This might sound callous, but it is a valid concern. When Israeli forces began their air assault on Gaza, which they followed through eventually with a ground incursion, people around the world worried about the impact of this new round of hostilities on the price of oil.
There is basis for worry. Previous instances of hostilities in the Middle East invariably reflected in grave supply concerns and, consequently, sharp increases in crude prices.
After over a week of hostilities, however, we have seen little indication of oil prices reversing their southward trend. If at all, the uncertainty created by the conflict arrested the steep decline in oil prices.
During the week of the holidays, crude prices inched up from a little below, to a little above, $40 per barrel. It will likely hold at that general level for quite a while.
The reason oil prices might seem to be a greater concern for the rest of the world than the human toll of the conflict is the generally weak state of the global economy. The surge in oil prices last year took a deadly toll on the rest of the world, pushing up poverty and hunger rates and creating a large inflationary wave.
Many of the world’s major economies are currently in recession. A new spike in oil prices will certainly drive that recession deeper, diverting more of the disposable income of the world’s consumers from other goods to oil.
True, crude prices at their present level are a bit unreal. These prices have been pushed down by depressed demand for the product owing to the global economic slowdown.
The low prices for crude mask the reality that known supplies of the nonrenewable fuel are rapidly diminishing. As soon as the global economy regains its growth momentum, oil prices could again rise sharply.
The reason that the outbreak of hostilities did not — so far — cause a spike in oil prices is the increasing likelihood that the matter will be contained. It will not likely widen into a full-scale regional conflagration that will drag in the major oil producers.
While there are obligatory street demonstrations in the major cities of the Arab world, the Arab governments have generally hedged their position. The tone of the Arab response was set by Egypt’s attitude towards the conflict.
Although they routinely condemned the Israeli assault on Gaza, Egypt did not rush in to support the embattled Hamas regime in Gaza. On the contrary, Cairo deliberately toned down its diplomatic response. No Israeli ambassador to any Islamic capital has so far been sent home.
The generally muted response of the rest of the Arab and Islamic world is due, to a large extent, to the irresponsible action of the radical Hamas. This terrorist group in control of the Gaza provided both the conditions for the Israeli response as well as the timing of that response.
For years, Hamas militants fired hundreds of rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Those rocket attacks endangered the lives of Israelis living in cities close to Gaza. Over the past few months, Hamas militants escalated their rocket attacks. They acquired longer range missiles from either Iran or Syria.
In a word, these irresponsible attacks made things untenable for Israel. They had to deal decisively with these rocket attacks or perpetually accept the danger posed to their communities.
Like most terrorist groups, Hamas used the civilian population as a shield. They launched their rockets from mosques and university campuses. Israel could not deal with the rocket attacks without inflicting collateral damage on civilians.
True, the Israeli response aroused humanitarian concerns the world over. But the response is not unmitigated. Most governments understand the Israeli response is in legitimate self-defense. It is not possible to condemn the Israeli response without condemning as well the Hamas provocation.
Over the past few years, Egypt and Jordan have reconciled with Israel. They have diplomatic relations with the Jewish state and no longer argue for its eradication. Most other Arab governments have moved closer to that position.
The most rabid supporter of the brand of Islamist militancy espoused by Hamas has come from a non-Arab capital: Tehran. The Iranian government has not only supported both Hamas and Hizbollah in Lebanon. It has also actively pursued a nuclear armament program poised precisely against Israel.
But when the assault on the Hamas regime in Gaza began, Tehran offered not much more than angry words. It could not do much more.
The Hamas regime calculated wrongly when they embarked on their irresponsible missile attacks on Israel. They presumed that the rest of the Arab world will have no choice but to support them in the event of a decisive Israeli response. That has not happened.
Grave as the humanitarian situation in the Gaza may be, and large as the civilian casualty toll may climb, everybody quietly understands that peace cannot be restored to the area unless the Hamas is disarmed. This radical group cannot be allowed to fire rockets endlessly and shield themselves with civilians intimidated by their radical thugs.
For the sake of the innocents, we all wish for an early end to the war at the Gaza. But there can be no peace with a terrorist group like Hamas still capable of inflicting their violence on others.
That realization isolates the Hamas regime from enthusiastic support from the rest of humanity. It keeps the area of hostilities limited and the rest of the world generally unperturbed.