Over the years, general assembly meetings at the United Nations have often showcased absurdity, focusing on New York restaurants, hotels, comedians, and, unfortunately, the darker sides of human behavior.
This year’s gathering is set to be particularly rife with hypocrisy, as a mix of authoritarian leaders and minor powers prepare to take aim at Israel.
There’s a sense of glee, perhaps, that Israel is becoming more diplomatically isolated, even before the official kickoff on September 9. Turtle Bay will likely have to endure the foul air of anti-Semitism wafting through the proceedings.
The animosity towards the Jewish state is overwhelming, almost reminiscent of a rally for Zohran Mamdani, a prominent mayoral candidate in New York.
He’s got a packed schedule ahead, giving city voters a glimpse of the vitriol he may bring to city hall if, you know, the electorate makes an unwise choice.
Many New Yorkers might feel a sense of déjà vu, perhaps a flashback to 1975 through 1991.
The actual solution has been rescinded, but the venomous sentiments linger in too many hearts globally.
This year, the focus is on Gaza’s narrative of “The Story of Hunger Star,” alleging that Israel is committing genocide against Arab civilians while continuing to foster hatred.
Yet, it’s worth noting that most aid trucks that Israel permits into these areas have been seized by Hamas. The group essentially commandeers much of the food for its own use and sells the rest on the black market.
The track has been intercepted
As recently reported, between May 19 and August 5, over 2,600 humanitarian aid trucks made their way from Israel to Gaza. However, only about 300 reached their destinations; the others were intercepted and looted during transit.
True to its nature, the UN’s report offered no clear accountability, simply citing that aid was taken by “armed actors or needy individuals.”
The term “armed actor” is a polished way to refer to Hamas, but, oddly enough, the UN doesn’t seem to see it that way.
If Gazans are hungry, you’d hope the UN would at least have the clarity to identify those at fault.
But it seems much simpler and safer to just blame the Jews for every ill.
In a more ideal world, this approach would be unacceptable, particularly as we approach October 7, the second anniversary of Hamas’ terrorist attack that resulted in the deaths of 1,200 Israelis, predominantly civilians, including women and children.
Hamas still holds 20 living hostages, and any attempts to superficially fulfill noble ideals will inevitably draw harsh backlash.
Contrarily, the focus this year seems to be shifting, with the bloodshed of Jews increasingly equated with growing support for a Palestinian state.
This two-state delusion is buoyed by leaders from France, Canada, and the UK.
One-sided “peace”
The ancestors of Emmanuel Macron, Mark Carney, and the British monarchy are touted as prime partners in this peacemaking venture—waving the white flag while demanding Israel commit to “long-term sustainable peace.”
Notably, there’s no similar expectation imposed on the Palestinians.
Considering Hamas openly swears to repeat the horrors of October 7, it seems rather ludicrous to place all the accountability on Israel.
How can Israel feasibly commit to lasting peace with adversaries who are determined to annihilate it?
Thinking back, Winston Churchill, FDR, and Charles de Gaulle didn’t waver when faced with the threat of Hitler.
It’s almost unbelievable that FDR didn’t call for peace negotiations with Germany before the war unfolded in Europe.
Sadly, today’s leaders appear to have succumbed to the false narrative that Hamas and other Palestinian groups genuinely desire peace.
This gives the impression that leaders like Macron are intimidated by large, vocal Muslim immigrant populations.
It’s somewhat disconcerting—they seem oblivious to the reality. Israel often mirrors the canary in the coal mine.
The threat extends beyond just one nation; it impacts the West as a whole.
If Macron and others fail to support Israel, they shouldn’t expect anyone to have their back when jihadist threats loom over them.
Fortunately, former President Trump has expressed reluctance around the notion of creating a Palestinian state, suggesting that doing so would merely reward Hamas for its misdeeds.
“We’re not in that camp,” he noted.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently announced that senior Palestinian officials would face restrictions on obtaining visas to enter the United States, bringing attention to their failures and their impact on the peace process.
This ban affects several leaders, including Mahmoud Abbas, currently in his 20th year of a nominal four-year presidency.
“Nents, escalation”
In reaction to Rubio’s recent stance, Abbas’ camp defaulted to its familiar rhetoric.
“This decision only heightens tension and escalation,” a spokesman commented to the Associated Press.
However, Rubio’s aide asserted that the intent is to hold them accountable for not fulfilling their commitments and undermining potential peace.
They’re also adding pressure as October 7 approaches, urging a consistent denouncement of terrorism and the cessation of incitements to violence in educational settings.
These are valid points, but asking Palestinian leaders—whether they align with Hamas or not—to abandon rhetoric about terrorism feels almost impossible.
Even in their tailored suits, some Palestinian leaders see threats to Israel as part of their job description.
Without this antagonism, one might worry they wouldn’t seem committed enough to the cause, perhaps fearing Hamas’ wrath if they dial down the aggression.
In that light, asking Israel to ensure peace seems akin to signing their own death warrant.
