United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon seems intent on using his last year in office to significantly increase UN pressure on Israel.
Last week, he told the Security Council that “human nature” can explain the recent wave of Palestinian attacks on Israeli citizens. He raised the ire of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who accused Ban of giving a “tailwind” to terrorism.
Stung by the criticism, Ban penned a New York Times op-ed saying that “nothing excuses terrorism.” But that sentence was absent from the Security Council speech, in which, as in the op-ed, the main clause was this: “As oppressed people have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”
Here’s a bit of history: In the 1990s, America led a campaign to clearly define terrorism as an act of violence that specifically targets civilians to advance political causes.
That effort failed when Arabs and others demanded adding an Israel-tailored clause to exempt terror acts when fighting to end “foreign occupation.” (The term rarely applies to those who claim Tibet, Western Sahara or Northern Cyprus are “occupied.”)
Ever since 9/11, however, the UN toughened its approach to terrorism. There’s still no universal definition of it, but bodies were established to monitor and combat al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS, which are specifically referred to as terrorist groups. The Security Council also often condemns specific acts of terror around the world (though not in Israel), claiming they have “no justification whatsoever.”
Ban, too, often chides terrorism. If a bomb goes off in, say, downtown Cairo, he rightly issues a statement that pointedly avoids addressing the grievances behind it. That’s admirable, but in Israel’s case, he’s now gone native. Acts of violence against Israeli citizens must be explained away.
It wasn’t always like this. Before the former South Korean foreign minister became UN chief, he told me he intended to “build upon” scant successes in combating Turtle Bay’s infamous anti-Israel bias.
But at the United Nations, you’re expected to criticize the powers that be — China, Russia and, better yet, America. As The Economist wrote in 2009, Ban’s “failure” to pointedly criticize Israel’s war against Hamas terrorists is proof he doesn’t want to “annoy America, Israel’s chief ally.” The mag gave him a failing grade in speaking “truth to power.”
That was then. Now there’s a legacy to think of, a Nobel Prize to chase. Also, the 71-year-old Ban is widely believed to be planning a campaign for South Korea’s presidency next year.
In his last year, then, he must have some major diplomatic breakthroughs, but those are hard to come by. Last year, Ban almost managed to arrange an unprecedented trip to North Korea, which he could’ve presented as a major success. But word of the planned trip leaked to the press in Seoul, and Pyongyang slammed the gates shut.
Joining the anti-Israel pile-on is the next best thing. And chilly relations between Netanyahu and President Obama lead many at the United Nations to believe, fairly or not, that loud attacks on Israel’s policies are no longer a major affront to Washington.
State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to criticize Ban this week. “We certainly respect” his right to express an opinion, Kirby said. (Was his right ever in doubt? After all, he owns one of the world’s loudest megaphones.) Kirby condemned terrorism against Israelis and said it has no excuse, but added that “the situation is unsustainable” and “of course, our position on settlement activity is well known and clear.”
No wonder Ban writes that attacking Israel’s “shortsighted and damaging policies” now comes even from its “closest friends.”
But if so, maybe joining the chorus isn’t such an act of “courage” after all. In global diplomacy, Israel remains the softest of all soft targets. Sure, you can criticize its government, but then don’t present it as speaking truth to “power.”