Introduction ­­­­

The crisis in Gaza shows that the multilateral world order has arrived at a new low of dysfunctionality. The international community simply sits and watches as Israel’s war for supremacy killed 23,357 people in Gaza, at the time of writing.

The war has invoked global insecurity and heightened the urgency for a new international system, one that would not let Israel or similar aggressor walk away scot-free.

International experts, policymakers, journalists and activists have concluded that Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza has reached its lowest point that has not been seen since 1948.

A month before the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented the New Middle East plan, also known as the Greater Israel map at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

Perhaps inspired by the land projection of biblical era, the Prime Minister included parts of Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in the country’s foreign policy of territorial expansion in the map. The “New Middle East” agenda has also been articulated in other official statements.

Netanyahu insisted that the Bible-inspired map as “a blessing to all”, a clear way to politicize the holy book that is sacred to 2.6 billion Christians worldwide. Curiously, Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Old Testament, has a verse on the call for an extermination the ancient tribe of Amalek. Netanyahu quoted the verse to justify the killing Palestinians, including children and women, whom he associated as the Amalek during a press conference on 28 October 2023.

Such rhetoric has invited condemnation left, right and center. Pope Francis of the Catholic Church has been silent on the Greater Israel policy but warned against terrorism committed in Gaza.

The Dysfunctional World Order

Scholars believes that only an intervention by the United States could stop Israel’s aggression in Gaza. However, the United States’ call for Israel to reduce the civil casualty and urging to end the war are contrary to its defence of its veto against the United Nations’ call for ceasefire. The United States’ rationale behind the veto is inspired by the perceived imbalance response by the United Nations, which dismissed Hamas as equally responsible for the death of civilians in Gaza. US Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood believed that “Hamas has no desire for a durable peace” even if the two-state solution materializes.

Such ambiguous position is rather identical to the stand of the US’ allies towards the war.

The United Kingdom, for instance, has not only emphasized its support for Israel and the latter’s right to defend against Hamas, but also called for a restraint from violating the international law. Despite this, the United Kingdom remains a bystander as the carnage in Gaza continues. Similar stance has been expressed by other European nations, such as France and Germany.

Such pronouncements are strongly suspect of double standards, especially if compared to their position on the Russia-Ukraine war. The world’s major and superpowers also seem to be failing to come together to push for a lasting solution on the Gaza affair.

This dysfunctionality has invited strong reaction from grassroots and states alike. Protests and rallies in support of Gaza popped up across the globe, despite unfair reporting by traditional news outlets, unbalanced social media algorithm and questionable take downs of pro-Gaza content. 

The United States has also banned the boycott activism in its domestic sphere. Using the narrative of the fight against antisemitism and to protect the right of an allied country, in December 2023, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a renewed legislation named IGO Anti Boycot Act, which bars Americans from participating in boycotts of U.S. allies if those boycotts are promoted or imposed by foreign countries.

The Houthi’s attack “on all Israel bound ship” in the Red Sea is indicative of this disappointment towards the dysfunctional multilateral system, led by the Western powers. Interestingly, some corners of the international community may celebrate this Shiite military movement as the only actor that does something about the conundrum.

Emerging Global South Multipolarity

The world urgently needs an alternative to this dysfunctional multilateral system.  

In the last several years, various experts have argued for a new multipolar political system that can ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth and security to all countries in the world. Such a system allows multiple centres of powers to emerge, enabling smaller states to foster alliance more liberally instead of simply gravitating towards one or two superpowers.

It should be noted that the failure of the United Nations’ process to cease the hostility in Gaza is a symptom of this failing multilateral system. The United Nations, for instance, has signalled that a multipolar world order could improve global peace and security, with smaller countries in the Global South having more freedom to determine who they want to ally and collaborate with. 

On the other hand, despite the support for Israel to “defend itself” against the Hamas, the European Union perceives the Global South as the core of the multipolar world system, where it demands to act with the respectful right of its distinct identity and sovereignty in policy making and conflict resolution within the international political system.

It is widely known that the Global South has consistently been on the side of the Palestine, owing to the shared past experiences of anti-colonialism, anti-apartheids and anti-Zionism. The ambiguous position of the United States and its European allies are perceived as “the west’s civilizational failure”, “The Wests’ loss”, or as “double standard” among many other critics.

For example, majority of the Global South countries voted in favour of a ceasefire during a the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session on 12 December 2023. Within a month of the conflict, South Africa, Jordan, Turkey, Chile, Colombia, Chad, Honduras, Bahrain and Bolivia had also recalled their respective ambassadors from Israel. Furthermore, South Africa filed an application before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel concerning the latter’s violation of the Genocide Convention.

The Gaza conflict and other instances of global insecurity have decentred the US hegemony at the world stage, on one hand, and opened a pathway for China to emerge as an alternative hegemony. Not only has China condemned the atrocity in Gaza and urged for a fully independent sovereignty of Palestine, it has also pushed for ceasefire and led summits with Arab leaders for a concrete solution.

China has also projected more sea power in the Gulf since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza. China has emerged as the magnet for the Global South countries to lean on. As such, it is perfectly plausible that more Global South countries would choose aligning itself with China.

Indonesia’s Consistency

While all of these unfold, Indonesia’s role as one of the Global South countries remains vague at best, conflictual at worst. Indonesia’s support towards South Africa’s legal application was deafeningly slow considering it took Indonesia two weeks to declare its support, especially if compared to Malaysia’s.

On 10 January 2024, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lalu Muhammad Iqbal stated that Indonesia is not party to the Genocide Convention, which explains its initial absence in joining the legal initiatives. As of 20 January 2024, Indonesia has filed a new lawsuit against Israel at the ICJ.

Indonesia’s staunch support for the independence of Palestine is famously inked in its 1945 Constitution. Indonesia’s traditional position on Palestine is shaped by its non-alignment multipolarity in international arena. Two important factors are at play here.

Firstly, its foreign policy foundation of bebas aktif(free and active) reflects Indonesia’s position in a globally uncertain and insecure world. It charts Indonesia’s path to freely determine its stance and policy towards an international issue without being tied to the wishes and whims of another power. It also demands the country’s active participation in conflict resolution process around the world.

Such a paradigm is reflected in Indonesia’s leadership of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) and its administering of the 1955 Asia-Africa Conference in Bandung. The Conference gave birth to “Dasasila Bandung” that conceptualizes global peace order. It should be noted that NAM is currently one of active organizations and key player in pushing for a just global order coordinated through the United Nations.

Moreover, Indonesia has contributed to global peace through participation in the UN peacekeeping mission since 1957, with 24,000 troops estimated to have served in Sinai, Sudan, Mali, Central Africa and Lebanon. In addition, its commitment to the Rohingyas are recorded as championing the humanitarian response since the refugees’ first arrival in Aceh in 2008. Although recent developments suggest that there is a domestic opposition to this, Indonesia has consistently reached out to international organization and community to spread awareness as well as to search for a lasting solution.   

Secondly, Indonesia’s experience in its anti-colonial struggle strikes many similar notes as what Palestinians are experiencing now as well.   That is why support for Palestine without Indonesia is hard to comprehend. The country’s filing of a new lawsuit against Israel would not only renew Indonesia’s existing legacy of global order but also might further encompass the direction of power and justice in the emerging multipolar world order, as rightly pointed out by the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Retno Marsudi.

Introduction

The devastating events unfolding in Gaza is believed to have occurred in retaliation to the Hamas attack on 7^th October which was reported to have taken 1400 lives, and some 200 hostages, most of whom have yet to be returned. There is no denying that civilian deaths are never something to celebrate or justify.

However, Prof. Ilan Pappe, a famed historian of Israeli nationality and former member of the Israeli military, implores upon people to consider the source of violence. He explains that the Israeli government is using the Hamas operation as a pretense for committing genocide against Gazans. Pappe elaborates the importance of understanding the context and history of current events before the 7^th of October by remembering Israel’s many violations of international law such as the siege placed upon Gaza and the denial of their basic rights, the decades long ruthless occupation in the West Bank, and by Israel’s constant dehumanization of Palestinians in general.

Breeding Violence via Dehumanizing Narratives

Israeli leaders and officers, as well as Zionist supporters, have repeatedly dehumanized Palestinians by referring to them as “human animals,” “children of darkness,” peace-loving vs. inherently violent, Western civilization vs. Muslim barbarism, and many more problematic terms coupled with graphic imagery with reference to vermin (such as the caricature of an IDF soldier crushing a Palestinian human cockroach under his/her military boot). Dr. David Livingstone Smith has also observed the dangerous dehumanizing language used by the Prime Minister of Israel and others within his top administration that paint the “other” (i.e. Gazans and Palestinians) to appear as “bloodthirsty monsters.” Smith condemns the atrocities committed by Hamas, yet he could not deny the dangerous rhetoric employed by the Israeli regime is indicative of “pre-genocidal” actions which is reflected in the horrors unleashed on Gaza today.

Unfortunately, the practice of dehumanizing rhetoric is not new. Nazi propaganda has been well documented to portray Jews and other “inferior” races such as the Gypsies, Jews, Poles, Roma, and Sinti as dirty, bestial, lazy, and a threat to the economic, moral, and civilizational development of the elite Aryan race. Fast forward to 2023 and the tables have turned. It is ironic that descendants of Holocaust survivors are mirroring the rhetoric that the Nazis employed to depict Jews and those of the “inferior” race as “untermensch” or “sub-human.”

Such expressions of hatred are often prelude to horrific ethnic cleansing as seen during World War II, the Srebrenica massacre, and genocide in Rwanda. This is generally done by amplifying one’s fears towards those deemed as others and causing them to act on it. Unfortunately, fear transcends geography. This is evident from the murder of a 6-year-old boy in Plainfield, Illinois, approximately 9981 kilometers away from Israel. The brutality meted out in this murder was indicative of the perpetrator’s deep hatred towards the victim. It was claimed that the perpetrator was heavily influenced by the conservative media’s narratives on the situation in Israel-Gaza and believed that the victims (who were of Palestinian descent) would eventually harm him. Such violence is not the first time Islamophobia has manifested and costing the lives of innocent Muslims around the world.

However wrong these actions are, it does now allow for some pro-Palestine supporters to engage in antisemitic rhetoric, vandalism, or violence. Not only is there an increasing trend of antisemitic comments online but there is also heightening violence to Jewish communities outside of Israel. It is never justified to dismiss an entire group of people based on their ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality because of the acts of their government or extreme members within their community. A case in point is the involvement of Jewish communities calling for a ceasefire such as that organized by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). JVP’s recent “sit-in” in New York saw the arrests of approximately 200 its Jewish protestors and their allies. This is why Prof. Avi Shlaim (Israeli and British historian of Iraqi Jewish descent) made an important distinction between antisemitism (which is wrong), and criticism on the official ideology of Zionism and the Israeli government—particularly policies related to Palestinians and the occupation of Palestinian territories (which is legitimate).

Importantly, this demonstrates how dehumanizing narratives breed violence not only towards a targeted group but also a blowback to the initiating group. Here, we are faced with two important questions: 1) why is dehumanization as a strategy important? And 2) how should we act in the face of such dangerous narratives?

Effectiveness of Dehumanization

Historically, dehumanization has been an effective strategy to mobilize the masses against a perceived enemy.  Dehumanization is particularly insidious as it subverts moral arguments against the perpetrator by justifying the intervention, subjugation, oppression and even extermination of groups deemed to be “barbarians” or “terrorists” that threaten peace-loving, civilized nations. For example, past European colonizers categorized the native populations as savages in need of salvation—where they saw fit to forcefully remove children from their “uncivilized” communities, implemented cultural assimilation policies such as residential schools, and other initiatives to eradicate the offensive existence of indigenous populations.

In short, dehumanization is effective as it: 1) denigrates the morality and humanity of the perceived enemy; 2) rouses extreme and negative nationalism; and 3) justifies intervention, and 4) legitimizes violence.

Collectively, these explain the justification of acts of violence against Gazans specifically and Palestinians in general—whereby news of their extermination are met with celebrations in the streets and disgraceful TikTok videos mocking Palestinian suffering. The intentional, systematic dehumanization of Palestinians has justified the destruction that has followed as part of “self-defense.” Yet bombings of key infrastructure and facilities such as communication networks and hospitals, schools and places of worship, residential areas and refugee camps has only caused mass casualties and displacement of Palestinians with no avenue for their return—all of which Hamas has managed to evade within the besieged Gaza.

Rationality must Persist

Thus, in pursuit of what is right (i.e. justice), can one inadvertently commit a wrong and perpetuate negative stereotypes and hate speech? An example would be to blanketly condemn Jews and hold them all responsible for the gross violations of international law by Zionists leaders. Such actions would not only further harm innocents but also delegitimize the pursuit of justice.  

Empathy must also be extended domestically including vulnerable communities in our own countries. In Malaysia, while many have stood up passionately against the injustice done towards Palestinians in Gaza, there is continued resistance against the possibility of offering minimal, basic rights and protections to refugees already in Malaysia, including Palestinians. One crucial factor for this is anxiety with regards to the “other” i.e. migrants and refugees. The “other” is often perceived as a safety and security threat to Malaysians; further amplified via stereotypical media narratives that emphasizes on their “illegal” status. Concerningly, such “us” and “others” worldview may unintendedly lead to the use of dehumanization of the “others.” This demonstrates the importance of adab. Leaning on the words of Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib Al Attas, adab is reflected through right action which is a result of self-discipline founded upon knowledge. Only when these conditions are present can we hope to gain the wisdom needed to pursue justice for all while mitigating dehumanization.