If the institutions that were created to ensure peace and security don’t take the lead, who will?

Transcreation by Angel Christopher

(Original press release: Israel365News)

On Saturday Morning, October 7, as Israel celebrated the final day of the Sukkot holiday, Hamas terrorists launched a massive and vicious surprise attack on Israel’s southern towns and cities, murdering hundreds of innocent men, women, and children in their homes and synagogues and taking dozens of hostages. Israel’s defense forces and emergency services are fighting to regain control of southern Israel. The full extent of the losses is still unknown.

The escalating conflict in the Middle East has not only led to casualties on the ground but has created fissures in the international diplomatic arena. The United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) silence following the blatant war crimes committed by Hamas against Israel speaks louder than words. The repercussions of such inaction not only damage the credibility of international institutions but also threaten the peace and security they were created to protect.

While Gilad Erdan, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, described the ongoing assault as “Israel’s 9/11,” the UNSC’s reticence starkly contrasted with its foundational purpose post-Holocaust: the commitment to ensuring that history’s horrors aren’t repeated. Erdan’s call for accountability is a potent reminder of how the UN’s mission has shifted, or worse, eroded over time.

US Deputy Ambassador to the UN, Robert Wood’s stance was unequivocal – Israel has Washington’s unwavering support. But does support from allies compensate for collective silence? The humanitarian crisis is evident on both sides, with horrifying images and reports surfacing regularly, and yet, the international response remains fragmented and uncoordinated.

The Palestinian Authority’s stance, as presented by envoy Riyad Mansour, is a testament to the multi-faceted nature of the conflict. While Mansour focuses on Palestinian suffering, Erdan underscores the distorted representation by groups like Hamas. The challenge here isn’t just the violence but the narratives that fuel and legitimize it.

By drawing parallels between Hamas, ISIS, and al-Qaeda, Erdan draws attention to the broader global implications of the conflict. It is not an isolated event but a testament to the changing dynamics of terror and extremism. The diverted international aid and its use for nefarious activities further highlight the twisted trajectory of global diplomacy.

As Erdan rightly points out, the world is at a crossroads. Today, Israel may be the focal point, but the overarching battle is one that civilization as a whole confronts. Terrorism, regardless of its origin, poses a universal threat.

Wood’s assertion, “It’s terrorism, plain and simple,” is more than just a statement. It’s a call to action. The international community must step up and address the glaring disparities in its response to global crises. The situation requires more than just condemnation; it demands tangible action and consistent accountability. If the institutions that were created to ensure peace and security don’t take the lead, who will?

Divergent Views at UN Security Council

(Original press release: BNN)

In an emergency meeting held at the United Nations Security Council, a striking divergence of views emerged on the escalating crisis between Israel and the Palestinian organization, Hamas. The meeting convened in response to the massive attack by Hamas on Israel, demonstrated the complexity of international opinions on the issue, with member states failing to reach a unanimous consensus.

International Opinions on the Crisis

The United States, a key ally of Israel, called for a unified response condemning Hamas’s aggression. However, the Security Council refrained from issuing a joint statement or a binding resolution. The lack of a unanimous declaration underscores the deep-seated disagreements among the 15-member body on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Despite the US’s stance, some members, led by Russia, hoped for a broader focus beyond condemning Hamas. They advocated for an immediate ceasefire and the commencement of meaningful negotiations. The Russian-led bloc believes that focusing solely on Hamas’s role in the crisis overlooks other contributory factors like the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

China and the Two-State Solution

China, a permanent member of the Security Council, expressed openness to a non-binding statement. The Asian powerhouse emphasized the need for peace negotiations and a two-state solution. The two-state solution, a proposal for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, envisions independent Israeli and Palestinian states co-existing side by side in peace. This proposition aligns with the stance of many international bodies which view it as the most viable solution to the decades-long conflict.

Responses from Israel and the Palestinian Authority

The Israeli ambassador condemned Hamas, accusing the organization of committing war crimes. He called for unwavering international support for Israel’s defense. This plea for support is indicative of the precarious situation Israel finds itself in, with mounting international criticism over its retaliatory actions against Hamas.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority ambassador urged the Security Council to focus on ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. He called for a peaceful solution that would ensure the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. His plea highlights the Palestinian Authority’s position that any resolution to the conflict must address the root causes, including Israeli occupation and settlement expansion.

Future Ramifications

The divergent views expressed at the Security Council meeting are likely to have significant ramifications. The failure to reach a consensus may embolden both parties in the conflict, leading to further escalation. The international community’s inability to unite on a course of action may also undermine its credibility in mediating the conflict. Furthermore, it could potentially jeopardize future peace negotiations and the realization of a two-state solution.