Chloe Song ‘26
Following the violence that erupted in both the Gaza Strip and Israel, countries have been taking sides, reflecting the split political standings of the globe. Notably, the United States has consistently supported Israeli rights and provided the country with military funding and supplies. Meanwhile, Middle Eastern nations surrounding this region, like Iran and Turkey, have extended their support to Hamas, advocating for their rights and independence.1 However, Egypt, India, China, and Brazil have remained neutral in this conflict thus far.
Egypt, a regional power, has neither declared its support for Israel nor Hamas. Due to the country’s bearing of much more nuanced burdens because of its complicated history with Hamas, Egypt will likely continue its attempts at negotiation for peace. But Egypt is not explicitly neutral— its position may change as the conflict evolves. This does not come as a surprise, as the country has remained relatively uninvolved in the past few years.2 Similarly, Saudi Arabia, while not strictly neutral, has expressed concern about the conflict’s impact on civilians and has advocated for a peaceful resolution.3 This stance of neutrality contributes to ongoing efforts to keep the broader region from destabilizing due to the continuing violence.
India, another significant power known for its policy of non-interference in international conflicts, has maintained relationships with both Israel and Arab nations, safeguarding its interests in the region without compromising its position of impartiality. Furthermore, India is home to a diverse population, including a substantial Muslim community. Taking a side in a conflict involving a predominantly Muslim Palestinian territory could inflame domestic divisions. India’s neutral position helps maintain social harmony by not appearing to favor one side over another, thereby avoiding potential domestic disturbances. This approach enables India to maintain national and historical strive for global peace without compromise.4
China, another country that has so far been neutral in the war, has traditionally upheld a diplomatic and non-interventionist stance in international conflicts, including the Israel-Hamas conflict. The country’s ambitious trade initiative, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was established in 2013 to boost not only the nation’s economy but also to allow China to secure its trade relationships without the United State’s interference. Middle Eastern countries, honoring the lucrative legacy of the Silk Road, were among the first to be enthusiastic about the proposal. So, for China to remain neutral in regional conflicts ensures that the BRI projects are less likely to face disruption from risky political tensions. Neutrality aligns with China’s primary goal to advance its economic interests and strategic infrastructure projects.5 While also not explicitly neutral, China’s approach mirrors its broader foreign policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
On the contrary, some countries have faced backlash for their neutral stance. For example, many think Brazil’s historical neutrality may be perceived as indifference toward the suffering of civilians in this war.6 Various human rights organizations and advocacy groups have criticized Brazil for not taking a more assertive stance in condemning the human rights violations occurring in the Israel-Hamas conflict.7 They argue that Brazil, as a prominent voice in international human rights discourse, should be more outspoken about protecting civilians. Some of Brazil’s regional neighbors, particularly those in South America, have expressed expectations that Brazil should play a more prominent role in addressing international conflicts. Critics argue that Brazil’s relatively passive approach in the Israel-Hamas conflict does not align with its aspired regional and global leadership.8
Political neutrality is complex. A country like Brazil may be seen as having limited influence regarding the war’s consequences. Without expressing direct support for either side, they lack leverage. In conflicts involving severe human rights violations, though, neutrality can be interpreted as a lack of moral clarity or a failure to condemn such injustices. Hence, in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict, it is arguable that being neutral equates to indifference toward suffering and human rights abuses. It is essential, then, to recognize that although neutrality may promote peace in instances, it can also be seen as a passive approach, especially when human rights abuses are apparent.
Notes:
- https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/-muslim-americans-angry-at-biden-s-support-for-israel-196317765638 ↩︎
- https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/21/israel-hamas-war-egypt-regains-role-of-key-mediator_6193280_4.html ↩︎
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/saudi-prince-wants-israel-and-palestine-to-follow-indian-model-to-end-violence-in-the-middle-east/articleshow/104650480.cms ↩︎
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/india-s-balancing-act-in-israel-palestine-war ↩︎
- https://www.axios.com/2023/10/25/china-israel-hamas-war-energy ↩︎
- http://web.isanet.org/Web/Conferences/FLACSO-ISA%20BuenosAires%202014/Archive/8b9f8976-6d0f-4975-841f-22277cb8e0be.pdf ↩︎
- https://brazilian.report/power/2023/10/13/israel-hamas-war-furthers-cultural-war-in-brazil/ ↩︎
- https://www.riotimesonline.com/the-calculated-neutrality-of-brazil-in-the-israel-hamas-crisis/ ↩︎
Leave a Reply