PSSOC
One Year On: How Singapore Navigates the Israel-Hamas Conflict through Political Rhetoric and the Law
Rukhsana Bi Wahid & Muhammad Nur Fitri Mahad
Image Credits: [File: Abed Sabah / Reuters]
​
Summary: In the wake of the events of October 7, 2023, the international community has seen a wave of both protests and counter-protests, highlighting the polarising dynamics of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Governments globally are now tasked with addressing the ramifications of this conflict, seeking solutions that balance diplomatic relations and internal policy considerations. This article examines Singapore’s diplomatic approach amidst the ongoing conflict. Singapore’s response is characterised by its longstanding advocacy for a two-state solution and its efforts to maintain constructive relationships with both Israel and the Palestinian territories.
​
Editorial note: This article is updated as of 22 October 2024.
​
The events of October 7 2023 were marked by significant violence, resulting in over 1,400 fatalities and the abduction of hundreds of individuals, including citizens from ASEAN countries, attributed to actions by Hamas. Following these incidents, the Israeli military initiated operations in Gaza, as well as in the West Bank and parts of Lebanon and Syria, which have been described as retaliatory measures.
A year later, the region has seen no considerable decrease in violence. Iran launched two missile barrage attacks into Israel - one in April 2024 and another in October the same year. The latter saw twice the intensity in attacks, where Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attack was done in retaliation to the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in July and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah in October. In the same month, Israel began a ground incursion into Lebanon, alongside intensified attacks on its capital, Beirut. This invasion has brought up concerns of a regional war in the Middle East. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) also killed Yahya Sinwar, the successor to previous Hamas leaders Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif, whom they claim to have encountered during an operation on October 17 2024. Though Sinwar’s death has left Hamas with no official leader, the conflict persists amidst the ever volatile region.
Closer to home, Singapore’s international policy regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict is grounded in the advocacy for a two-state solution, emphasising the mutual recognition of Israel and Palestine. Singapore has fostered peaceful relations with both Israel and Palestine, supporting the Palestinian Authority’s governance capabilities through initiatives such as the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) and the Enhanced Technical Assistance Package (ETAP). Concurrently, Singapore has established significant political, diplomatic, economic and defence relations with Israel, reflecting a balanced engagement with both parties involved in the conflict.
Singapore has navigated its position in the UN with careful consideration, casting votes that reflect its principles despite potential risks to its relationships with both Israel and Palestine. Singapore has voted against recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and criticised Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank - actions aligned with its support for a two-state solution and adherence to international law. Additionally, Singapore has voted for a ceasefire amid escalating violence, demonstrating its commitment to peace and the protection of civilians. While expressing sympathy for the Palestinian people’s suffering, Singapore has unequivocally condemned acts of violence, specifically labelling Hamas’ actions on October 7 as terrorism. This careful diplomatic strategy highlights Singapore’s vitality in maintaining amicable relationships in the context of international conflicts.
Singaporean politicians across the political spectrum voiced a consistent viewpoint on the Israel-Hamas conflict, emphasising several key points. They universally condemn the attacks by Hamas as acts of terrorism and affirm Israel’s right to defend itself, albeit with the stipulation that such defence must be carried out proportionally. Additionally, they stress the importance of adhering to international law and ensuring that overseas conflicts do not disturb Singapore’s internal harmony. This unified stance from Singapore’s leadership underscores the nation’s commitment to peace, international law, and domestic stability amidst global tensions.
Singapore places significant emphasis on the principle of self-defence, particularly given its status as a densely populated city-state with substantial national security concerns. MP Vikram Nair highlighted in a parliamentary debate the legal premise that a state has the right to defend itself against non-state actors that endanger its people and lack containment by any other state. This rationale underpins the global stance on self-defence, exemplified by the United States’ response to Al Qaeda post-9/11.
Singaporean leaders uniformly recognise the country’s susceptibility to terrorism, advocating for a universal right to self-defence. This stance is said to be crucial for Singapore, given its potential as a target for terrorist activities. The recognition of self-defence rights by other nations is vital for Singapore’s security strategy, ensuring its preparedness to respond to threats without international opposition.
Furthermore, the global conflict between Israel and Hamas has presented complex challenges on the domestic front that require careful navigation by the government. These internal issues underscore the importance of balancing international relations with domestic security priorities, foreign policy and national defence.
In the six months following October 7, Singapore has reinforced its legislative framework, notably the Public Order Act, which requires a police permit for public assemblies or processions. This framework has been operationalised in instances relating to the conflict, where the government has rejected several applications for public events aiming to address the conflict. For example, Singapore has rejected 5 applications for peace rallies and public assemblies. Additionally, there have been reports of individuals who have demonstrated publicly on this issue being subject to police investigations. These actions have been justified on the basis of preventing Singapore’s racial and religious harmony from being threatened. Additionally, these steps have been taken to guard against public safety and security concerns as witnessed in other countries due to the conflict.
More recently, Singapore has stated that it is prepared, in principle, to recognise Palestine as a state. Responding to a question posed by MP Gerald Giam, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan explained that the recognition of Palestine will be done at an appropriate time when it is helpful towards achieving peace. He added that the Palestinian government must also renounce terrorism and accept Israel’s right to exist. At the same time, Singapore will continue to implement the ETAP in order to help the PA prepare for eventual statehood.
Initially, Dr Balakrishnan had been strong in his stance that Israel has a definite right to self-defence, especially against the October 7 attacks that were labelled as an act of terror. However, this stand shifted slightly in February 2024 when he commented that Israel has simply “gone too far” in their defence operations in Gaza. In the same vein, former President Halimah Yacob condemned the extent of violence happening in Gaza, highlighting the rapidly increasing death count. She writes, “​​international law also prohibits collectively punishing innocent civilians who are not responsible for such actions”. This response to the increasing violence towards innocent civilians in Gaza displays Singapore’s sensitivity and responsiveness to current affairs. It is important to note that Singapore still sees the severing of ties with Israel as not helpful to Palestinians, or to Singapore’s diplomatic standing.
In conclusion, the Israel-Hamas conflict has seen Singapore reaffirm its commitment to the two-state solution while enacting legislation to navigate the global conflict on the domestic front. Singapore evidently demonstrates a pragmatic approach to foreign policy that seeks to reconcile its national security interests with its moral and legal obligations on the global stage. While the outcome of the conflict remains uncertain, Singapore will continue to be tested on the durability of its foreign policy for as long as the conflict persists, and when similar conflicts surface elsewhere.
​
Useful references: