Politics Opinion

Israel-Gaza one year on: Rethinking security to stem rise in conflict

By | | comments |
Smoke and flames billow after Israeli forces struck a high-rise tower in Gaza City, 7 October 2023 (Image via Wikimedia Commons)

The ongoing Middle East crisis serves as a reminder that world leaders seem reluctant to find a solution to the rise in global conflicts, writes Dr Claire Yorke.

IT IS ALMOST one year on from the shocking terrorist attacks by Hamas in Israel that saw over 1,100 people killed and over 250 hostages taken. Since that time, the conflict has shown no signs of abating.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres recently reiterated calls for a ceasefire and an end to the ‘horrific violence’ after another attack on a UN shelter for Palestinians who have been forced to leave their homes. Yet the international community seems unable to respond in a decisive or coordinated way to alleviate and end the conflict.

Widely circulated figures suggest that over 41,000 Palestinians have been killed, with thousands more injured. Large swathes of Gaza have been flattened and left inhospitable, forcing many to leave their homes and livelihoods. The international doctors, humanitarian aid workers and journalists who have been able to enter the country continue to highlight the scale of the crisis, and the devastating and disproportionate impact it has had on the most vulnerable in society, particularly children.

The seemingly intractable nature of this conflict is part of a growing trend. Globally, conflict is on the rise and tragedies – often overlooked – continue to play out in Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan and beyond.

Myriad reasons can explain this growth in insecurity and hostility. Geopolitical tensions, power struggles, politics and domestic instability offer some explanation. The United Nations highlights additional significant themes that will continue to exacerbate conflict, including climate change which increases the pressure for resources and is leading to a rising number of refugees and displaced people; economic instability and dwindling energy supplies; as well as the growth in digital technology which allows groups bent on terror to reach more people with their messages of division.

When you add into that mix the potential firepower that nations increasingly possess – from drones to warheads and technological innovations like AI – it is no wonder so many people feel the outlook is bleak.

Such problems are exacerbated by a reluctance, or unwillingness, to think differently about the world and what is needed to find solutions. We can find comfort in familiar paradigms and ways of thinking, such as invoking Cold War ideas of the world without sufficiently accounting for the nuances and complexity of today. This has to change, but it requires a deeper shift in how we define and create security.

In February, to coincide with their annual event, the Munich Security Conference launched a report that highlighted the prevalence of a zero-sum mindset among nation-states. It noted the tendency of states to seek relative short-term gains, to pursue and protect their own self-interests and to see international relations through a transactional lens. This approach, it argued, leads to a lose-lose outcome, where international actors are ill-equipped and unable to solve collective challenges such as climate change through cooperation.

Part of the problem is in the dominant conception of power over, which sees power as something exerted over others for one’s own gain. It can be seen in short-sighted and unilateral approaches that seek security for one state or actor, at the expense of another, with devastating long-term consequences. Instead, we need to consider how things might look through a mindset based on seeking power with, and what might be achieved if the emphasis was on working with others for the wider benefit.

With such a shift, even though present conflicts dominate our attention, we can lay the groundwork to reduce their future impact and likelihood. There is an alternative. A politics which governs for the interests of humanity, not a minority. A politics built on empathy, reciprocity and compassion, in which more people can feel invested and included.

Such a politics has to prioritise the longer-term. It has to think beyond four or five-year election cycles, to consider what the world could look like in 20, 40 or 60 years. To get there, we also need to address critical obstacles and foster conditions for change.

Firstly, at times of conflict, it is all too easy for us to slide into notions of “us and them”. We demarcate the lines of right and wrong, and in the process can dehumanise and demonise the other side. Even whilst it is necessary to identify injustices and call out harms and wrongdoing, more should be done to prevent a stoking of divisions that leads to an escalation in tension — for example, through the language used in the media and stories that more accurately reflect the challenges at play.

Secondly, conditions of safety have to be created. In war, this can often only be done through the provision of aid and the enforcement of ceasefires. However, it also has to be supported by the protection of civilians and the pursuit of justice through the upholding of international law and human rights. It should be supported by diplomacy, and channels that facilitate dialogue and negotiation to find viable solutions for those involved.

Thirdly, the future of the world cannot be determined by a small group of powerful states. We have seen growing calls and initiatives from “smaller” states and island nations to address the sources of conflict, climate change and inequality, and they should be an integral part of finding the solutions. This requires more powerful states to listen, to hear and engage, not just give lip service to their concerns.

Fourth, historic trauma must be understood. How do the conflicts of today reveal past legacies and injustices? What can be done to address them? Trauma is carried through generations. It is expressed in shared stories and national identities. While a time of heightened conflict may not be the most opportune moment to address it, there is a need for the time and space to process it, through “truth and reconciliation” efforts or similar.

Finally, it involves a more comprehensive approach to peace and security. Peace is never just about the end of conflict but involves creating equitable and just systems and structures where people can thrive. Investment in the prevention of future conflict is therefore not only a matter of defence and security but about the whole of society, incorporating changes in education, healthcare, welfare and the environment.

At a governmental level, creating such conditions involves a longer-term view that values coordination and collaboration across multiple agencies and departments. It requires diverse skill sets and expertise and an ability to speak across departmental, disciplinary and political divides. Beyond that, it needs to engage with citizens and civil society, who can work at different levels to foster change and collective investment in more peaceful outcomes. As so many local initiatives around the world have already demonstrated.

With everything going on, there will be no quick fix or easy path to change course. Yet, if the present moment is just the tip of the iceberg of what might be to come, it is even more pressing that we get ahead and work together to anticipate and avoid far worse and build a future rooted in our shared humanity.

Dr Claire Yorke is a Senior Lecturer at Deakin University and author on the role of empathy and emotions in international relations, politics, leadership and society.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.

Related Articles

 
Recent articles by Claire Yorke
Israel-Gaza one year on: Rethinking security to stem rise in conflict

The ongoing Middle East crisis serves as a reminder that world leaders seem relu ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus

Support Fearless Journalism

If you got something from this article, please consider making a one-off donation to support fearless journalism.

Single Donation

$

Support IAIndependent Australia

Subscribe to IA and investigate Australia today.

Close Subscribe Donate