The humanitarian tragedy that has been unfolding in Gaza over the past two years naturally provokes strong emotional reactions in a significant portion of Greek and international public opinion. These emotional reactions are exploited by those who are against, even the existence of, the state of Israel.
However, the human massacre in Gaza did not begin with Israel, but with the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which caused approximately 1,200 deaths and the capture of dozens of hostages.
In the realm of politicians and intellectuals of the broader Left, Israel is considered an arm of Western imperialism in the Middle East. This view has its origins in the Cold War era, in the 1960s and 1970s, when the then Soviet Union supported the Arab anti-colonial-nationalist regimes (Nasser in Egypt, Baath Parties in Syria and Iraq, etc.).
The US, for its part, supported Israel. At that time, it was a proxy confrontation between the two Great Powers.
Since that period, “much water has flowed down the drain,” but the ideological anxieties for most representatives of the broader Left remain unchanged. Israel fought three wars with neighboring Arab states, a recent war with Iran, and many conflicts with armed Arab organizations in order to survive.
Today, Israel’s confrontation is not with some progressive Arab regimes, but with Islamic – theocratic regimes and jihadist organizations. This is what those who speak out against Israel and support Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis do not want to understand. Are these countries and organizations the model of the supposedly progressive? Neo-Ottoman Turkey’s fervent support for the Palestinian cause and its harsh rhetorical attacks against Israel are characteristic of which forces are in conflict and what is at stake.
This stake is which state entity will become the regional hegemonic power of the Near and Middle East and who will control the hydrocarbon-rich Eastern Mediterranean.
Some prefer that this power be Turkey, in the past they imagined it would be Iran, but they do not want it to be Israel in any way. Everyone has the right to choose Islam, of course.
Two years ago the geopolitical environment was different. The “Axis of Resistance” seemed strong. Bashar al-Assad ruled Syria, the Shiite militias on its territory were armed by the Iranians and under their control, Hezbollah, which was considered all-powerful, controlled a large part of Lebanon, and Hamas fighters had just carried out a surprise raid on the territory of the Zionist enemy.
Two years later the “Axis of Resistance” has essentially disintegrated. Assad was overthrown by the combined actions of Turkey and the Gulf Monarchies. Iran folded to its borders. Hezbollah has been neutralized. Only the remnants of Hamas remain, holding about 25 Israeli hostages alive in the ruins of Gaza.
Israel’s response, as expected, has been overwhelming in all directions. In Gaza alone, according to Hamas figures, over 65,000 Palestinians have been killed, the vast majority of whom were civilians. But this was inevitable since the fighting takes place in densely populated areas, with Hamas men using civilians as their only cover against Israeli superior weapons.
What are Israel’s various opponents telling us now, taking advantage of the humanitarian drama? They say it must be condemned for the crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide, it is a terrorist-Nazi state, Netanyahu must be arrested, according to the warrant of the International Criminal Court (the same warrant has been issued for Putin, do they want him arrested too?). Greece and the Republic of Cyprus must condemn Israel, stop strategic partnerships with the “murderous state” and recognize the Palestinian State.
However, interstate relations, throughout the historical path of humanity, are determined neither by emotional nor by humanitarian factors. Interstate relations are always determined by the national interest and the instinct of self-preservation of each state entity.
Israel is a small but militarily powerful country. It has a developed defense industry, highly capable secret services and nuclear weapons. It is the only non-Muslim country in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is the closest ally of the USA. What is the national interest of Greece and Cyprus? To stand in favor of Israel and against Islamic countries and especially Turkey, which constitutes a perennial threat to all of Hellenism.
We remind you simply so that we do not forget:
- Israel recognizes the Republic of Cyprus as representing the entire island. Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, considers it defunct and calls it the “Greek Cypriot Administration of the South”. On the contrary, it recognizes the occupied zone as an independent state and calls it the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)”.
- Israel has delimited an EEZ with the Republic of Cyprus based on the median line. Turkey does not recognize that the islands are entitled to an EEZ. It considers that a large part of the Cypriot EEZ belongs to the Turkish continental shelf and another part to the continental shelf of the “TRNC”. It has violated the Cypriot EEZ many times with research ships and drilling rigs.
- Turkey maintains strong forces and military bases in occupied Cyprus. Israel recently supplied the Republic of Cyprus with an effective anti-aircraft-anti-ballistic system, the Barak MX. We recall that in 1997 Nicosia purchased two S-300 anti-aircraft missile batteries from Russia.
- At that time, Turkey threatened war and a naval blockade of Cyprus. The Greek and Cypriot governments caved to the threats and finally the S-300s were transferred to Crete in 1998. Today, despite Turkish resistance, the Israeli Barak MX has already been transferred to Cyprus. How do relationships change when there is a partner who does not understand Turkish threats?
- Israel considers the Republic of Cyprus and Greece as states that provide it with strategic depth. That is why it sells advanced weapons systems to both countries, such as Spike NLOS guided missiles and cooperates in many areas of defense armaments.
- Recently, due to the expansion of Turkish influence in Syria, many publications and analyses have appeared in Israel highlighting the necessity of liberating Northern Cyprus. It is a goal that Greek politicians do not dare even to mutter. What, really, national interest would serve a rupture of relations with Israel?
Of course, no one expects the Jewish state to fight for the interests of Hellenism when it is not willing to fight to defend them. However, Israel is an important factor in “external balancing” against the Turkish threat.
The recent recognition of the Palestinian state by certain important countries (Britain, France, Canada, Australia) and other smaller ones (Portugal, Belgium, Ireland, etc.) should not drag the governments of Athens and Nicosia in the same direction. These countries are not faced with the immense Turkish threat and for them Israel is not an important strategic partner.
Let us not forget: “Allies are worth as much as you are worth to them”, that is, Israel’s support for Hellenism will be proportional to that of Hellenism for Israel. Nothing more or less.
P.S. The creation of an independent Palestinian State is a utopia that is cultivated as a supposed solution to the problem. The territorial size is so small and divided into two parts (West Bank and Gaza) that this state will not be viable and will very soon become a protectorate of a powerful Muslim country such as Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Iran, or some other. That is why Israel will never accept, for security reasons, its creation.
