The Condemnation Cycle: A Familiar Performance
CASE A: The Current Condemnation – A Dance We've All Mastered France 24 reports on Arab states expressing 'strong condemnation' and 'rejection' of Israel's latest declaration of state land in the occupied West Bank. Specifically, the report notes, "Jordan described the Israeli move as a 'flagrant violation' of international law and a 'serious escalation,' while Egypt's foreign ministry said the
actions were 'illegitimate.'" The article correctly identifies the scale of the appropriation: "Israel on Friday declared 8,000 dunams (nearly 2,000 acres) in the Jordan Valley area of the occupied West Bank as state land." One might wonder why, after decades of such 'violations,' the condemnations always sound exactly the same. It's almost as if the language is less about stopping the actions and
more about maintaining a certain image. CASE B: Historical Precedent – When Words Failed to Deter Curiously, the current condemnations echo strikingly similar language used over four decades ago. Following Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights in 1981, a move universally condemned as illegal under international law (UN Security Council Resolution 497, 1981), Arab states, including Syria and
Saudi Arabia, issued equally 'strong condemnations.' The rhetoric then was nearly identical: 'flagrant violation,' 'null and void,' 'illegitimate.' Yet, despite this chorus of disapproval, the Golan Heights remain annexed, and the international community, including many Arab states, eventually normalized relations or tacitly accepted the new reality. The pattern is clear: rhetorical outrage serves