China’s diplomatic moves over the past year have set alarm bells ringing in the collective West. First, the normalisation of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries on both sides of the Gulf last year (May 20-23), after decades of conflict, was a major diplomatic achievement, even if the West tried to underestimate this big splash… Because at the time of the Shah, a close friend of the US, Iran was on one side of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia and the Arab states on the other, and almost all of these states were allies of the US (except for Iraq under Saddam Hussein), but the Washington administrations could not reconcile these friends/allies and did not even try to do so properly…

Since US strategies are not based on reconciling states and sharing resources according to the principles of justice, they did not try to do so between Turkey and Greece. It was more in line with America’s geopolitical logic to exploit the contradictions between its allies in the Gulf, the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. We can clearly see that they are still doing so between Turkey and Greece.

China’s achievements in regional diplomacy were not limited to this. In May this year (2024), China and the Arab League countries met in Beijing at the level of foreign ministers. Some Arab states, notably Egypt, attended the meeting at the level of heads of state. China’s appeal to the Arab countries and especially to the Palestinians as an ‘oppressed nation’ seemed to be enough to win their hearts. China’s harsh criticism of Israel and the West’s collective sins in Gaza not only represented a line consistent with its previous policy, but also helped win the hearts of all Arabs. Moreover, the fact that China looked at the Palestinian issue from the perspective of the Arab side and had no hidden agenda of its own made these diplomatic initiatives both possible and fruitful.

About two months later (23 July 2024), the news broke that China had brought together and reconciled fourteen Palestinian resistance organisations, mainly Fatah and Hamas, to put aside their differences and fight together. In media terms, the news was a bombshell. None of this could/could have been done by the US or any other Western country, because it was almost impossible for Washington to achieve such a success, as the US has never respected the legitimate rights of the Arabs/Palestinians and has always been thought to act with the idea of forcing or deceiving the Arabs/Palestinians.

Africa Summit disturbs the collective West

The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), which came on top of all these successful diplomatic moves, seems to have disturbed the peace of the former colonialist Western countries, especially America. In fact, the summit in question has been held eight times since 2000, the ninth in Beijing (4-5 September 2024). There is no doubt that one of the main reasons why this summit has become so prominent in the media is the extraordinary strain on the collective West caused by the establishment of a multipolar system and the fact that the American-led unipolarity is inevitably coming to an end. Another reason must be the above-mentioned consequential diplomatic moves by China, which will play a decisive role in the multipolar world order.

To put it bluntly, the collective West’s analyses and assumptions about both China and Africa over the past three decades have been completely wrong. What we were told about China and Africa in 1996, when I first went to the US for about a month on an American government programme, seems to describe quite well what is happening today… Throughout our trip, which included a week in Washington, a week in San Jose, the capital of Silicon Valley, which was very famous and important at the time, then five days in Minnesota and five days in New York, the briefings we received in both official institutions and think tanks and lobbying firms, we were told that Africa was not on the West’s radar, that China was a country that produced socks, textiles, T-shirts, etc. that China is a country that produces socks, textiles, T-shirts, etc.; that it is a free market economy. China is a country that produces socks, textiles, T-shirts, etc.; if it continues to develop with a free market economy, it will experience great changes and transformations, and it will not be able to sustain the current planned economic system.

However, in the thirty years that have passed, China has not remained a country producing cheap textiles and children’s toys as expected, nor has Africa continued to struggle in its own way, off the world’s radar. In particular, China’s investments in Africa and its economic and trade relations with African countries have put the continent on the world’s radar. African countries whose resources had been largely exploited by the former colonial powers, France and Britain, and whose regimes were ruled by dictatorships supported by these states, were introduced to a new international trade and economic practice by the new opportunities offered by China and the political pressure it did not exert.

China, once thought to be a country of simple textiles and light industry, and now thought to be ethnically fragmented, has become one of the world’s giants. Its economic and planned development programme, based on manufacturing and exports, has not only made it the world’s second largest economy, but has also made China a world leader in high-tech production and innovation. As many experts have pointed out, China is no longer competing with the United States and Europe, because China has won this race by a landslide.

One of the most important factors favouring China over Western countries in Africa is the fact that Beijing does not make political demands when granting loans or building infrastructure facilities. Moreover, it does not exploit the disagreements and contradictions between states, as the Western powers have always done, and it does not organise minorities within each state and incite them against their own states under the pretext of democracy, human rights and freedoms. These dirty methods, which have been used everywhere except in the states of the collective West, have cost many countries dearly and have even caused turmoil that has led to the disintegration of some of them.

China’s thesis that there should be cooperation between civilisations, intensive contacts between peoples, and that each civilisation should learn from the other, in contrast to the West’s insistence that one civilisation and culture is superior to all others, is also appreciated by Africans. When this civilisation initiative, which is one of the most important factors behind China’s successive successes in its Middle East initiatives, is taken together with the global security initiative and the global development initiative developed by Chinese leader Xi, one can better understand why Beijing has a complete advantage over the collective West in Africa.

Ninth forum

This year’s ninth Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) also witnessed new initiatives from Beijing, which has built tens of thousands of kilometres of roads, thousands of kilometres of railways, numerous schools, hospitals and factories on the continent. For example, China announced that it had allocated fifty billion dollars in new investment/financing to Africa. On the other hand, it has announced that it will allow Africa and the world’s poorest countries to sell their products to China at zero tariffs, both of which represent serious investment in the real economy and indicate that the areas of cooperation between China and Africa will broaden and deepen.

Just as a strong, developed and consolidated China has emerged, while Washington has squandered its own resources and wasted trillions of dollars on wars led by the American deep state and largely instigated by the Israeli lobby, which in the last thirty years, under the pretext of democratisation, has made many countries, notably Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, vomit blood under the guise of democratisation stories, African states have discovered that they have an alternative. It is likely that Africa, where states such as Russia on the one hand and Turkey on the other, in addition to China, are trying to create a sphere of influence, is now on the world’s radar and will not go away.

But this radarisation will take place in a way that excludes the patronising attitude of the collective West that says ‘Africa is not on our radar’. As one Zambian analyst succinctly put it, American officials are landing at Chinese-built airports, driving on Chinese-built roads and holding meetings in Chinese-built buildings to tell Africans why they should not cooperate with China. The African peoples, now on the world’s radar, seem to be putting the propaganda of democracy, freedoms, etc. into the mouths of Westerners, especially those who turn a blind eye to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and will continue to cooperate with China in real economic areas with increasing volume and enthusiasm.

In different parts of Lebanon and even in Syria, pagers belonging to Hezbollah members were blown up simultaneously, followed the next day by radios. This new generation of attacks, organised on an unprecedented scale, caused astonishment and horror not only in Lebanon but throughout the world. Although Israel made no statement on the matter, Hezbollah blamed Israel for the attacks and said it would retaliate.

Similar assassinations have been carried out by intelligence services in the past, but never on the scale of the attacks on Hezbollah members.

Considering the psychological damage caused by this attack, which disregarded the rules of international law and led to the injury and even death of many civilians, these attacks can be described as an act of terrorism. So much so that these acts have caused a serious sense of horror throughout the world, including in our country.

Not only the Lebanese, but people all over the world have become reluctant to use mobile phones, tablets, computers and even baby monitors, which are an integral part of their lives.

Israel has not specifically claimed responsibility for these attacks. First of all, targeting people without distinguishing between civilians and combatants is a problematic attack even for a lawless country like Israel. Although it is the usual suspect, it may not be possible to link Israel to these attacks on the basis of the evidence.

On 8 October, Hezbollah opened a new front from southern Lebanon to northern Israel in support of Gaza. The mutual attacks have been going on for almost a year, with increasing loss of life and property on both sides. So far, despite all the Israeli provocations, Hezbollah has been very cautious and diligent, avoiding a large-scale war while maintaining fierce resistance.

So, what is Israel, which has not refrained from daily conventional attacks and assassinations since 8 October, up to with a new generation of attacks?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is under domestic and international pressure. At home, Netanyahu is facing mass protests over judicial reforms aimed at increasing his control over the government. Many in Israel see Netanyahu’s efforts to weaken the independence of the judiciary as an authoritarian trend. Meanwhile, in the face of widespread protests, his foreign policy achievements, particularly his ability to deal with Hezbollah, are becoming a trump card that he can use to boost his popularity at home. Netanyahu does not want Israel to appear weak in the face of Iran and Hezbollah. He wants to show Israelis a tangible success against Hezbollah and the Iranian threat, with the image of a strong leader. This is exactly the show of strength he needs, as the anniversary of the heavy blow dealt by Hamas in the 7 October Aqsa flooding operation and the weakness in intelligence gathering are approaching.

The new generation of attacks against Hezbollah is a strategic move by Netanyahu to demonstrate his intelligence capabilities and fend off domestic criticism. With these operations, Netanyahu is trying to show the Israeli public that the government is pursuing a deterrent and effective policy against regional threats. Netanyahu uses such attacks as a strategic tool to reduce political pressure at home and to remain a strong leader abroad. However, if the situation in the region escalates further, an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon will remain on the table as an option.

Perhaps one of the most important reasons for these attacks is to target Lebanese society in order to undermine support for Hezbollah and strengthen the hand of opposing groups. There is a serious possibility that Lebanese society, with its multi-sectarian structure and lack of nationhood as we know it, will be dragged into chaos rather than unity in the face of external threats. Undoubtedly, in such a scenario, it would be difficult for Hezbollah to engage in a more intense or prolonged struggle with Israel, and its resistance could be broken.

Israel’s use of high technology to target Hezbollah indicates that the conflict has entered a new phase. It is not yet clear whether such operations are a prelude to a wider war or an attempt to contain the conflict without turning it into a full-scale war. Netanyahu’s strategy is focused on dealing with both internal and external threats, but the risk of these tensions escalating into a wider regional war is still on the table.

Israel may expect Hezbollah to retaliate harshly after these attacks. Since it is difficult for Hezbollah to respond in the same way with a new generation of attack, it may want to respond with a heavier conventional response. In such a situation, especially in the case of a Hezbollah attack with civilian casualties, Israel could easily portray itself as the victim, as it did after Operation Aqsa Flood. By claiming to be exercising its ‘right of self-defence’ to the US and European countries, which have already been subjected to such a fiction, Israel could lay the groundwork for a major attack or ground operation in Lebanon.

Between 17 and 19 September, a series of large-scale pager and radio explosions in Lebanon killed around 100 people and injured thousands more. The dead included civilians and children. Since most of the victims of these unprecedented attacks were Hezbollah members, and since the incidents took place mainly in Hezbollah-controlled areas, such as the southern suburbs of Beirut, South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government were almost unanimous in their view that these attacks were an organised Israeli telecommunications attack.

Following the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, Hezbollah leaders warned that Israeli intelligence had infiltrated Lebanese smartphone networks. Hezbollah members then began using older, low-tech communication devices, often to avoid detection of their location. According to the Associated Press, non-military institutions such as Hezbollah-affiliated schools, hospitals and aid organisations were among those using such equipment.

Although Israel has traditionally maintained a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ stance, the escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has led most observers to conclude that the technologically powerful Israel has infiltrated the supply chain of communications equipment and detonated pre-planted micro-bombs, taking its policy of ‘targeted killing’ to the level of war. This is seen as a move to retaliate against and deter Hezbollah.

If this is the case, it means that Israel is innovating, expanding and increasing the severity of its ‘targeted killing’ policy, which has been in place for years. By turning consumer products, especially communications devices, into weapons of mass destruction, it is further violating the laws of war, international law and humanitarian principles, and setting a bad precedent by opening a new Pandora’s box for international conflict.

Why is ‘targeted killing’ so common?

As a small country with a small population, Israel has historically favoured pre-emptive strikes and quick results. As protracted conflicts have cost Israel dearly in human and material terms, the government has been forced to use as much or more force than the other side to end conflicts. For years, Israelis lived in disarray, suffered discrimination and massacres, and the country was in a constant state of war. The consciousness of fear and crisis has become an inescapable psychological shadow, even an important feature of the national character. Decades of tense confrontation and the threat of violence have led most Israelis to regard security as the supreme value and to an extreme egocentric mentality: ‘I would rather betray the world than let the world betray me’. These factors constitute the revenge motivation behind Israel’s long-standing policy of ‘targeted killings’ and the social basis for its acceptance by most Israelis.

The policy of targeted killings reflects the consistency and relative rationality of the Israeli government’s strategy against its enemies. Internally, it can comfort victims of attacks and prevent potential threats; externally, it can ease international pressure under the pretext of ‘fighting terrorism’. In this way, it can prevent a full-scale escalation or expansion of the conflict, avoid large-scale humanitarian disasters, reduce public criticism and weaken anti-Israeli sentiment by dividing and fragmenting the enemy front. It also has the effect of deterring, dispersing and crippling the organisational structure of enemy extremist groups.

Why is ‘targeted killing’ often successful?

Israel’s methods of targeted killing are varied. They include air-to-ground missile strikes, sniper rifles, tank attacks, and the placement of remote-controlled bombs in cars, telephone booths, concrete barriers and even mobile phones. Despite occasional failures, Israel’s military intelligence units are generally able to act in a stable, precise and effective manner, seeking to minimise collateral damage. The international community is now convinced that Israel has enabled the mass and targeted detonation of micro-explosives pre-planted in pagers, radios and even solar panels. This shows that the policy of ‘targeted killing’ has not stopped over time, but has evolved.

The fact that the policy of ‘targeted killings’ is so widespread and often successful is mainly due to the following factors:

First, Israel has overwhelming overall power. Having been in a state of war for a long time, Israel’s military and intelligence services are always on high alert. Not only is it the military superpower of the entire Middle East, it is also world class in terms of equipment, technology, communications, quality of troops, quality of training and combat experience. When it comes to ‘execution’ targets, it is like using a sledgehammer to kill a sparrow. The ‘execution’ operations themselves are not only diverse, but also have a very high technological content.

Secondly, Israel’s military or intelligence services prepare in advance by planting bombs on the equipment used by the targets and detonating them by remote control if necessary. Placing remote-controlled bombs in payphones, mobile phones, telephone booths, road barriers and even fake gifts and detonating them at the appropriate time is a common method of Israeli bombing.

Thirdly, killing and bombing from a distance with tanks, helicopters, drones, rocket launchers or sniper rifles, taking advantage of asymmetry in equipment capabilities.

Fourth, approaching the target disguised as enemy civilians and carrying out the attack.

Another important factor in the success of ‘targeted killing’ is that a large number of informants act as collaborators, providing sensitive information or equipment such as mobile phones and cars to Israel’s military intelligence units. Israel’s methods of recruiting informants include blackmail, bribery and work permits. This forces some Palestinians, Lebanese or Iranians who are weak-willed and in financial difficulties to betray their national interests. According to some intelligence reports, the ‘targeted killing’ of Hamas leader Haniyeh in Tehran by Israeli intelligence was carried out by a bought insider who tracked, positioned and planted explosives beforehand.

At one point, the Israeli government referred to the extrajudicial killing as ‘liquidation’; it later changed the term to ‘targeted killing’. Even this definition is not sufficiently clear, but for the most part it has been described as ‘active defence’ and rejected by the international and local left-wing media as ‘assassination’. But whatever the name, it was clear that such acts did not change some facts that fit the basic characteristics of assassination: the unlawful killing of an accused person without legal process, the ending of a life without direct confrontation and at a moment when the target has no chance to defend himself, and usually either denial or silence about these acts.

More than 20 years ago, the Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (ICHROT), a group of Israeli parliamentarians, lawyers and journalists, stated in a report that assassination had been part of Israel’s policy of killing prominent Palestinian figures for more than 30 years, and was not a new practice that emerged after the Al-Aqsa Intifada. This was indeed the case.

When Brigadier General Benny Gantz, the Israeli army commander in the West Bank at the time, was asked if there was a ‘cleansing policy’, he replied: ‘You said cleansing, not me. We will do whatever is necessary and we will not stop similar operations as long as there is a threat. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper al-Hayat, Rami Golzin, one of the founders of the special forces, admitted: ‘We are carrying out purges. If we had not liquidated Abu Jihad (in 1988) or other targets that needed to be liquidated, our buses would have been blown up and 17 of our sons would have been killed’.

Initially, Israeli military intelligence announced that it had ‘liquidated’ certain individuals after the assassination operations had ended. Later, however, they adopted a policy of silence, neither confirming nor denying these activities. One practice that did not change, however, was the practice of listing the ‘crimes’ of the assassination targets. Israeli military intelligence stated that the assassinations were carried out to prevent terrorist attacks by the targets. This was a typical ‘execute first, judge later’ approach.

Human rights violations and condemnation

ICHROT stressed that Israel’s assassination policy violates the right to life of the targets and contravenes fundamental principles of international and Israeli law. The most critical aspect of this policy is that an organisation or an individual can take the decision to kill another person without legal justification and carry it out without judicial approval. In addition, the ‘accused’ is often unaware of the charges against him or her and, even if accused, has no opportunity to defend himself or herself.

The organisation said that Israel’s assassination policy was intended to retaliate for Palestinian ‘terrorist attacks’ against Israeli targets or to punish those who organised them. However, these operations were often based on dubious and flawed intelligence, leading the Israeli army to act too easily, abusing its power and harming innocent people. On numerous occasions, Israeli ‘targeted killings’ have resulted in the deaths of large numbers of civilians, including innocent family members of those targeted for assassination.

Another major problem was that the policy of ‘targeted killings’ made military operations unlimited. If it is possible to kill Palestinians or Lebanese suspected of attacking Israelis, what about potential attackers? What about people of any nationality, especially citizens of Middle Eastern countries, who only verbally express support for attacks on Israeli targets? According to Israeli logic, they are all potential terrorists.

Prof Ma is Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University (Hangzhou). He specialises in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle East politics. He worked for many years as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine and Iraq.