovereign state of Palestine alongside Israel, and welcome Palestine as the 194th member state of the U.N. 

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on Dec. 8, as the Security Council met on a letter he had written invoking Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, asking the council to act on the humanitarian criss in Gaza. (UN Photo/Loey Felipe)

The U.S. needs to stop arming the Israeli operation of ethnic cleansing in Gaza and stop protecting Israel’s rampant violations of basic human rights in the West Bank. Fifty-six years after its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and after decades of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, Israel needs finally to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian lands.

With such steps, peace between Israel and the neighboring countries could and would be secured. On that basis, U.N. peacekeepers, including both Arab and Western troops, would in turn secure the Israel-Palestine border for a needed transition period. At the same time, all international flows of financing to anti-Israel militants would be choked off by joint and coordinated actions of the U.S., Europe and Israel’s Arab and Islamic neighbors.

The diplomatic route is open because the Arab and Islamic countries (including Iran) have once again reiterated their long-standing desire for peace with Israel as part of a peace agreement that establishes Palestine along the 1967 borders and its capital in East Jerusalem.

The real reason for Israel’s war in Gaza is that the government of Israel rejects the two-state solution, and points to extremists on the other side rather than to the Arab and Islamic states, which want peace based on the two-state solution.

Israeli zealots, including several in the cabinet, believe that God promised them all of the lands from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. This belief is fatuous. As Jewish history should make clear to religious Jews, and as all human history should make clear generally, no group, whether Jewish or otherwise, has an unconditional “right” to any land. 

Palestinians after an Israeli airstrikes in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza strip on Oct. 8. (Mahmoud Fareed, Palestinian News & Information Agency or Wafa, in contract with APAimages, CC BY-SA 3.0)

For rights to be secured and internationally respected in our day, governments need to abide by the international rule of law. In the case of Israel and Palestine, international law, as expressed repeatedly by the U.N. Security Council, holds that two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine, have both the right and responsibility to live side-by-side in peace according to the 1967 borders.

Not only Israel, but even perhaps more so the United States, has lost its way. The deep reason was clear to Senator J. William Fulbright 60 years ago, when Fulbright was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and wrote the magnificent book, The Arrogance of Power

Fulbright pointed to arrogance as the deep cause of America’s reckless war in Vietnam in the 1960s. In its ongoing arrogance, the U.S. military-security state repeatedly ignores the will of the international community and international law because it believes that weapons and power enable it to do so. U.S. foreign policy is based heavily on covert, illegal regime-change operations and on perpetual warfare that caters to the U.S. military-industrial complex.

We must not become cynical about the U.N. It is currently blocked by the U.S., the country that led its creation under America’s greatest president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

The U.N. is doing its job, building international law, sustainable development and universal human rights, step-by-step, with advances and reverses, over the opposition of powerful forces, but with the arc of history on its side. International law is a relatively new human creation, still in the works. It is difficult to achieve in the face of obstreperous imperial power, but we must pursue it.

It is important to note that opposing Israel’s war crimes has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism. This point has been made eloquently in an open letter by dozens of Jewish writers. 

Israel’s Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t speak for Judaism. The Israeli government violates the most sacred of all Jewish injunctions, to protect life (Pikuach Nefesh) and to love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18).

The message of Jewish ethics is found in the words of the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 2:4) inscribed on a wall directly facing the United Nations: “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development.

This article is from Common Dreams.

Rightways