Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon brought the Security Council chamber to a boil, besting his Pakistani counterpart in a fiery exchange. At the outset of the Security Council session, Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, who flew in for the auspicious occasion, accepted an outpouring of international solidarity that was effusively expressed by member states.

Danon, unmoved, challenged the room's selective outrage: "Where was your indignation on October 7, when our sovereignty was breached and Israeli civilians were butchered by Hamas? What have we heard from this Council since then? Silence, silence." Danon reminded the Security Council that it was ironically convening on the 24th anniversary of 9/11: "Today, the world remembers the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11th. That tragic day, like October seventh for Israel, was a day of fire and blood. In the aftermath of 9/11, the countries that uphold freedom, equality, and democracy in this council stood shoulder to shoulder. Two weeks later, this council adopted Resolution 1373. It said plainly: no state may harbor terrorists, no state may give them safe haven. Any government that does so breaks this Council's binding obligations".

Danon's invocation of the US felling the mastermind of 9/11 on Pakistani soil struck a raw nerve with Pakistan's delegation, launching a fiery exchange that stunned the hushed Council: "When bin Laden was eliminated in Pakistan, the world did not ask why a terrorist was targeted on foreign soil – but why he was sheltered there in the first place. There was no immunity for bin Laden, and there can be no immunity for Hamas.'

Danon shone a much-needed spotlight on the selective outrage in international forums; no condemnation was issued against the US for violating Pakistani sovereignty, yet Israel is routinely censured for striking at recognized terror operatives, even when they operate with state protection. What happened next revealed just how exposed Pakistan felt by Danon's withering comparison of Israel's Doha strike to the bin Laden raid and his indictment of the Council's selective memory.

Pakistan's rebuttal

Visibly unsettled, Pakistan's envoy Asim Iftikhar Ahmad requested additional time after all council members had spoken. He shot back, dismissing Danon's analogy: "It is unacceptable, indeed ludicrous, for an aggressor and occupier, a serial violator of the UN Charter and international law that is Israel, to abuse this chamber and disrespect the sanctity of this Council." He lashed out further: "Israel is the perpetrator of the worst kind of state terrorism that we are witnessing in Gaza and in fact in the occupied Palestinian territories for decades. The world sees your double standards."

Danon reframed the issue before the Council and cut through Ambassador Ahmad's self-righteous facade like a laser beam: "You cannot change the fact that 9/11 happened, and you cannot change the fact that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan and was killed on your territory. When you criticize us... think about the standards you apply to your country and the standards you apply to Israel….When bin Laden was eliminated in Pakistan, the question asked was not 'Why target a terrorist on foreign soil?' The question was, 'Why was a terrorist given shelter at all?' Don't lecture Israel about self-defense until you hold yourselves to the same standards."

Indeed, Pakistan's hospitality, witting or unwitting, allowed the world's most-wanted terrorist to live in comfort for years, yards from military installations – a fact the global community conveniently ignored when they criticized Israel's similar operation.

Make no mistake, the Danon-Ahmad exchange was more than the usual diplomatic theater; it laid bare the double standards underlying much of the Security Council's debate on counterterrorism and national self-defense. Indeed, the heated back-and-forth, sparked by Israel's operation, is emblematic of the hypocrisy that has plagued recent Security Council press statements condemning Israel while ignoring, or even tacitly excusing, equally or more controversial counterterror operations by other nations.

Danon's remarks were not only a defense of Israeli policy but a challenge to the Security Council's near unanimity supporting or excusing identical conduct by others under the banner of "counterterrorism." The contrast Danon highlighted is not theoretical; rather, it reflects an entrenched practice whereby Israel is uniquely held to impossible standards.

Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms that every state has the inherent right to self-defense if an armed attack occurs against it. Moreover, international law recognizes that self-defense against threats posed by non-state actors, like Hamas, extends beyond Israel's borders when the host country is either unwilling or unable to prevent its territory from being used for hostile acts.

The broader farce

Danon's Security Council exchange was more than diplomatic fencing – it exposed the core of the Council's performance. Pakistan, publicly wounded, clung to principles of sovereignty and "legal order," while Israel – by Danon's own words – was fighting for its existence with the same tools the world's superpowers have claimed for themselves.

As ambassadors traded formal statements and caustic barbs, it was Danon's moral clarity and Pakistan's subsequent outburst that made the true hypocrisy of this forum blindingly clear.

Institutionalized hypocrisy at the UN Security Council

Beneath the theatrics is the international community's deeper malaise. While the UN solemnly condemns Israel for operations against orchestrators of violence, it rarely demands accountability from those who harbor, fund or excuse terrorism against Israelis. In the wake of the bin Laden raid, Pakistan indignantly protested a violation of sovereignty but received only muted and formulaic expressions of concern from the Council. No resolution, no press statement, no emergency session was ever invoked to censure the United States; the world simply accepted the logic that where states fail, others may summon the will to act. The same principle was accepted for other member states fighting terrorism – except Israel.

Such hypocrisy has only deepened over time. Recent UN press statements "condemning Israel" over targeted strikes or forceful countermeasures are typically authored or championed by states that themselves have cheered – publicly or privately – when terror leaders like bin Laden were hunted down by other powers. The hypocrisy is "rank," as one Israeli deputy ambassador put it, because it demands of Israel a renunciation of its right to self-defense that no UN member would ever accept for their own country.

The persistence of this bias, as Danon and others have charged, is more than rhetorical. It warps both the legitimacy of the UN and the prospects for any honest debate about international law and norms. Criticism of Israeli actions is not inherently unjustified – but when such criticism is meted out with manifestly different criteria, it undermines the Council's credibility and emboldens bad actors who know the world's outrage is highly selective.

The Danon-Ahmad confrontation should stand as a warning. Until the world's leading deliberative body can address terrorism and self-defense without fear or favor, its pronouncements will continue to ring hollow. The real victims of this hypocrisy are not only Israelis and Palestinians but the entire mission the Security Council purports to uphold.

Eve Epstein, Ph.D., is the founder and principal of Epstein & Associates, a strategic communications and media management firm located in New York City. She has advised a two-term UN Secretary General and other top UN officials throughout the Secretariat and related UN agencies.

The post High Drama: Pakistan seethes, Security Council stunned as Danon eviscerates UN terror apologists appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Secretary-General António Guterres has systematically abandoned the UN Charter's mandate for neutrality, particularly regarding the Middle East. His persistent moral equivalence between democratic nations defending themselves and terrorist organizations has created an unprecedented diplomatic rupture. For the first time in UN history, a sitting Secretary-General has been declared persona non grata by a member state. Israel's designation of Guterres reflects not diplomatic pique but a fundamental breakdown in trust that renders mediation impossible.

Neutrality is essential for a Secretary-General. Effective mediation requires the confidence of all parties. Guterres lost this trust when he failed to unequivocally condemn Iran's missile attacks deliberately targeting Israeli civilians, including a hospital, while simultaneously criticizing Israel's defensive responses. His statements often portray Israeli self-defense as disproportionate, while minimizing or contextualizing attacks by Iran and its proxies. Nor did he cooperate with Israeli and American humanitarian aid efforts in Gaza. Article 100 of the UN Charter requires the Secretary-General's neutrality. By abandoning it through selective condemnations, double standards, and inflammatory rhetoric, Guterres has violated his fundamental obligation and rendered himself ineffective as a peace broker.

Complicating matters is Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who is seen within UN circles as Guterres' "alter-ego" and "surrogate son." Since October 7, Türk has issued a stream of specious statements accusing Israel of "collective punishment," "war crimes," and "forced displacement"—claims that Guterres then amplifies. This coordination creates an echo chamber that reinforces bias instead of fostering objective analysis. Their pronouncements, echoed throughout the UN, appear to be designed to influence international judicial bodies and contribute to public hysteria, campus protests that threaten Jewish students, and a surge in antisemitic violence worldwide.  I have witnessed first-hand how anyone within the UN who fails to regurgitate their talking points is subjected to death threats, intimidation and effective termination: This was the case with a brave individual I had the privilege of working with--the former UN Under-Secretary General for Genocide Prevention, who rightly refused to call Israeli actions in Gaza, following Hamas savagery on Oct. 7, a genocide.

The seamless messaging between Guterres and Türk suggests a predetermined narrative that elevates certain political positions over objective assessment. When the UN's top officials act as force multipliers for the Palestinian and Iranian narratives, they forfeit their credibility as mediators and become partisan actors in the very conflicts they claim to resolve.

The parallels to the Waldheim era are striking. Waldheim's concealed Nazi connections eventually destroyed the UN's moral authority; Guterres' open prejudice now renders the organization irrelevant in the very conflicts where leadership is most needed. Waldheim's effectiveness was partially preserved because his biases remained hidden; Guterres, by contrast, has made his prejudices explicit, destroying his utility as a neutral facilitator. Both leaders presided over the UN during periods when its relevance was questioned. Waldheim was criticized for condemning Israel's Entebbe rescue operation while remaining silent about Idi Amin's support for the Munich massacre. He led the UN during the passage of the "Zionism is Racism" resolution, which Secretary General Kofi Annan later called "a low point in history." Similarly, Guterres condemns Israeli and American defensive actions while excusing or minimizing terrorism that threatens the free world.

Guterres' recent criticism of US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities – conducted in coordination with Israel for defensive purposes – exemplifies his misplaced priorities. Following the attack, Guterres stated, "I am deeply alarmed by the recent US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, which risks escalating tensions in an already volatile region." His statements are a slap in the face to President Trump, who characterized the operation as a necessary step to protect American interests and allies.

By condemning these actions as threats to "international peace and security" while consistently downplaying Iranian aggression, Guterres has provided the Trump administration with a compelling rationale for UN defunding. Iran and its proxies have killed hundreds of Americans since 1979, with Pentagon estimates confirming at least 603 US deaths in Iraq alone, and broader estimates exceeding 1,000 Americans killed in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and recent incidents. Multiple conspirators linked to Tehran have been charged in plots to assassinate President Trump.

President Trump's executive order withdrawing from UN agencies and reviewing financial contributions reflects growing American frustration with an organization perceived as hostile to US interests and allies. When the Secretary-General criticizes American and Israeli self-defense while remaining largely silent about Iranian terrorism, he validates arguments that the UN has become a forum for anti-Western sentiment rather than genuine peacekeeping and effective conflict resolution.

The real victims of Guterres' approach are UN staff now facing massive layoffs under the UN80 reform initiative. Proposed cuts of 20 percent in key departments stem directly from declining American support, itself a consequence of the Secretary-General's partisan positions. Staff concerned about job losses should direct their frustration not at member states withdrawing support, but at leadership that has made such withdrawals inevitable by abandoning neutrality.

The UN now faces a stark choice: continue prioritizing ideological positioning over effective mediation, or return to the Charter's founding principles of neutrality and objectivity. Guterres has shown himself incapable of this recalibration, remaining fixated on Israel even as it destroys the organization's credibility. The Waldheim era taught us that concealed bias eventually destroys institutional legitimacy; the Guterres era demonstrates that open bias is even more corrosive, immediately undermining the UN's ability to fulfill its core mission. Until leadership changes course – or changes altogether – the organization will remain irrelevant in the very conflicts where the world most needs effective international mediation.

Eve Epstein is a communications strategist who has advised top UN officials, including a two-term Secretary-General. She is the principal and founder of Epstein & Associates, located in NYC.

The post Guterres' UN bias makes American withdrawal inevitable appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.