Gaza And The World

As violence in Gaza has escalated, UN experts have called on the international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people. To this day, however, a sea of Palestinians migrate through the Gaza Strip in an attempt to escape death, starvation, and the destruction of their homes. As Israel has now started attacks on the South of the strip –once deemed as a "safe place", there is no safe place for Palestinians to escape anymore.

As the world has stood in solidarity with the Palestinian people, we will navigate in this special how citizens and countries around the world have reacted to the events unfolding in the Israel war on Hamas during the past months.

No Safe Place To Escape

First deemed as a safe area, Southern Gaza is no longer “safe” – and may have never been, with early news outlets reporting strikes Maghazi camp, located south of the Wadi Gaza, the river designated by the Israeli army as the border between the combat zone and the areas where the inhabitants are forced to flee. As Mousa puts it for The Guardian, “Israel’s war has split the territory of 2.3 million people in two, with the military telling Palestinians to move below the Gaza River to what it calls “safe zones”. Still, it has continued to bomb the entire strip, wiping out families it says are unfortunate casualties in its targeting of militants.”

The trip to the so-called safe zones in the South was not an easy one either, with Palestinians being allowed to flee – or be forcibly removed – through “humanitarian corridors” along the Salah al-Din Road for only four hours a day, with no guarantee of safe return. Along the route, Mousa reports of “Young Palestinian men [being] singled out from the crowds. Israeli soldiers told them to line up, calling them out using a megaphone, and then detaining and stripping them naked.”

Renewed strikes came only 30 minutes after the 7-day ceasefire and the broadening of military operations into the South has raised concerns about where civilians could find shelter. Now, the Israeli military has ordered the evacuation of Palestinians from southern Gaza as it continues with the bombardment in the area following the end of a weeklong truce on Friday, leaving Palestinians with nowhere to go, informs Al Jazeera.

Since the beginning of the conflict, more than one million Palestinians have been displaced from Northern Gaza. In mid-November, The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated more than 800,000 internally displaced people were staying in at least 154 shelters run by UNRWA, the UN Palestinian refugee agency, leaving the UN unable to provide them with adequate food, water or medical care, Graham-Harrison wrote on The Guardian. Then, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned about the spread of disease when the winter season arrived. “Every hour that passes with Israel preventing the provision of safe drinking water in the Gaza Strip, in brazen breach of international law, puts Gazans at risk of dying of thirst and diseases”, Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, the UN special rapporteur on water and sanitation said. Hospitals face equally dire circumstances, with triage decisions being made, small teams working round the clock in operating theaters to amputate limbs infected after days without treatment and acute shortage of painkillers taking place.

At present, the numbers amount to about 958,000 displaced Palestinians registered in 99 UNRWA shelters in the center and south of Gaza, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). 70 of these centers are in the southern cities of Rafah and Khan Younis, the latter now declared a “dangerous combat zone”, despite not being so at the beginning of the conflict. Another 191,000 were estimated to be in informal collective shelters: 124 public schools, hospitals, wedding halls, offices, and community centers. UNRWA shelters are now overcrowded and have poor sanitary conditions, and as feared by the WHO, it has led to outbreaks of infections and diseases, such as Hepatitis A.

At present, in Gaza, 1.8 million people – almost 80 per cent of the population – are now homeless and seeking refuge wherever they can, wrote Jason Lee, Save the Children’s Country Director in Palestine, for Al Jazeera.

Standing In Solidarity With Palestine

If something has remained clear, it is that the world stands with Palestine. Pro-Palestine demonstrations have taken place around the globe, and even if the conflict continues, support has not waned. In early November, Le Monde reported of multitudinous demonstrations taking place in Italy, France, Germany, Romania, the United Kingdom, the United States, with demonstrators calling for a halt to Israel's bombardment of Gaza. According to the newspaper “the marches reflected growing disquiet about the mounting civilian casualty toll and suffering from the Israel-Hamas war”, especially as protestors became disillusioned with their governments support to Israel.

The Guardian informed in early December that Pro-Palestine demonstrations in the UK have continued into their eighth successive week in the country, as demonstrators continue to demand a ceasefire. Casper Hughes would write in the newspapers that the demonstrations have drawn hundreds of thousands on to British streets, turning pro-Palestinian demonstrations into some of the biggest protests seen since the anti-war mobilizations prior to the Iraq war in 2003. Similarly, in the US hundreds have gathered around Manhattan, leftwing activists began a hunger strike outside the White House to pressure US President Joe Biden into demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, and protestors closed down the Manhattan bridge for three hours, calling also for a permanent ceasefire.

Across the Arab world, solidarity with Palestine has also continued. In Jordan thousands gathered in a march for the eight weeks in row in support of Palestinians, equally in Yemen people have shown their solidarity with Palestinians.

Gaza And Africa

Following the November 7 attack on Israel, African leaders displayed different reactions and alignments to what soon would become a prolonged conflict. While Algeria and South Africa have reaffirmed their staunch support for the Palestinian people, Kenya, Zambia, Ghana, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are among the African nations that have aligned with Israel’s position. This may be a sign that underscores Israel’s growing influence in Africa, with 44 of 54 African countries now recognising Israel’s statehood, and close to 30 having opened embassies or consulates in Tel Aviv.

What explains the divide between African states? Shola Lawal writes on Al Jazeera the short answer: “Africa’s divisions highlight each government’s attempt to compartmentalise their interests, experts say, and underline some countries’ strengthening ties with Israel. On the one hand, there are deep-rooted ties with the Palestinian movement; on the other, the offer of cutting-edge technology, military assistance, and aid from Israel. Which wins out could determine how Africa tilts if this conflict drags on – and in the future.”

For South Africa, however, despite being Israel’s largest trade partner in Africa, the country has maintained its policy of support for Palestine since the Mandela era, when the former President famously drew parallels between the struggle of black South Africans against white rule and of Palestinians against Israel’s occupation. As a result, South Africa has remained vocal in its criticism of Israel now more than ever: South African lawmakers voted in late November in favour of closing down the Israeli embassy in Pretoria and suspending all diplomatic relations until a ceasefire is agreed upon in its war with Hamas in Gaza; it referred Israel’s genocide in Gaza to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Investigation; called on the ICC to issue an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu; and called on the international community to hold Israel accountable for breaching international law.

The divides that are seen among African leaders in the Israel-Hamas war have also existed within the BRICS, as analysts point out. While BRICS leaders called for an end to Israel’s war in late November, and for a cessation of hostilities on both sides to ease the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip during a BRICS virtual summit, their tones largely varied, with India being less vocal than in the past and cracking down on pro-Palestine marches at home.?

Asia And Gaza

India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) only a few hours after the October 7 Hamas attack shared on X “What Israel is facing today, India suffered between 2004-14. Never forgive, never forget” along with videos of the Bombay attacks of 2008. On a similar line, Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was one of the first world leaders to react, condemning the attack and pledging India's “solidarity with Israel”. Modi’s reaction marks a break with India's traditional position in favor of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, showing the speed in which relations between Israel and India have deepened since the arrival of the BJP party in 2014.

Japan, on the other hand, finds itself, in the words of Tokyo’s correspondent for the Diplomat, Takahashi Kosuke, “caught between a diplomatic rock and an economic hard place: between the United States, Japan’s only ally, which stands firmly with Israel, and Middle Eastern countries, from where Tokyo imports 94 percent of its crude oil and which strongly support Palestine.” Such a circumstance has prompted the country to practice what some have called a “discreet balancing act” amid the Israel-Hamas war. The Nippon country has condemned Hamas' attack – even though not as promptly as its Western allies, while maintaining a policy response based on four points: unequivocal condemnation of Hamas’ attacks, abstaining from commentary on Israel’s right to self-defense, advocating for a cease-fire, and provision of aid for Palestinian civilians.?

Daily paper Nihon Keizai reported that Tokyo “is not as pro-Israel as Western states”, a statement supported by political scientists William M.Z. Fujii, who argues that “Traditionally, Japan has maintained closer relations with Palestine than Israel. The Japanese position on the Palestinian issue has been marked by consistent support for a two-state solution”. According to the Japan Times, “Japan’s long-standing position toward Israel, the Palestinians and the Middle East writ large has demanded that Tokyo employ a nuanced approach to the Israel-Hamas war. Since the early 1970s, Japan has formally supported the Palestinians’ right of self-determination and advocated for a two-state solution. At the same time, Japan has maintained cordial relations with Israel, even pursuing increased engagement in recent years.”

Japan maintains the same philosophy of a nuanced approach for its diplomacy amid the conflict, as over-reliant as it is on Middle Eastern oil with imports mounting to almost 90% in 2019, an immediate concern for Japan is the maintenance of a stable outflow of the commodity from the region. In this sense, Fujii concludes: “Tokyo’s neutral stance in the crisis is partially intended to hedge it against an eventual second oil embargo".?

Somewhat similar to Japan, Beijing has been a supporter of the Palestinians since the Mao era and has long called for a two-state solution. Considering its increasing closeness to Israel, China is presenting itself as a neutral party that holds steadfast to a non-interference principle according to analysts. However, as some point out, China faces a difficult balancing act because it has long openly sympathized with the Palestinian cause, and continues to do so. Tessa Wong, Asia Digital reporter for BBC, writes that behind Beijing’s involvement in the conflict we find China’s significant stake in the Middle East due to its economic interests, particularly its dependence on oil imports from the Gulf, which make up about half of its foreign oil supply. Additionally, Middle Eastern countries play a crucial role in China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a key aspect of its foreign and economic strategy. Moreover, Wong continues, the conflict in the region not only poses a threat to China's economic interests but also offers an opportunity for Beijing to enhance its global reputation, that is, China sees supporting the Palestinians as a way to resonate with Arab nations, Muslim-majority countries, and a substantial portion of the Global South, contributing to its diplomatic objectives.

For China, the conflict occurs as Beijing aims to expand its influence in the Middle East, a region where it traditionally lacked significant clout. In late November, Reuters reported that China had called on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to formulate a "concrete" timetable and roadmap for a two-state solution to achieve a "comprehensive, just and lasting" settlement of the Palestinian issue.

The Chinese government's relatively balanced relationships with all parties involved in the conflict position it as a potential impartial mediator, according to Dawn Murphy, an associate professor specializing in Chinese foreign policy. However, Raymond Kuo, a political scientist at the Rand Corporation, and Jonathan Fulton, a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council specializing in China's relations with the Middle East, China's influence in the region is not robust enough to bring about a substantial resolution.?

Europe And Gaza

On 7 October, the European Union (EU) released a Statement condemning “in the strongest possible terms the multiple and indiscriminate attacks across Israel by Hamas and deeply deplores the loss of lives.” The Union had called for an immediate cessation of the “senseless attacks and violence, which [would] only further increase tensions on the ground and seriously undermine Palestinian people’s aspirations for peace”.

On 19 October, the European Parliament voted on a joint resolution summing up their shared position. The document's key points comprehended the following: Call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages taken by Hamas; call for those responsible for terrorist acts and for violations of international law to be held to account; recognition of Israel’s right to self-defense emphasizing that its actions must comply with international humanitarian law; urging the international community to continue and increase its humanitarian assistance to the civilian population in the area while reiterating that the EU must continue to send humanitarian aid to Gaza; call on all parties to take the necessary steps to bring about a fundamental change to the political, security and economic situation in the Gaza Strip; condemnation of the rocket attacks launched from Lebanon and Syria into Israel; call for a humanitarian pause, de-escalation and full respect of international humanitarian law; condemnation of Iran’s support to the terrorist group Hamas; reiteration of its unwavering support for a negotiated two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 lines with two sovereign, democratic states living side by side in peace and guaranteed security, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states, and in full respect of international law.

A few days later, on 23 October, Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, released a Statement in which he informed of the Commission’s decision to multiply by three the humanitarian aid sent to Gaza. The High-Representative and Vice-President stated “Speaking out against one tragedy should not prevent us from speaking out against another. The moral strength to condemn one thing allows – and obliges – us to condemn another, carried out in another place, by other people.” He reaffirmed that the EU position was drawn up at the extraordinary informal Foreign Affairs Council that he had convened on October 10 and confirmed by the?extraordinary European Council: “we condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas against Israel and the Israeli people. We affirm that Israel has the right to defend itself in line with humanitarian and international law. And the European Union has mobilised to provide humanitarian support to the most vulnerable people, to those who are most at risk. We are also committed to a peace process for a lasting peace based on a two-state solution, and therefore based on support for the Palestinian Authority.” There is no other EU position and all these sentences are part of this position”, Borrell said.

However, as many have been quick to point out, the EU has struggled to remain on consistent?and?united footing?around its response to the war, or in the words of Scazzieri, “Europe’s response to the conflict between Israel and Hamas has been chaotic”. He, for instance, points out that “In the immediate aftermath of the massacres of Israeli civilians carried out by Hamas on October 7th, the EU’s Commissioner for enlargement, Olivér Várhelyi, unilaterally announced that the EU would cut its aid to the Palestinian Authority, sparking a spat with other Commissioners and public rebukes by member-states”. Not only that, but both Scazzieri and Politico have highlighted the different approaches between European Commission President, Ursula von Der Leyen, and Josep Borrell amid the crisis. Politico, in this sense, writes “European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen traveled to Israel, sounding nearly unequivocal in her?support for the country. The EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, has more openly?called out?Israel’s actions, such as its siege and its demands that over a million Palestinians leave their homes in the north of Gaza and move south”. Scazzieri, thus, believes that even when EU leaders agreed on a common position, disunity continues to bubble underneath the surface.?

The disunity, however, is not only an issue at the European institutions level. As columns in The Guardian and Foreign Policy have highlighted, “conflict is proving a political hot potato that [is] exacerbating internal rifts, jeopardizing already fragile alliances, and threatening to exact a heavy price in the next elections”, writes Michele Barbero, an Italian journalist based in Paris. The war, thus, is causing strains across the European left – in France, the United Kingdom, and Spain, for example –, highlighting the differences between the social democrats and the “radical left” while also emboldening the right. “Nationalist leaders across Europe are referring to Hamas’s brutality to back up their hard-line views on Islam and immigration at home, while playing up their opponents’ ambiguities and boosting their own credentials as government material”, argues Barbero.

However, as Scazzieri wrote for the Centre for European Reform, the focus on the internal dynamics in Brussels and national capitals, has hidden that Europe lacks good options to deal with the conflict. According to Scazzieri the EU has no leverage to negotiate the release of the hostages abducted by Hamas, little of what it says will have a meaningful impact on Israel’s choices on how to conduct operations against Hamas, and it is unclear whether the EU can do anything to persuade Egypt to open its border and allow Gazans to seek shelter on its territory. Nathalie Tocci, similarly, wrote a piece for The Guardian on how the EU chaotic response to the Israel-Hamas war reveals how weak it is.?

Latin America And Gaza

Like with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there was no unified regional response to the ongoing conflict, write Harrison and Orbach. While historically Latin America’s left-leaning countries have sympathized with the Palestinian cause, the more right-wing countries have followed the US line. Consequently, the writers point out, many Latin American countries have existing relationships with both Israel and Palestine, as from 2009 to 2011 a majority of Latin American countries chose to recognize Palestine alongside Israel diplomatically. Mexico and Panama, however, only recognize Israel.

Home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the region, Argentinian President Alberto Fernández stated his country’s condemnation of the Hamas attack on Israeli people, informs Al Jazeera. The country, however, has also condemned Israel’s attack on the Jabalia refugee camp, while also calling for the release of captives held by Hamas.

Belize has “decried the hostilities between Hamas and Israel and called for immediate de-escalation while supporting a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and demanding the right of return for Palestinians displaced from their ancestral homeland”, according to the Qatari newspaper.

Bolivia cut ties with Israel completely over its bombardment and siege of Gaza and mounting civilian casualties. Minister of the Presidency Maria Nela Prada also announced the country would send humanitarian aid to Gaza. Bolivia is among the first nations to announce the end of diplomatic relations with Israel over its war in Gaza, having previously cut them in 2009, also in protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza.

On October 7, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva condemned the “terrorist attacks carried out against civilians in Israel” and called on the international community to resume negotiations to find a solution to the conflict. He posited his support for a two-state solution. Brazil had hoped the UNSC would pass a resolution calling for a “humanitarian pause” in the fighting between Israeli forces and Hamas militants, writes Kahn in National Public Radio. Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira pointed out the UNSC inability to pass a resolution and condemned what he called a “persistent use of the council for personal interests rather than prioritizing the protection of civilians.” Commentators highlight that “Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s response to the war between Israel and Hamas reflects his aspirations to be a leader of the Global South.”

Home to the largest Palestinian diaspora in the region, Chile condemned the violence but also asserted their support of Palestinian rights. In a statement, President Gabriel Boric condemned Hamas’s October 7 “brutal attacks, murders and kidnappings”, while also calling Israel out on its “indiscriminate attacks against civilians” saying it was violating international law. As Israel’s attacks on the Strip escalated, Chile recalled its ambassador for consultation citing Israel’s “unacceptable violations of international humanitarian law” for the move.

Colombia's stance on the conflict between Israel and Hamas has been shaped more by President Gustavo Petro's social media comments than by his government’s official statements, according to Sebastián Guerra. Colombian President Gustavo Petro has condemned Israel’s bombardments of Gaza, calling its war in the besieged Palestinian enclave that has so far killed more than 9,000 people “genocide”. The country has also recalled its ambassador in Tel Aviv, condemning the deaths of civilians in Gaza and calling for a ceasefire.

In Cuba, tens of thousands marched in front of the US embassy in Havana, informed The Guardian. The march was the first of its kind in more than a decade, with the crowd sporting Palestinian flags and banners, chanting “free, free Palestine, Israel is genocide” and “up with Palestinian freedom”.?

A staunch ally of Israel, El Salvador strongly condemned the Hamas attack on Israel but has not as yet commented on Israel’s actions on Gaza. Yiftah Curiel, Ambassador of Israel to El Salvador and Guatemala, stated in an interview with Voice of America “We are helping Israeli citizens who want to return to Israel to be with their family or participate in the fight with the army. That is the consular work we are doing these days.”

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s reaction to the October 7 attacks by Hamas was late and lukewarm, in the words of Lucila del águila for the United States Institute of Peace. While the Foreign Ministry quickly condemned the killing of Israeli civilians as terrorist actions that threaten international peace and security, recognizing Israel’s right to self-defense, López Obrador waited two days before addressing the conflict, she explains. His government was not supporting either side, according to López Obrador, “because we want to be part of the effort for a peaceful solution.” He then criticized the UNSC for failing to act, calling for peace through dialogue. López Obrador, like many of his predecessors, has generally championed non-intervention and self-determination, rejecting foreign interference in Mexican affairs and vice versa, Del águila concludes.

Peru’s foreign ministry released a statement, saying: “Peru condemns, and will continue to condemn, violence from wherever it comes from.” The country has also expressed its concern over the worsening of the humanitarian conditions, condemning Israel’s attack in the Jabalia refugee camp and calling for the abiding to international and humanitarian law.

The Government of Venezuela voiced its concern at the situation in the Gaza Strip and called for the end of violence throughout the Palestinian territory through direct dialogue and compliance with UNSC Resolution 2334. Venezuela urged the UN to fulfill its role as a guarantor of international peace and legality. In a statement, the Latin American country recognised the ongoing conflict “is the result of the inability of the Palestinian people to find a space in international law to assert their historical rights”.

The US And Gaza

Stephen Walt, columnist at Foreign Policy, published a piece in the magazine titled “America Is a Root Cause of Israel and Palestine’s Latest War”. In it, Walt discusses five US Middle East foreign policy moves dating as far back as 1991 that would account for today’s Israel-Hamas war. More concretely, the columnist argues “Washington monopolized stewardship of the peace process ever since the Oslo Accords, and its various efforts over the years ultimately led nowhere”. Such an argument was also recently made by Russian President, Vladimir Putin, at the last BRICS meeting, where Putin stated that the US was undermining the chances of peace by trying to monopolize diplomacy in its own self-interest. “History has vividly demonstrated that attempts to single-handedly cut the Palestinian knot are not viable and counterproductive”, the President stated. “The Cause of the War Was a US-Lead Struggle for Peace”, was a contribution of Yair Hirschfeld to the Wilson Center. Hirschfeld writes “On the global level, the multi-layered peace effort aimed at normalizing relations between Israel, Malaysia, and Indonesia would bring most of the Arab and Muslim world into the Abraham Accords. This effort threatened the interest of Hamas, particularly of its military wing, as well as the interests of Iran, its proxies, and Russia and became the motivation for Hamas to start this war.”

While there seems to be certain consensus about the responsibility that the US holds for the current developments in Palestine, what have been the United States's reactions to the conflict since it exploded?

The US has strongly backed Israel’s war against Hamas ever since the conflict began, going to the length of vetoing a resolution for a humanitarian pause at the UNSC. However, some commentators point out that there has been a shift in tone from Biden’s first response to the Hamas attacks – widely described as one of the most pro-Israel speeches by any American president – to more recent rhetoric focused on humanitarian aid and extending the truce to allow for more hostage releases. As of late November, the White House also made clear that it does not support military operations in south Gaza unless Israel can show that it has accounted for all internally displaced people. Indeed, in mid-November, President Biden in an op-ed published in the Washington Post stated that the Palestinian Authority should govern Gaza and the West Bank following the war between Israel and Hamas. “As we strive for peace, Gaza and the West Bank should be reunited under a single governance structure, ultimately under a revitalized Palestinian Authority, as we all work toward a two-state solution”, wrote the President. He added that “there must be no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, no reoccupation, no siege or blockage, and no reduction in territory … After this war is over, the voices of Palestinian people and their aspirations must be at the center of post-crisis governance in Gaza.” However, as Federman and Teibel point out in AP News, “the Palestinian Authority, weak and deeply unpopular with its own people, has already said it has no interest in assuming power if it is helped by Israel”.

Biden’s reassessment of its statements regarding Israel’s war against Hamas is not, however, a mere coincidence. Instead, it likely responds to changes in public opinion, with a poll published by the Gallup Institute in March showing that for the first time in more than two decades, more democrats (49%) recognized an affinity with Palestinians than with Israelis (38%). Not only that, but the plight of civilians in Gaza is causing unprecedented turmoil, as it “puts the administration at odds with the progressive wing, and more broadly with young voters and minorities of color, whose support will be decisive in the November 2024 presidential election”, Piotr Smolar writes for Le Monde. Indeed, the Axios website reported that surveys by the Arab American Institute suggest a dramatic fall in support for Biden among Arab American voters in recent weeks, with Arab American support for the current President dropping to 42%, an all-time low.? Moreover, public opinion polls show most Americans — and an overwhelming majority of Democrats — back an end to hostilities in Gaza. Similarly, a Reuters/Ipsos survey released last month indicated 68% of respondents believed Israel should call a ceasefire and negotiate an end to the war. That number rose to 77% among democrats alone. While foreign policy is seldom a top priority for voters, advocates say the scale of the violence in Gaza has made it a decisive issue for many constituents.

The shift in the White House discourse has not been exempt from criticism by some, however. In late November too, as reported by The Guardian, Biden was facing criticism after a social media post sowed confusion over his stance on the Israel-Hamas war, with some viewing it as evidence that he is bowing to domestic pressure for a ceasefire. While some welcomed the tweet as the first time that Biden has clearly warned how Israel’s aggressive military offensive is working to Hamas’ benefit, others on the right accused Biden of drawing moral equivalence between Hamas’ terrorist attack and Israel’s bombing campaign. It seems thus, in the words of Collinson, that “the administration’s tougher tone with Israel is not without risk. While he may be able to alleviate some of the domestic political pressure from his left, President Joe Biden will attract criticism from Republicans who will accuse him of curtailing Israel’s right to defend itself following a horrific terror attack”, or from organizations like Alec who has put pressure to pass pro-Israel resolutions.