Before the planned visit to Egypt, Russian President Putin made a surprise visit to Syria, where he announced the withdrawal of most of the Moscow military personnel present in the Syrian country. For Russia, the Syrian operation, in support of Assad, is virtually concluded by keeping the government of Damascus in power and with the defeat of those who have been called the most powerful international military terrorist groups. If Moscow withdraws most of its troops it means that it believes that the danger of a deposition of Assad has been averted and that the militias of the caliphate, but also those of Al Qaeda, ie the expression of Sunni terrorism, have been defeated, so as it seems now to be certain even in Iraq, after the local government gave the formal announcement of the defeat of the Islamic State. As for the Damascus regime, the sovereignty that it now exercises is not identical to the one before the civil war, but the most important parts of the country remain under the control of Assad, while there are still some territories of lesser value. , in the hands of the democratic opposition, that is the one supported by Washington and the Kurdish side on the border with Turkey, which remains under the control of the Kurdish forces. If, therefore, Assad has maintained the leadership of Syria, his administration now appears under the direct control of the Russians and more discreetly than the Iranians, who continue to maintain a reserved attitude in public. The decision of Moscow could represent the meaning of the possible start of a negotiation phase for the future of the Syrian country, where the massive presence of a foreign armed force, deployed so clearly, could be too cumbersome, both for Damascus and for the same as Russia; on the other hand, the Kremlin has highlighted that in the Syrian country there will still be a reduced quota and the withdrawal does not mean a disengagement against terrorism, given that Moscow is ready to intervene again in force, should the situation again present terrorist forces in Syria. But among the reasons for the withdrawal, arrived almost unexpectedly, there could also be motivations related to the clash, of political matrix, which is emerging in the controversy entirely within the Islamic religion and the recent developments in the Middle Eastern region, following the American decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem and then recognize the city as Israeli capital. Against the background of this clash two opposing blocs formed, on the one hand, formed by the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia and, on the other, by Russia, Iran and Turkey. Moscow, with the withdrawal of its troops from Syria, could aim to have a more relevant position, from the diplomatic point of view, in comparison, without being able to be attacked for a massive military presence in the region. Putin has repeatedly tried to hit the right moves and at this moment the Kremlin evaluates in a more positive sense, an approach to the softer issue. Russia, which is at the side of Iran, wants to take a more moderate position, to balance Tehran’s harshness against the US, Israel and the historical enemy represented by Saudi Arabia. After the time of the intervention, now Putin considers it more profitable to take a diplomatic path, which can not be influenced in a negative way by a continuous manifestation of strength. The blockade that is against the transfer of the US embassy, can count on the contrary position of Europe, a convergence from which Moscow can take advantage of the dualism that sees it engaged with the USA. The position of the most influential European countries, already long since deployed against the Israeli expansionism in the colonies, has been strengthened against the American maneuver, done in homage and with the support of the Israeli country. This stressful state of the Israeli Palestinian issue could lead to the opening of new negotiations, in which the US would lose its specific weight for the possible disregard of the Palestinian leadership, precisely following the decision to take the American embassy to Jerusalem. In this case, Putin could be accredited, perhaps with Europe or only with some European states, as the new guarantor of the negotiations.
Trump had promised it during the election campaign: the US embassy in Israel would be moved from Tel Aviv, the capital of the Israeli state, to Jerusalem. It was probably a debt to his campaigners’ financiers or, perhaps, an attempt to make an effective gesture in a sector, that of international politics, which did not seem, and still does not seem to have, to have understood the complicated mechanisms and highly unstable equilibria from which it is characterized. About a year after the White House settlement, this decision had not yet been implemented: perhaps due to the most urgent issue of North Korea, perhaps due to a system of the composition of the American administration, which has more or less prevented until now , that the international inexperience of Trump, together with the disregard of the rules of international law, caused considerable damage, with almost certain repercussions on the world level. But now the time has come to keep the electoral promise: the US embassy in Israel will no longer be in the state capital, a unique case in the world, given that the maximum representation of a country abroad must be placed only in the capital of that nation. The question to ask is why exactly now is this decision to be implemented? The perception is that it can not be coincidental the concomitance of moving the US embassy with the attention of journalistic and world television stations on Trump’s difficult moment on the involvement of Russia in his election. Trump and his entourage launch a real media bomb to divert attention, both internal and external, from developments on the investigation; this strategy, if truthful, denounces a serious state of difficulty, because it puts the United States in front of the responsibility of a possible worldwide upheaval, which risks dragging Washington into a very serious direct commitment. It seems superfluous to recall that at the present moment the concern of North Korea and its atomic capacity should have been enough as an international commitment. The story of Jerusalem, on the other hand, risks undermining relations with the Arab allies, such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, and encouraging the resumption of Palestinian terrorism on a large scale. An implication not to be underestimated is that Saudi Arabia, beyond a frontal attitude, will not interfere too much with the new ally, Israel, leaving the field open to an option for the Palestinian question on the part of Iran. If this factor were to occur, directly or indirectly, the confrontation between Sunnis and Shiites would be destined to register a dangerous escalation, which could be preparatory to the reopening of a Middle East conflict. The variables involved are different: one to consider carefully is the Islamic State, which, despite the military defeat is always close, could be recycled in style as a pure terrorist movement, ie without the ambition to exercise territorial sovereignty, at least for the moment, and to settle with the most extreme positions of the Palestinians, putting pressure on Israel and also in the United States with possible serious terrorist acts. The situation of the most extreme Palestinian militias risks becoming uncontrollable for a leadership that has not been able to prevent its symbolic city from assuming the symbol of the capital of Israel. The real risk is that the Palestinians accept the military help of anyone who offers it to them: they are the militias of the caliphate, that the Iranian forces or their allied militias. It could, in other words, create a state of affairs where subjects on opposite sides would be on common fronts and the target would become Israel. The scenario would be catastrophic for the peace of the entire world, if Tel Aviv were forced to commit itself to defend its borders and its internal peace and this would automatically involve the United States and the Western world. The danger of Trump in the White House becomes more and more concrete: all that remains is to hope that the federal investigation will lead to impecheament.
The German political crisis will have unavoidable repercussions in Europe, whatever the solution will be in Berlin, except perhaps a re-issue of the great coalition, which is, however, essential to the socialists, at present unavailable. The central issue remains Angela Merkel’s future, but by now the Chancellor alone does not seem to secure that stability to which the German country has been accustomed for years. The post-election stasis has a very uncertain situation, where there is always the threat of new elections. For Brussels, the scenarios that open are basically three. In the first case, the rigorous party has the best and for the Union means revising the financial expansion policies and returning to the tunnel of the recession; politically this would mean an increase in the liking of parties and movements against Europe, which could put the European project at a high risk for a total crisis of confidence in the social classes because of the policies that Brussels would have to impose on national states . The second possible option is contrary to the first but less likely; in this case, they would have the best power in Germany as well, which would be contrary to rigor, and this could favor a continental phase marked by economic expansion, with possible reflections on inflation, which could have increased values. This scenario is strongly opposed by the finance, credit and industry sectors of Germany and could only be sustained with Merkel as guarantor. The third scenario resembles the recent German political past: contemplate, that is, the possibility of recreating the great coalition. At this time the hypothesis is less likely because the Socialists have refused this possibility since the election campaign; however, if you want to avoid new elections, with totally unexpected results now, this option could help to avoid a dangerous policy derailment on the right and, above all, to pursue a shy, financial policy in the European field that can continue the trend of current growth. Avoiding new elections could also overwhelm the possibility of a Merkel defeat, which would lead to the exit from the political scene. Certainly there is also the possibility that the polls’ reaction, with new elections, reverses the former result of the Socialist Party and decreases its victory, but running such a risk would be irresponsible. Regardless of how disappointed it may have been for Merkel, with its sometimes obscured fiscal stiffness that has contracted European economies (except German), it is also true that without its mediation the current monetary policy, which reversed, though not much, the trend of recession. For Europe it is important not to change this direction of development not only for obvious reasons for growth, but also for political, economic, and economic reasons. The challenges the Union faces require a unity of intent, which must not undergo any alterations, and hence the fragile equilibrium on which the major states are based must not be compromised. The intentions of creating a common European defense, a common euro area budget, an overall migration policy, collaboration against terrorism and sustainable development (which is part of the fight against pollution) have become the themes now essential to respond to world challenges and globalization, towards which Europe is still lagging behind. The current problem is that if the mainstream state, Germany, is blocked by an uncertain electoral outcome, the situation inevitably reflects on the European institutions and the other twenty-six countries as well. This practical example clearly tells us that national states should decrease their importance in the Union through the sale of substantial quotas for sovereignty, but for a Europe that is actually serving the peoples and the community, and not as the common sense only sends us to the big financial institutions. In the end, in spite of everything, at least at this stage, Merkel’s presence is still a great guarantee and not just the least worse (although we would need much better).
Assad’s visit to Russia seems to want to celebrate Moscow’s intervention in the Syrian war. The Syrian President personally brought his own thanks to Putin and all the Russian military apparatus for the support that the Kremlin secured in Damascus, allowing him to overthrow a situation that had emerged as clearly unfavorable: without intervention Russian military, in fact, the fate of the regime and, probably, Assad himself appeared marked. The new fact is that Putin seems to want to take on a political role after the military: in fact, the Kremlin chief has explicitly spoken of wanting to occupy the political process that will have to end at the end of hostilities. Indeed, with the awareness that military operations are going to end, Russia intends to be the protagonist of the future developments of the Syrian country. For Syria, Putin represents a strategic ally, both for the Mediterranean, the only Russian base in this sea is in Tartus, both as an outpost in the Middle East and back in the world. Nor is the importance of the image of Moscow to be underestimated, as thanks to the intervention in Syria, Russia has returned to play the role of great power, which, from the end of the Soviet Union, was no longer exercising. The two political leaders’ speeches focused on the fight against terrorism, both as a local struggle within the Syrian country and in a wider vision at world level. This operation to make terrorism equal to all those who have fought against the regular Syrian army, an instrumental operation, serves Assad to unite all its opponents in a generic terrorism without distinguishing, for example, the Islamic state from the opposition to the dictatorship of Damascus or Kurdish groups. Moreover, the tactics of the Syrian government have always been this, even in the most bloody stages of the battle, also to highlight Assad’s role as an embankment and control of movements that could alter regional balances, as recognized by other states like Israel. This position implies the unwillingness of recognizing groups of democratic opposition, opening up a scenario of further controversy within Syrian society, which could be solved by the violent methods with which Assad, and before his father, has always eliminated parties and movements demanding greater democracy in the country. In support of this prediction, the dictator’s thanks to Putin should also be mentioned, to collaborate in order to preserve the integrity of the country and the independence of the country from foreign subjects. As for the Islamic State, foreign agents were the Gulf countries, while the foreign agent in question was the United States for democratic opponents. However, an arrangement of the peaceful country can not fail even from Washington and it will be interesting to see how the inner scenario of Syria will develop. From the US perspective, Assad’s permanence, which was seen in a totally negative way, has assumed a different value for the struggle against the Caliphate, but an uncontrolled power of the Damascus government can not be accepted, especially for the Iranian side of his side the dictator. Likewise, the Gulf monarchies and even Egypt, that is, the Sunni countries, will not hinder the Syrian government; different, instead, the Turkish position, which positively assesses a united Syria, above all as a burden to the Kurdish will to form a state entity on the borders of Ankara. These are essentially those aspects that will affect the future Syrian political situation, although Assad’s position, thanks to Russia, appears to be greatly strengthened.
Having made official the collaboration between Israel and Saudi Arabia makes visible a relationship that already existed in an unofficial manner. The two states have the main enemy Iran, which they fear for regional expansion, which is likely to alter the equilibrium of the Middle East. Arabia has stated that the only problem with Tel Aviv is the Palestinian question, for the rest of the country believes that the allies are reliable allies; furthermore, the ongoing collaboration was already on a military, strategic, and well-known basis; the fact that it becomes more effective marks a novelty in the diplomatic field, where the alliance between the Jewish state and the major Sunni nation, then Muslim, is sanctioned for the first time. On the international level, one can not fail to note that this is the case with Trump’s presidency in the United States, clearly opposed to Tehran, so much that it wants to revoke the agreement on nuclear power, so hard-pressed. The deep aversion to Iran has thus facilitated a new alliance, which with Obama probably would not have been possible. For Arabia, this is religious supremacy and competition in the energy market, while Israel’s predominance is the question of its national security. Tehran has done everything to gain a leading role in the Middle East, in the Syrian question and in the struggle against the Islamic state, initially funded by the Saudis. Israel, within the new coalition, would have the function of preventing Iranians from using Hezbollah militia as avant-gardes of their strategy, while the Saudis would try to prevent Iraq from developing too much rooted Shiite power. For Saudi Arabia, it might repeat the pattern that led to intervention in Yemen, hindering, that is, every Shiite religion connected with Iran. If an official collaboration between the Israeli state and the main Muslim country could be a positive novelty, the reasons for this link do not encourage good prospects on the international stage: because Iran has come closer and closer to Russia, with which shares the interest in maintaining Assad’s power, while trade ties with China have tightened since the sanctions against Tehran have dimmed. The Middle East, therefore, is back in the center of the world political scene in a clear and decisive manner and contributes to be another factor in distance between Moscow and Washington. From the point of view of the Palestinian question, Saudi Arabia has stated that the problem is the only element of division from Israel and that it will strive to resolve it. Saudi diplomatic action is thus desirable for the solution of the problem, which can not be ignored since the birth of a Palestinian state alongside that of Israel. If this does not happen the most extremist Palestinian movements, but not only those, could enter the Iranian orbit, because Tehran had good reasons to stand up as a Palestinian defender and use the instrument in an instrumental way, also in the light of links between Hezbollah and groups Palestinian. If the issue is considered fundamental to Muslims, because it is well felt in the Arab countries, especially in the popular strata, it seems reasonable to assume that Arabia has not underestimated the issue, even for the reference role that the Saudi country always wants to more in the Sunni world, not only religious but also political. A failure to resolve the Palestinian problem would be a serious image damage to the Saudi monarchy. At this point, however, it is necessary to evaluate the conduct of the Tel Aviv government so far, consistently in procrastinating the solution of the problem in a methodological way, in order to favor settlements of the colonies. With an alliance with Saudi Arabia, will this behavior continue, or can Israel sacrifice its will to ground the Palestinians to protect themselves against the Iranian country? From Tel Aviv there is no sort of reassurance on a rogue in the attitude towards the Palestinians, and everything suggests that tactics will remain unchanged; Arabia could consider the secondary Palestinian problem facing the Iranian threat and postpone its solution but this will only aggravate the overall situation in the region – just what the Saudis wanted to avoid.
The future of the planet is intimately tied to the global climate and global warming: the signals that Earth sends are worrying because of the rise in temperature sensations caused by the greenhouse effect. Despite the obvious evidence of this cliffy deterioration, the Trump United States withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement to pursue a better economic result over the short term. The White House has produced more than doubts about the goodness of its choice, but the impact, even moral, of the lack of American participation in climate improvement, is likely to have negative effects not only in the long run but also in the medium term. Awareness of this situation must lead Europe to play a leading role in combating climate change, just replacing the United States. The Bonn Climate Summit highlighted this need, coupled with the need to exert even greater pressure on the US to change its policy on pollution and support all those non-federal but state or communal administrations, also very important such as New York , which are contrary to Trump’s environmental policy. Hopefully, these US institutional actors will decide to implement energy production through renewable sources, reducing their carbon dioxide emissions, in order to compensate for the increase at federal level. The overall forecast of carbon dioxide emissions for 2017 is, however, negative, because it is likely to rise again and further affect the overall climate situation on the planet. The energy consumption of countries in the process of industrialization or needing ever greater volumes of commodity production is still too much tied to raw materials that need to be cheap, such as coal, just to limit production costs. In Europe, it is thought to follow the English example, where the increase in the cost of coal per ton resulted in the closure of power plants using this fuel for electricity production, resulting in a lowering of emissions. France should follow this approach, also in order to comply with the Paris government’s commitment to close coal-fired power plants on French soil by 2021. Germany, the other major coal consumer, has recognized its difficulties as the European Commissioner for Climate and Environment said in a report, said that seven European countries are still lagging behind in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and that, among them, the Germany is still the nation that emits more greenhouse gases among the countries of the entire Union. The German position is very important, since Berlin wants to impose itself as a world leader in the fight against pollution, but in practice it fails to resolve its situation, which is so unbelievable. If Europe wants to play a leading role in the fight against pollution, it will have to present with comforting data in the face of the rest of the world, values achieved with clear and sustainable formulas and measures for the economy, and at least partly reproducible in others areas of the planet; after the old continent, it will be possible to promote broader policy, such as the financing of the poorest states that have started at a later industrialization, and to bridge the distance from countries with older industrialization using raw materials more polluting energy. If the US is distancing itself from the desire to reduce pollution, it is necessary to increase cooperation with China and push it towards less polluting consumption, because without Beijing it is not reasonable to hope for results. If Washington is ever more isolated on this issue, there may be a trend reversal. In any case, for Europe, engaging in the first person becomes a deterrent to increasing its international prestige in a practical and not just nominal way.
For Obama, the importance of Southeast Asia was central to US foreign policy, only the emergence of the Islamic state forced the former White House tenant to shift attention from the Asian area, considered crucial by both the strategic point of view commercial. The Obama administration’s lesser commitment to the Obama administration has left a difficult legacy for Trump, a situation worsened by the North Korean crisis and Chinese competitiveness. With this scenario, the US President has dealt with the trip to Southeast Asia with the main goal of affirming the US role in the region. To achieve this, Trump must be able to change the attitude of the powers of the area to increase pressure on Pyongyang, about the nuclear weapon program, and to get trade balance with countries that have a surplus of exports to the USA. If the first objective falls within an international policy logic, which Trump has always put in the background of domestic policy, the second aspect is directly on the issue of the US economy, which is suffering from a significant trade deficit, affecting domestic production and, therefore, the rate of employment: one of the central themes of the election campaign and that has resulted in a large number of votes between male, white and worker electorate. However, this issue is related to the need to reaffirm the role of the world’s first power, which in this context can only be explained, chiefly with an affirmation within the North Korean question. But no significant progress has been made on this subject, no prammatic statements have gone past, and the impression is that Pyongyang’s behavior is convenient for China and Russia, that is, it is instrumental in keeping the United States in a state of continuous pressure, which could serve to trigger some Trump mistake. At this time for China it is vitally important to be able to become accredited as the commercial power that looks more to the outside, to become the highest representative of globalization and free trade, in sharp contrast to the protectionist policy launched by Trump, which provoked the United States’ total reversal of the world trade. The suspicion is that the North Korean question plays in favor of this strategy. Beijing has pledged greater openness to foreign investment, but this was only coinciding with Trump’s visit, this decision was not actually derived from Trump’s visit, but from the goal of becoming the leader of globalization policy. On the Russian side, the threat of Pyongyang forces the US to focus less on issues that are more important for Moscow: the Ukrainian problem and the Western destabilization strategy pursued on computer networks. If these arguments are true Washington will have to solve the North Korean problem with its usual allies, Japan and South Korea; but the solution is difficult without the direct participation of Beijing and the very essence of this factor is the basis of the theory that China does not engage properly, using the ambiguity of its behavior instrumentally. Trump has returned to the White House, leaving the perception that the United States plays an increasingly less important role in Southeast Asia, also because no country in the region has entered into new bilateral agreements with Washington, and indeed eleven nations have reached an agreement in principle renewing the Pacific trade agreement, without the US presence. A further demonstration of the decline in US prestige in the area was the achievement of a major agreement to draft a code of conduct to avoid possible conflicts between the countries affected by the issue of the controversial islands, even this without the intervention of Washington .
The future monarch of Saudi Arabia has stated that the country has begun a process to leave a religious vision, but also a political, fundamentalist, to go towards a more moderate and open way in relations with the world and other religions. The theater of these statements was a conference in which some 2500 potential investors, including several foreigners, were willing to finance projects in the Saudi monarchy. The need for Saudi Arabia to become a reliable interlocutor is due to economic and political reasons. Crude oil price contraction has reduced revenue for the country, but still has a large financial liquidity that can make a breakthrough in the country’s economy, pursued through a differentiation in the production structure. To do this, it is necessary to present a different face of the country: Saudi Arabia has been perched on its intransigent positions of a too rigid religious vision, which has also disrupted political management. The fact that he is the guardian of the holy places of Islam has exerted a kind of extremism in religion, which has helped justify authoritarianism in the exercise of power. The denial of political and social rights, especially women, the harsh and discriminatory treatment reserved for foreign workers or Shiites, the many death sentences are extremely negative, with large investments made abroad and high availability of money they can not cancel. There is also the problem of international politics about the government’s attitude towards the Islamic state: Saudi Arabia has been suspected of funding the caliphate at its early stage to use it against Syria and indirectly with Iran. The coalition that the Saudis have created with Turkey and Egypt, in addition to other Gulf monarchies, is based on the Sunni religious ties and has, as the main opponent, the Iranian theocratic republic, a duel that is renewed over time and it has as its foundation the religious supremacy within the Islamic religion. The relationship with the West and, in particular, with the US, deteriorated with President Obama, but with Trump it seems to have regained strength, even though the US military remains distrustful. The Saudi desire is therefore to play a major role in the region and globally, but without a more presentable appearance, the second objective is not practicable. The attainment of this goal must forever go through a situation of greater religious moderation, by which to mitigate the hardships of the political regime. A less authoritarian regime can foster dialogue with other nations, but this must be tangible with the concessions of political and social rights so far denied. Certainly to give a less archaic image of Saudi society is not enough to allow women to drive cars, although this gesture has brought much publicity to the Saudi prince. Political needs are strongly linked to economic ones: Saudi Arabia is a country that has focused on oil extraction, becoming one of the largest producers, so as to be able to influence market trends, but this did not favor differentiation of the economy and the development of a production fabric that can be alternative to the extractive segment. The economy’s performance has squeezed oil profits and global instances towards alternative and less polluting energies decreed the need to invest in fields other than oil; the beginning will have to be to acquire skills, both individual and collective, as knowledge-based industries that will have to be attracted to an inner situation less influenced by the religious factor and characterized by a lower backwardness of the costumes combined with the presence of a right less conditioned by elements marked by a clear vision of the administration of justice. To overcome its ultraconservative image, the Saudi state will have to demonstrate, through tangible signs, a modernization of its institutions, which seems to be in the intentions of Prince Mohamed bin Salman, but which must also be accepted by a ruling class that still seems too firm on its own backward positions.
The Japanese premier, Shinzo Abe, is the true winner of early elections in Japan; its ruling electoral coalition has won the majority of seats, including the fragmentation of the opposition, which has not been able to find commonly agreed strong enough points to counter the winning coalition. The Party of Hope, with a program similar to the premier, which had, according to polls, the greatest chances of countering Abe’s victory, did not achieve the expected results and to advance was the liberal Left, which is placed on opposite positions to those of the government, especially in connection with the introduction of constitutional changes and the return of the use of nuclear energy. This result indicates the presence of the growth of a compact opposition force in the country’s desire for militarization and, therefore, a split in the Japanese political fabric, could lead to a growth in polarization. The goal of the Japanese prime minister was to win the two-thirds of the lower house, which, together, to the similar majority in the House of Councilors, allow the government to carry out the revision of the Japanese constitution, drawn up in 1947 under US supervision and characterized by some prohibitions for the armed forces of the country, which have decreed the name of the pacifist constitution. At present, the fundamental law does not allow Japan to operate and intervene, with its army, in the international war theater, even if involved in possible allied countries conflicts; the only possibility of present intervention is that of legitimate defense. Certainly, the changed geostrategic conditions of the region have influenced Abe’s view of a need for a reprehensible: to turn the Japanese self-defense forces into a true army; however, these instances were already present before the current developments and the country’s nationalist feelings seem to have taken advantage of the right opportunity to modify the constitutional charter. However undeniable remain the two main reasons for the transformation of the armed forces: first, the activities of North Korea, which has repeatedly materially threatened Japan with the launch of rockets fell into Japanese territorial waters, the second leading cause quota the attitude of Trump, the president of the major Japanese ally, of wanting to reduce US military engagement, especially from the economic point of view, in the region; even though this will of the American president can not be supported, to keep the focus on matters of vital interest to the United States, the need for greater organizational and action independence has become a priority for Tokyo. The danger represented by Pyongyang is real: the impossibility of being able to oppose an effective armed force against Kim Jong-un’s ongoing strength tests also penalizes potential diplomatic attempts to resolve the crisis and this factor has become aware of the electorate has given confidence to the premier in office, who on this topic has founded his own electoral campaign. If there are, therefore, aspects that can justify constitutional change, on the contrary, there are no opportunity considerations going in the opposite direction. The growing Chinese protagonism, even from a military point of view, can lead to clashes between Beijing and Tokyo, each jealous of its regional dimension, as well as the frequent conflicts between Japan and other countries in South East Asia, , can lead to a concrete risk that an armed Japan represents a further negative variable within the regional equilibrium system complex. New armaments or, as in this case, new armies, move the dialectic between States from a purely diplomatic dimension to one where the weight of weapons is growing, even as a preventative factor. The latest events in the Korean crisis, which is the worst situation, but not alone in the region, could make even worse developments with the presence of more armed force in the scenario.
Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden filed a request for compensation to Israel because Tel Aviv confiscated and carried out demolitions on behalf of a humanitarian aid consortium in the West Bank. This is a request that has no precedent and whose political value surpasses the economic one. The cause of the joint request was the destruction and requisition of prefabricated and solar panels, carried out by Israeli security forces; these materials were to be used for Arabic schools, located in a part of territory inhabited by populations of Bedouin origin. In this area, 60% occupied by Israelis, the Arab population is not connected to Tel Aviv’s electricity grid and the use of solar panels can offset, at least in part, electrical isolation. Israel’s destruction and confiscation order is believed to be part of the will of the Tel Aviv government to promote new settlements of colonies in the area with the dual purpose of increasing Israel’s presence and interrupting the territorial continuity of Arab communities in the areas located right next to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The non-stationary condition of part of the Arab population who are in this area favors Israeli occupation plans. For the eight European countries, the behavior of the Israeli state appears to be in violation of international law because it forces the Palestinian population to deprive humanitarian aid. The measure of Israel is even more hateful if one thinks that much of the material was intended for schools. Tel Aviv, as in other cases, refuses any compensation for demolitions and confiscations of material from European cooperation, which operates without the permission of the Israeli administration of these territories, and at the same time does not grant building permits to Palestinian. Although these confiscation and demolition measures constitute a marginal case of the Palestinian question, they effectively represent the systematic use of Israel’s abuses to pursue the government’s expansion strategy. The political value of this claim for compensation is enormous, because it also condemns Tel Aviv’s activity against humanitarian organizations, as opposed to what is provided by international law, from which too many times the Israeli government has been held above. The issue also shows how the fate of international aid to the Palestinians is affected by the action of Tel Aviv: by way of example, it is worth mentioning that the value of demolished installations funded by the European Union for Palestinians in 2016 amounted to 557,000 euros. If at this time the issue does not seem central to the international scenario, the demand of the eight European countries is to remember the serious conditions of discomfort and uncertainty in which the life of the Palestinian population is taking place and constitutes a humanitarian emergency now present too time on the international scene. The right-wing government in Tel Aviv chose a solution to the problem to the fullest advantage of the most extremist part of Israel, which coincides with religious and nationalist alienism, always more frequently outside of international law, without, however, receiving recalls substantial. Tel Aviv has repeatedly postponed a concerted solution, and even the hypothesis of the two states, albeit stubbornly overwhelmed, remained on paper, with the sole aim of gaining time to allow for ever greater expansion within the Palestinian territory. Among the side effects, of this tactic, there are also the demolition and confiscation of property, which, in addition to humiliation, constitute the steadfastness of attempts to improve the lives of Palestinians. The condemnation of the eight European countries can be a starting point for sensitizing the rest of the international public to exert pressure on the Israeli country to stop the expansion and reach a definite point in defining the issue by constantly denying a situation of high potential for danger.