An Israeli Reading of Malaysia’s Stance on the Gaza War and Its Relationship with Hamas

The Hebrew media has paid considerable attention to the statements made by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, in which he spoke about Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, despite his failure to condemn the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, his unwavering support for the Palestinian people, and his condemnation of the genocide in Gaza.

Giora Aliraz, a researcher at the Truman Institute at the Hebrew University, stated that “Ibrahim’s responses were surprising, as he announced his opposition to all forms of violence, implying that his speech erases decades before October 7, ignores the suffering of the Palestinians since the 1948 Nakba, turns a blind eye to the history of colonialism, and even forgives genocide.”

Truman continued in a research paper published by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University and translated by “Arab 21”: “We need to know whether Ibrahim’s statements are merely a public relations exercise on the global stage, an aspiration to intervene in the Middle East, or perhaps an early sign of a shift in direction towards Israel (…)”

He pointed out that “ironically, when Ibrahim was elected Prime Minister in late 2022, after a long political career, it was expected that he would soften Malaysia’s traditionally strict stance toward Israel, claiming that he had not participated in the harsh anti-Israel rhetoric over decades, unlike his late predecessor Mahathir Mohamad.”

He noted that “in Ibrahim’s previous stances, we recall words he said in an interview in 2012 with the Wall Street Journal, when he was a prominent opposition leader, in which he supported all efforts to protect the security of the State of Israel, while at the same time affirming his country’s deep commitment to the Palestinian cause and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on a two-state solution. He also stated that establishing diplomatic relations with Israel was conditional upon Israel respecting Palestinian aspirations. At the time, sharp criticism quickly followed from his political opponents, due to his extraordinary statements regarding Tel Aviv’s security issue, and this criticism persisted with him.”

He highlighted that “this time too, we heard criticism after his recent statements, which spread widely in the form of a video clip on social media. However, it seems that this criticism was relatively limited in scope and intensity. Ibrahim responded to the critics, accusing them of deceiving public opinion, based on an edited video that took his words out of context. He confirmed that nothing had changed; Malaysia would remain committed to supporting Palestine, and in his statement in the Malay language, he reiterated his harsh remarks against Tel Aviv.”

According to the Malaysian Prime Minister, “Those who ask whether Israel exists, the answer is yes, it exists, but Malaysia has never legally recognized it, only acknowledging its existence as a fact, as evidenced by the absence of diplomatic relations with it. From his point of view, the matter is closed.”

However, the Israeli researcher stated that “Ibrahim’s statements coincided with the publication of an article by a local columnist of Indian origin in Malaysia, titled ‘Why I Support Anwar Ibrahim’s Stance on Israel’s Right to Exist,’ which reveals the prevailing views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among the minorities that make up 40% of Malaysia’s population, the largest of which are the Chinese, followed by the Indians.”

The Indian writer, according to the Israeli reading, claimed that “he speaks on behalf of all non-Muslims in Malaysia, as they generally, unlike the Muslims there, do not have a negative opinion of the State of Israel, nor an overwhelmingly positive view of Palestine. They view both sides as warring nations, like Ukraine and Russia, and we, the ‘non-Muslims,’ see the Middle East conflict as a foreign war that we do not want to participate in. When we see the sincere belief of Muslims that the right is with Palestine, and Israel is the evil party, they take this position out of sympathy for the Palestinians.”

He added that “we, the non-Muslims in Malaysia, understand the desire of Muslims for our country to play a more active role in supporting the Palestinians in the conflict, even though it has done much in relation to the war in the Middle East. But because the situation for Muslims is more concerning, Malaysia is not required to engage in the war by choosing the weaker side against the much stronger side, which is Israel, as we are not sure who is right or wrong. We cannot support the Palestinians’ wishes unless they are determined to see Malaysia as a peace mediator in the conflict.”

The Israeli writer then considered that “Prime Minister Ibrahim’s words, agreeing that the State of Israel has the right to exist and defend itself, are a correct starting point for Malaysia, which requires clarification. The political and emotional identification with the Palestinian cause, which is strongly present in political and public discourse in Malaysia, seems intertwined with the older construction of national identity among its Muslim majority, which exceeds 50% of the population. This is aimed at rallying a sense of universal Islamic solidarity. Such a construction also includes anti-Israel, anti-West, and anti-colonial tones, but it may be considered a significant issue from the perspective of the minorities.”

He argued that “these Malaysian minorities may not be the only ones currently dissatisfied with their country’s position in light of the recent Gaza war, citing a researcher on Malaysian affairs who relayed the discontent of civil society groups and opposition figures with the government’s stance toward Hamas. They expressed concerns that it could harm the country’s interests, claiming that funding Hamas by Malaysian pro-Palestinian organizations could expose it to Western sanctions.”

He further stated that “Ibrahim’s unusual remarks about the State of Israel could be directed toward the international community and the global stage, to repair his image in the West, and to ease tensions in his relationship with the United States due to contacts with Hamas leadership. He seeks to avoid pressure given his ties with them and signal that his country is a partner in peace efforts in the Middle East. He has adopted a supportive stance for peace efforts by engaging with the political body of the movement without intervening in its military activities, claiming that his relations with them give him an advantage in attempting to achieve peace in the region.”

He argued that “In practice, Ibrahim’s speech screams contradictions; especially his complete silence regarding the bloody Hamas attack on October 7, versus his blunt condemnation of Israeli aggression on Gaza, and his call at the Arab-Islamic summit in Riyadh to build a consensus to urge the international community to take swift and effective actions against the occupying state, ultimately expelling it from the United Nations.”

He concluded by stating that “We will have to wait and see if Ibrahim’s extraordinary remarks are just a passing incident, a public relations exercise on the world stage, an aspiration to engage in the Middle East, or perhaps an early sign of a shift in direction.”