Israel’s response to Hamas attack has ‘gone too far’, but severing ties would not help Palestinians, says Singapore

SINGAPORE: Israel’s military response to the Oct 7 Hamas attack has “gone too far”, but severing diplomatic ties with the country would not resolve the situation nor reduce the suffering of Palestinians, Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan said in parliament on Thursday (Feb 29).

Dr Balakrishnan was responding to MPs’ questions on the Israel-Hamas war while laying out his ministry’s budget spending plans for the year.

While the war has evoked strong emotions among Singaporeans, he urged them not to let the issue affect the country’s harmony or cohesion.

“Whilst we may feel a diversity of emotions on this, the worst thing would be to let this quarrel polarise and divide us as Singaporeans,” he told parliament. 

On Oct 7 last year, Palestinian militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel. Gunmen breached security barriers with a barrage of rockets fired from Gaza, killing about 1,200 and kidnapping scores of civilians. 

Israel has responded by relentlessly bombarding Gaza and sending in ground troops, killing and displacing Palestinians. More than 30,000 people have been killed in the territory since the war began, according to its health ministry.

Singapore condemned the attack and recognised Israel’s right to self-defence, similar to how Singapore would invoke the same right should the country have been attacked, said Dr Balakrishnan, echoing what he previously stated in a parliamentary speech. 

In his last parliamentary speech in November about the conflict, Dr Balakrishnan stated that Israel must accept a Palestinian state, just as Palestinians should accept Israel’s right to exist. 

On Thursday however, the minister said: “Unfortunately, Israel’s military response has gone too far.

“The catastrophic situation in Gaza demands an immediate humanitarian ceasefire to alleviate the unbearable suffering of the civilian victims and to enable humanitarian assistance to reach them immediately.”

SEVERING TIES NOT “CONSTRUCTIVE”

Singapore has made its position clear, including at the United Nations where it voted for two UN General Assembly resolutions on the protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations, said the minister. 

Addressing calls for Singapore to sever diplomatic ties with Israel over its actions, Dr Balakrishnan said this was not the right way forward. 

“We manage our international relations by remaining engaged with the international community and maintaining ties with as many countries as possible,” said Dr Balakrishnan, adding that this was in Singapore’s national interests as a small country. 

Breaking ties with a country whose actions Singapore disapproved of would not be “constructive” nor would it change the situation on the ground. 

“Nor … will it influence Israel to suddenly change its policies or will it necessarily immediately reduce the suffering of the Palestinians.”

He noted that none of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, or Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan, had broken off ties.

On whether relations with Israel have been affected by Singapore’s position, Dr Balakrishnan said it maintained good ties with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 

“All sides know that Singapore will always speak our minds. Not provocatively, but because these are dearly held principles that we uphold and that we will continue to maintain these positions, guided by Singapore’s long-term national interests and our unique circumstances,” he said. 

He also cautioned against thinking of the conflict along religious lines.

“Religion is actually a veneer covering the heart of the conflict. What is the heart of the conflict? It’s an age-old conflict, a fight over land, over identity, over power,” said Dr Balakrishnan, adding that the issue went back centuries, even thousands of years. 

“The Israelis and Palestinians are both Semitic tribes who have been fighting over the same sliver of land for such a long time.”

He added that it was not possible for Singapore, as an outsider, to determine which party had a stronger historical claim.