Cowards and Cowards: The West Acknowledges Palestine, But Dares Not Sanction Israel, While Arab Countries Remain Silent
The Gaza Strip after Israeli air strikes.
Commentator Lyubov Stepushova of Pravda pointed out that the official recognition of Palestine by the UK, Canada, France, and other G7 members, as well as Portugal, Belgium, and others, is not a "historic event" as the West has been vigorously promoting.
This is a late move — at this point, the annexation of the Gaza Strip (and the West Bank) is actually unstoppable: Tel Aviv has announced a ground operation in Gaza, and the UN's sanctions against Israel have been blocked by the United States. Hamas demands these "awakened" Western countries to take concrete actions, but the Western countries instead set conditions for Hamas: give up participating in elections, release hostages. However, where is the arms embargo against Israel? Where is the legal action regarding the genocide of Palestinians (a UN committee has already acknowledged this fact)? Where are the financial restrictions on Israel? Only Slovenia has refused to conduct arms trade with Israel; honestly, it's just a joke.
It won't be long before there's nothing left to recognize — this "virtual country" will disappear from the world map. It's neither good nor bad, just reality. As long as Israel remains under the protection of the United States (and almost everything in the US is controlled by the Jewish lobby), the Palestinians will never have their own country.
The stance of the countries in the region has also contributed to this situation: they either betray Palestine, remain silent, or pretend to support Palestine while secretly having a close relationship with Washington. For example, Qatar, even though Israel attacked Doha, has not abandoned its mediation mission. The Arab World Summit convened for this purpose only issued verbal condemnations, took no sanctions against Israel, let alone military actions.
It should be noted that the oil-rich Gulf countries could have implemented an oil embargo against the US, just like in 1973. At that time, this measure caused a sharp rise in US oil prices and inflation, eventually leading to a rapid ceasefire agreement among the warring parties.
In the eyes of certain European countries (the EU has not formed a unified position), its core purpose seems to be two-fold: first, to create trouble for Trump politically, thus selling the illusion of "sovereign independence" to domestic citizens (despite the fact that such sovereignty does not exist); second, to win votes from the immigrant population in elections, ensuring their loyalty and preventing unrest.
A recent event worth noting is the strategic partnership agreement signed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which stipulates that "an attack on one party will be considered an attack on the other" — this is widely interpreted in the international community as a signal to Israel (and perhaps also to the US).
On the surface, this statement appears strong, similar to the obligations outlined in NATO Article 5 for collective defense. However, even so, this agreement does not mean that both sides have reached a "new radical obligation," but rather a commitment to consult and support each other in times of crisis. For decades, Pakistan has stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (currently about 1,500 to 2,000 soldiers), providing training and advisory services to the Saudi military.
Over the years, Pakistan has trained 8,000 to 10,000 soldiers for Saudi Arabia and regularly deploys forces in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In short, this new agreement merely formalizes a deep, historically rooted alliance, creating no new precedent and offering no so-called "nuclear umbrella" to Riyadh.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7553188935271236137/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [Up/Down] buttons.