The killing fields of Gaza are a turning point in history. The first two decades of the 21st century witnessed two major wars. In the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we observed mass slaughter, the unleashing of violent conflict in Afghan and Iraqi societies, and the use of modern weapons to kill innocent civilians and the spread of chaos in these societies. The Gaza war is the culmination of this violence perpetuated by industrially advanced states, with a sophisticated military-industrial base against societies which could be described as military non-entities if compared to states like the United States, Britain and Israel.
In military terms, Afghanistan was a nobody when it was invaded by the United States in 2001. By contrast, the Iraqi military was considered relatively formidable, but it proved an empty shell in the face of the 2003 US invasion. Gaza doesn't have any organised military force of its own. On the other hand, the US, the UK and Israel have a highly developed and sophisticated military-industrial base whose lethality is beyond any doubt. They maimed, engaged in mass slaughter and destroyed whatever came in their way during their occupation of militarily hapless societies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza.
Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza each have a different story to tell, but this much is common: they became victims of killing machines of militarily advanced states. But there is also a visible difference in their stories. The United States enjoyed the backing of international public opinion when its military entered Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel, on the other hand, is trampling upon the entreaties and appeals of its friends and foes to stop its killing machine in Gaza.
Taking a cue from Washington's behaviour, other militarily powerful states also thought that the use of the military option was the right way to achieve political objectives. India, Russia, and Israel are some of those states
Why might Gaza prove to be a turning point in history? There are clear signs that Washington's unipolar moments are coming to an end. Washington embarked on a spree of military interventions in the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union. Taking a cue from Washington's behaviour, other militarily powerful states also thought that the use of the military option was the right way to achieve political objectives. India, Russia, and Israel are some of those states which followed in the footsteps of Washington in the post-Cold War era. Russia invaded its neighbours. Israel repeatedly invaded Gaza and the West Bank. And India brutally used military power to quell the freedom struggle in Indian-held Kashmir. Washington blatantly used its military power in the name of curbing terrorism around the world in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Its massive propaganda machinery prepared ground and justification for its use of military power in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and parts of Africa. A combination of its hard and soft power ensured that it not only killed, maimed and destroyed with its military power, but at the same time, the world public opinion developed acceptance of its brutalities around the world.
The reaction to Israeli brutalities amongst the world public opinion is, however, not of general acceptance. Not only in the Muslim world, but some powerful and influential non-Muslim countries like Spain, South Africa and China have wholeheartedly condemned Israeli atrocities. The difference in the reaction to American atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the one hand, and Israeli atrocities in Gaza could be a result of the difference in the status and power of Washington and Tel Aviv. While Washington is a superpower with immense soft power, Israel is isolated within its own region. This is precisely the reason why world public opinion, intellectuals, media and political elites didn't perceive what Americans did in Iraq and Afghanistan as atrocities, while there was an avalanche of condemnation from around the world for what Israelis are doing in Gaza. Gaza will lead to the awakening of mankind's conscience. If war is inbuilt in human DNA, the world must develop mechanisms to prevent its re-occurrence.
In our age of intellectual advancement, people are often fed on the belief that democracies don't go to war with each other. In support of this notion, the case of the European Union's federalism is often cited. After all, the Western European nations, the core of the EU, have practically banished war from its international system. Democracies are rational actors in international politics, and no rational thinking decision-maker would, in his or her sane moment, deliberately decide to go to war with another democracy. War is anti-people, and democracies always cater to the interests of people as a whole and, therefore, desist from going to war. Even if we accept this notion to be historical truth and accept that democracies like the United Kingdom and the United States may be close allies and could not in their wildest dreams think about going to war, we should not forget that these very liberal democracies have proved themselves to be bloodthirsty belligerents when it comes to non-democracies like Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel, which boasts itself to be the only democracy in the Middle East — rather liberal democracy — has turned itself into a bloodthirsty Dracula democracy during this past year of military occupation of Gaza, killing more than 45,000 innocent civilians.
For the West, the Second World War was the war to end all wars— this, however, didn't mean that Western states completely abandoned war and violence as tools to achieve their political objectives
What has been happening in Gaza and what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan during the American occupation, is enough to prove the notion that democracies don't go to war as partially incorrect. Even if democracies don't go to war with each other, they have enough aggressive proclivities to go to war against non-democracies. In the process, liberal democracies displayed their inherent tendencies to kill indiscriminately when they go to war against non-democracies. Here, I don't have to repeat the number of killings in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza as evidence to prove my point.
Liberal democracies started their golden period after the conclusion of the Second World War when political elites in Western societies started building peaceful and pacified societies internally and worked out a political arrangement where conflict and war as an institution were eliminated from the inter-state relations in Europe and the political West. For the West, the Second World War was the war to end all wars— this, however, didn't mean that Western states completely abandoned war and violence as tools to achieve their political objectives. During the Cold War, the US-led Western block continued to support conflicts in Asia and Africa. In little less than 50 years of the Cold War, Europe did not witness war, but Western nations continued to provide financial and military assistance to countries and allies in Asia and Africa to bolster their positions in conflicts with Cold War opponents. The contest is with fascism, communism on the one hand and liberal democracy on the other as an intra-civilization contest. Fascism and communism were as much the children of Western Enlightenment as liberal democracy is.
But this is not the case with the rise of Islamic extremism and its contest with liberal democracy. Islam and its extremist version were the stereotypical "others" for the Western liberal democracy. Wars waged by liberal democracies against Islamic extremism could be characterised by two factors — first, these wars were as destructive for the militant and extremist groups as they were for the Muslim societies and masses in general. Secondly, liberal democracies' wars on terror were wars against military non-entities— neither the Muslim societies in which these wars were waged nor the extremist groups which were the target of these campaigns enjoyed any significant military strengths if compared with the advanced military technology and weaponry that was used in these wars by the liberal democracies.
The wars liberal democracies have waged in the wake of the proclamation of the 'end of history' thesis are so brutal and so inhuman that it would be insane to describe Western liberal democracies as the best system mankind has manufactured so far
Military historians often claim that the difference in the military power possessed by the United States and its opponents is so wide that it has no precedent in the history of mankind. The Roman Empire was very powerful, but the military technology it possessed and deployed was no different from that of the Persians and other Asians, which opposed Romans in ancient times. China is fast catching up with the US as its financial muscles and rapid technological development allow it to develop and deploy military technology as lethal and effective as that of Washington. But it still must do a lot of catching up. Israel's military industry, which, according to some accounts, is highly innovative, is also a derivative of the US military-industrial complex. It is no coincidence that the victims of American military technology are all Muslim societies.
The most glaringly brutal fact about Western liberal democracies is the news stories we read and watch in Western media where the US Defense Department orders the release of new shipments of weapons and ammunition for Israeli defence forces while we hear and watch Israeli military bombing hospitals and schools in Gaza. But these Western liberal democracies are not immune to military logic. They conveniently supply weapons and ammunition to the Israeli forces for use in Gaza, where there is no military force that can respond to Israeli atrocities. On the other hand, I have seen American think tanks and the media debate endlessly whether the US should supply missiles capable of striking deep into Russia, to Ukraine. Russia is a first-class military power and is in possession of the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. So, the American media, think tanks, military and political elites are very careful not to rub Russians on the wrong side. Gaza's only crime is that it is not a military force, and it cannot respond to Israeli atrocities in kind.
In the post-Cold War era, the funniest intellectual claim about Western liberal democracies was made by none other than Harvard professor Francis Fukuyama—who otherwise could be considered a super genius—that Western democracies are the culmination of the human race's ideological quest for the best political and social system. This claim is popularly known as the "end of history" thesis. The wars liberal democracies have waged in the wake of the proclamation of this thesis are so brutal and so inhuman that it would be insane to describe Western liberal democracies as the best system mankind has manufactured so far. It is bloodthirsty, and its aggressive and belligerent proclivities point towards insanity that seems inbuilt into its DNA. Killing 45,000 innocent people in a year in response to the pressure and demands from the hardline constituency of people living in liberal democracy points towards a political mechanism that can endanger world peace. President George W Bush invaded Afghanistan in response to pressure and demands of his people, where the American military killed, maimed and destroyed is an extremely harsh way of managing the affairs of the world. This mechanism is clearly a recipe for a big disaster and is the essence of Western liberal democracies. It is better to control the emotions of your people than to kill humans indiscriminately in a foreign land.
I think liberal democracies have travelled fast from the "end of history" thesis to the "end of sanity" reality as is exemplified by the situation in Gaza
In this situation, what options are available for the countries with no or weak military power? There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that the world is waking up to the fact that nothing will stop the militarily strong states from killing, maiming and destroying except the military strength of weak states. States in troubled hotspots of the world will learn this lesson fast. So, the rest of the 21st century might be a period of increased military spending. Nuclear proliferation will speed up. Iran might go nuclear at any moment as it expects its nuclear weapons might offer it some protection against any possible US invasion of its territory. I believe nobody was surprised when some media outlets ran the news story that Israelis had started to panic over the news that the Iranians had tested their own nuclear device. The other option is to launch a global anti-war movement that could put pressure on the political elites of belligerent states like the US, UK and Israel. Liberal democracies might have their own enticements for the freedom-loving people of the world. But during the past two decades, the political elites of liberal democracies have shown their bloodthirsty nature to the world. I think liberal democracies have travelled fast from the "end of history" thesis to the "end of sanity" reality as is exemplified by the situation in Gaza. The world's public opinion should now wake up to change the course of history.