Part of an ongoing article series on the impact of the Middle East conflict on Southeast Asia.
The Context Today
The ongoing Israeli war on Gaza has reached a critical juncture. Despite efforts by negotiators towards an immediate ceasefire and for humanitarian aid to be delivered, the talks have borne frustrating results.
In brief, the future of Israel-Palestine relations remains uncertain, as does the stability of the Middle East region at large.
The inability of the UN and other intergovernmental institutions to effect change in the geopolitical situation not only worsens the humanitarian crisis but also renders the legitimacy and capability of global regimes questionable.
The failure of the UN to protect Palestinian civilians exposes the ugly reality that even trusted global institutions and legal regimes can do nothing when the interests of global power are at stake.
The position of powerful Western countries in support of Israel and the opposing policy of non-Western powers like China and Russia have made it difficult for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to function effectively. The polarized responses of powerful countries on the issue, in the UNSC and beyond, have further deepened human rights violations in Gaza.
Regional insecurity has become more profound. Middle Eastern countries have been careful in calculating their moves vis-à-vis the crisis to preserve relative regional peace and security.
Still, certain geopolitical dilemmas and nuances begin to manifest themselves. For one, the conflict has also expanded to Lebanon and potentially Iran at the time of writing.
The inability of the UNSC to mediate may force other countries, both inside and outside the region, to directly or indirectly engage in the conflict.
For decades, the region has been mired in conflict as a result of long-standing colonial legacies and sustained external intervention pitting Middle Eastern countries against each other.
The Western deterritorialization project affecting geographic and socio-cultural domains in Arab and non-Arab Middle East has created multiple sovereignties and given way to sustained rivalries among state and non-state actors in the region.
The creation of Israel in 1948, for example, was received unfavorably by the Palestinians and several Arab countries. The series of Arab-Israeli wars and Arab-Palestinian conflicts, hence, have become the main determinant of past, present and possibly future peace discussions.
The polarizing policies of Western countries favoring Israel questions the West’s long-standing claim of championing humanitarianism. Scholars, politicians, students and the grassroots begin to ask if these countries still hold moral and ethical ascendancy, at least in the context of the Israeli war on Gaza.
Meanwhile, Al Jazeera’s uncensored coverage of the war presents the graphic reality of violations of human rights and international conventions, such as protecting public spaces like schools and hospitals during wartime.
The protests not only question the inhuman treatment of Palestinian civilians but also the motivations behind continued investment in Israel; they put pressure on many companies, universities and governments to reconsider their support as well as complicity in Israel’s atrocities. The diversity of Southeast Asian responses to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza can also be exploited by existing fundamentalist organizations in the region.
Nonetheless, some take the pro-Israeli position, arguing that Israel has the “right to exist” while condemning Hamas’ attacks on Israel as acts of “terrorism”.
Divergence in Southeast Asia
Southeast Asian states have diverging positions on the issue. Muslim countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei condemn Israeli forces for killing Palestinian civilians and question the effectiveness of international law and rule-based order.
The Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim decried the Israeli war on Gaza, banning Israeli ships from docking on Malaysian ports. Meanwhile, Indonesia has pledged to continue its support for the Palestinian people by advancing the two-state solution.
Both Malaysia and Indonesia have even included the future of the Palestinian people in their foreign policy agenda.
Similarly, Singapore consistently supports the two-state solution and the primacy of international law. Considering its sizeable Muslim population, Singapore takes the “principled decision” of being a “friend to all and enemy to none”. Essentially, it aims to maintain relations with Israel while balancing its national interests and humanitarianism.
The Philippines takes a different approach altogether, continuing its official policy to support Israel but condemning the “terrorist” attacks of Hamas on Israeli citizens. The Philippines sees Israel as an allied country, second only to the United States. This may have created an awkward yet inevitable contrast between the Philippines’ stance and others in Southeast Asia, particularly the Muslim-majority nations.
Thailand and Singapore’s muted condemnation of Israel is calculated, as each has its own strategic and economic interests both with Israel and the United States.
Geopolitical uncertainties would force countries in Southeast Asia to re-evaluate their policies and approaches toward the region. It is important to note that these countries are also acting based on their national interests and domestic concerns.
Given the global strategic relevance of the Middle East in terms of history, energy supply, trade routes and migration, a prolonged war can cause further damages to global trade as well as foreign relations, while also weakening the prospects for humanitarian protection.
Historical Connection and Alliance with the United States
The position of the Philippine government and the support of the Filipino people to Israel are not without basis.
Officially, the Philippines voted for the partition of Palestine and the eventual creation of the State of Israel under UNGA Resolution 181 in 1947. In fact, the Philippines was the only Asian country that supported the creation of Israel.
Even earlier, in 1934, the government of former president Manuel Quezon welcomed the Jews who fled Europe amid Nazi persecution. With US High Commissioner McNutt and the Frieder brothers, the Philippines implemented an “open door” policy and authorized the issuance of 1,300 entry visas to Jewish refugees.
From the strategic point of view, the Philippines has always followed the United States as a big brother: its “blind support for Israel” is rooted in the unquestionable American-Israeli alliance.
In addition, a strategic partnership between the Philippines and Israel was inked in 2022 when both signed the Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (IPPA), which covered areas such as water management, agriculture, cybersecurity, defense industry, smart transportation, manufacturing and diamond industry development, among others.
From the religious point of view, the predominantly Catholic Filipino people believe that Israel is the “promised land” and the place where Jesus was born. Indeed, around 40% of Filipinos mirror the government’s position on the war, while more than half are neutral.
Implications for the Philippines
The Philippines has always been vulnerable to geopolitical and security tensions in the Middle East. This has been the reality for the Philippines since the 1970s and it will continue until the country can fully exercise an independent foreign policy. This vulnerability arises from the country’s inability to direct its interests beyond its territories.
Furthermore, the country depends on the international labor market. 10% of its population is working and residing abroad. The majority of Filipino migrant workers are in the Middle East and their exposure to the regional conflict is undeniable.
The National Economic Development Authority’s claim that the war has “hardly any impact” on the Philippine economy is shortsighted. This is because of the country’s dependence on two critical elements of its relationship with the Middle East: oil and overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).
These elements are vital to Philippine economic growth and development, yet their relevance is challenged by compounding regional events beyond the Philippine government’s control. Hence, for the Philippines, a peaceful Middle East is good for business, as it allows the smooth flow of oil as well as Filipino workers to the region and foreign remittances to the Philippine economy.
The Philippines’ position on the conflict is influenced by several considerations, the most important of which are history and the Philippine-American alliance, along with economic reasons and the safety of OFWs.
OFWs and Remittance
The conflict threatens the lives and safety of OFWs in the region. Recent data from the Philippine Statistics Authority shows that in 2023, the breakdown of OFW destinations is as follows: Asia (77.4%), North and South America (9.8%), Europe (8.4%), Australia (3.0%), and Africa (1.3%). Saudi Arabia was the leading destination for OFWs, accounting for 20% of the total, followed by the UAE at 13.6%.
Around 30,000 OFWs, mostly caregivers, are living and working in Israel. In 2023, their cash remittances to the Philippines reached ₱109.14 million, slightly lower than that in 2021 and 2022, which totaled ₱119.86 million and ₱110.63 million, respectively.
This is minimal compared with records from Saudi Arabia, the third largest source of overall remittances, from which OFW transfers amounted to US$307.981 million, or 5.6% of the total.
Saudi Arabia is followed by the UAE, which recorded remittances amounting to US$206.29 million, or 3.8%.
In comparison, available data shows that there are only a hundred plus Filipinos in Gaza, mainly married to Palestinian nationals. There is no available data so far on remittances coming from Filipinos in Gaza.
Great Concerns for the Philippines
Beyond the scope of OFWs, the Philippines are also facing other challenges emanating from the conflict. These include: 1) political and energy instability; 2) emergence of anti-Israeli sentiments; 3) conflict exploitation by domestic and regional terrorist organizations, and; 4) potential influx of Palestinian refugees.
As the conflict extended to Lebanon, Yemen and potentially Iran, there is a great deal of anxiety for a potential regional war. This could have global economic and security implications. It may impact the delivery of crude oil to the global market and lead to energy price volatility due either to shortage or market speculation.
Given the Philippines’ massive dependency on Middle Eastern oil, its volatility could affect the price movements of basic commodities and services domestically.
Another potential challenge for the Philippines and the rest of Southeast Asia is the rise of pro-Palestinian sentiment. All around the world, many students of big and small universities take part in public protests to demand the cessation of the Israel-Hamas war.
For instance, students at Columbia University in New York demanded the university’s divestiture from Israel over the “genocide” committed by the Israeli Defense Forces. Despite the government’s policy, modest protests could still be observed in several parts of the Philippines, although not as intense and disruptive as in other countries like the United States.
Finally, as the war continues, more Palestinian refugees may reach the Philippines, although so far only Filipinos married to Palestinians in Gaza have sought refuge in the archipelago since the beginning of the war. The presence of refugees in the country may add to the economic, legal and socio-cultural pressures that burden the host government.
Conclusion
The ongoing Israeli war on Gaza exposed the inability of governments and institutions to take action in favor of an immediate ceasefire. Existing international conventions and legal regimes supposedly for the preservation of humanity are powerless. With the polarizing attitudes of the UNSC permanent members and other powers, the UN has so far not been able to make an impactful decision to stop the war.
The Philippines’s strong support for Israel is based primarily on historical precedence and its national interests. Materially, the country’s strategic economic and political partnerships with Israel and the United States defined much of the country’s policy rhetoric. However, the country also stands to lose if the conflict in the Middle East expands to the whole region.
