Why Is This UN Condemnation of Violence Unlike All Other UN Condemnations of Violence?

Aug. 10 2015

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, has condemned the murder of a Palestinian child in the West Bank and offered his condolences to the victim’s family members. In his statement, he declared that the “absence of a political process and Israel’s illegal settlement policy, as well as the harsh and unnecessary practice of demolishing Palestinian houses, have given rise to violent extremism on both sides.” Comparing this statement with Ban’s condemnations of other terrorist attacks during his tenure, Alan Baker notes a pattern:

[An] evidently standard pattern of [exists for the] UN secretary-general’s condemnations . . . together with expressions of condolence . . . to the government and people of the particular state where the act of terror occurred, and to the families of the victims, [followed by] calls for investigation. [This formula] has been consistently used as a matter of course following terrorist atrocities throughout the world. However, none of these condemnations has presumed to attach blame or to arbitrarily proffer political value judgments. . . .

[Furthermore, the] brutal massacre of 200 civilians by Islamic State terrorists in a Syrian border town [in] June 2015 did not merit any condemnation or condolence message by the secretary-general and Security Council. The deaths of at least 30 people in a suicide bombing in the same border region of Turkey did not merit a condemnation, either. . . .

After analyzing the secretary-general’s reactions, or lack thereof, to acts of terror, one realizes that, as in most issues regarding Israel, the classical UN double standard would appear to be universally applied, whatever the circumstances. . . . One may indeed ask if this is a deliberate mode of behavior on the part of the secretary- general and his staff, or perhaps merely inadvertently a singling-out of Israel [by force of habit].

Read more at Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

More about: Ban Ki-Moon, Israel & Zionism, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Terrorism, United Nations

Kuwait Should Be the Next Country to Make Peace with Israel

Feb. 13 2025

Like his predecessor, Donald Trump seeks to expand the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. But there are other Arab nations that might consider taking such a step. Ahmad Charai points to Kuwait—home to the Middle East’s largest U.S. army base and desperately in need of economic reform—as a good candidate. Kuwaitis haven’t forgiven Palestinians for supporting Saddam Hussein during his 1990 invasion, but their country has been more rhetorically hostile to Israel than its Gulf neighbors:

The Abraham Accords have reshaped Middle Eastern diplomacy. . . . Kuwait, however, remains hesitant due to internal political resistance. While full normalization may not be immediately feasible, the United States should encourage Kuwait to take gradual steps toward engagement, emphasizing how participation in regional cooperation does not equate to abandoning its historical positions.

Kuwait could use its influence to push for peace in the Middle East through diplomatic channels opened by engagement rather than isolation. The economic benefits of joining the broader framework of the Abraham Accords are overwhelming. Israel’s leadership in technology, agriculture, and water management presents valuable opportunities for Kuwait to enhance its infrastructure. Trade and investment flows would diversify the economy, providing new markets and business partnerships.

Kuwaiti youth, who are increasingly looking for opportunities beyond the public sector, could benefit from collaboration with advanced industries, fostering job creation and entrepreneurial growth. The UAE and Bahrain have already demonstrated how normalization with Israel can drive economic expansion while maintaining their respective geopolitical identities.

Read more at Jerusalem Strategic Tribune

More about: Abraham Accords, Kuwait