Israel's Undeclared War Against its Neighbors Show the Need to Redefine National Sovereignty Beyond the "International Community"

The Middle East is grabbing the world's attention once more for all the wrong reasons. Months after a war that plunged Gaza into unprecedented destruction and threatened Israel's international standings, the conflict threatens to spill beyond a small part of the Levant. Israel has gone on the offensive to preempt others from reinforcing the embattled Hamas, wantonly bombing Beirut, Damascus, Tehran, and Yeman, seeking to erode the military capabilities of its enemies through assassinating military and political leaders while destroying military hardware and critical infrastructure that could be used to support war efforts.

It is not at all surprising that the world is watching with anxiety about what might happen next to deepen the conflict. Having gone through multiple wars in past decades and little diplomatic effort to tone down the hostility, trust in Israel is seriously missing among not only the leadership of Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and Yemen but practically the entire Muslim world at the grassroots level. No amount of biased reporting by Western media can hide the fact that Israel has trampled the lives of ordinary Arabs in its bid to secure its own political agenda, with the tacit agreement of Western powers and explicit US military support.

At the heart of the anger is Israel's complete violation of the sovereignty of its neighbors. Whereas its Iron Dome missile shield system highlights its own sovereignty by protecting its cities from drone and missile attacks, its air force has routinely invaded its other countries' airspace, taking down militants and civilians by the hundreds. Whereas the former is condemned by the so-called "international community" led by the US for its barbaric and terroristic nature, the latter is justified as legitimate self-defense through offense, with little discussion focused on the moral quandary of the civilian and economic collateral damage.

Such double standards no doubt embolden Israel to be more brazen in its violation of other countries' sovereignty. Suppose the only reaction to its assassination of military and political leaders is not condemnation but a cold analysis of what Israel does to protect itself from the inevitable retaliation. In that case, the country can continue to wage undeclared wars on enemy territory with little international consequence. Moreover, with the US military in particular using its Middle Eastern assets to protect Israel from its enemies' attacks, the country has little to fear in incurring real costs from its violent actions.

As the "international community" continues to support Israel in its blatant attacks on the sovereignty of its neighbors, the "international" nature of that community will increasingly ring hollow. Seeing the destruction of not only Gaza but cities around the region because of Israeli force, countries around the world would continue to see Israel and the US as not upholders of universal human rights as their democratic principles claim them to be, but ultimately driven by political self-interest, putting the needs of their nations above the lives of the foreigners that they care little about.

Such a realist view of American and Israeli power should continue to drive the world toward one where few would be interested in completely throwing in their lot with the "free world." Ultimately, the free world has shown itself to not be universalizing in promoting peace, development, and rights for all who aspire to such, but a cover to maintain a global structure in which the needs and wants of some are disregarded at the expense of others. It sets a trap in which being "free" means one must align one's interests with the one-sided views of the Americans, Israelis, and their supporters around the world.

It is no wonder that subtly, those outside the "free world" have been busy creating alternative means to work with one another that minimize dependence on the "free world." Most prominently, the BRICs, originally a powwow of several large developing countries, have now become a focal point of the global South's attempt to create their own international diplomatic and financial infrastructure. In this mechanism, some "friends" of the West, such as India and Saudi Arabia, have pointedly embraced its enemies, such as Russia and Iran.

I, for one, see the trend of the "international community" fracturing as an opportunity. As countries see the benefit of making friends with everyone rather than only one camp, even the most downtrodden, including those suffering in Gaza, would no longer be completely isolated just because it made the wrong (and mighty) enemies. For the average globetrotter, alternative connections, especially among global South countries, would provide more ways to advance travel and career plans. That will enable new definitions of sovereignty that will be much more resilient against Israel's aerial bombings.