The recent walkouts during speeches at the United Nations raise an uncomfortable question: Is the world’s response to state violence becoming selective? Israel’s military operation in Gaza, launched after the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, has become one of the most controversial conflicts of the modern era. According to Israeli authorities, Hamas killed around 1,200 people in Israel and took 251 hostages. Subsequently, Israel launched a massive air and ground campaign in Gaza, saying its objective was to dismantle Hamas and rescue the hostages. According to Gaza health officials, by September 2026, more than 73,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed. This figure that does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. The scale of destruction and civilian suffering in Gaza has generated international condemnation and allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2024, alleging responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The warrant is an ICC judicial action, not a UN arrest order, and Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and allegations. The controversy over Netanyahu’s international travel is also complicated. Canada, for example, has previously said it would respect its obligations under the ICC framework. However, Canadian officials said separately that overflight policy is not automatically linked to law-enforcement objectives, unless there is an imminent security risk. But there is another side to this debate that we simply cannot ignore. Iran, under the Islamic Republic, has a long record of suppressing political dissent. The country has witnessed mass executions, violent crackdowns on protesters, arbitrary arrests, and severe restrictions on civil liberties. Amnesty International estimates that thousands of political prisoners were executed in 1988, while Human Rights Watch has described those executions as crimes against humanity. The repression has not remained a single chapter in history. During the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests, hundreds of people were killed. The crackdown following the nationwide protests of late 2025 and early 2026 was even more severe. Amnesty International reported that the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran had cited an estimate of at least 5,000 people killed. Further information suggesting the number could have been as high as 50,000. Iranian authorities themselves acknowledged thousands of deaths, although the exact figure remains disputed. Likewise, Human Rights Watch reported that Iranian security forces carried out mass killings of protesters and bystanders during the January 2026 crackdown, with the death toll reaching the thousands. So the question becomes unavoidable: Where was the same level of international outrage when Iranian authorities were killing protesters inside Iran? More specifically, why does the world watch walkouts and diplomatic gestures surrounding Israeli speeches, while Iranian leaders continue to appear on the same international stage without protest? There is, of course, an important distinction. A walkout does not measure whether the United Nations condemns a government for its actions. The UN and its human-rights mechanisms have repeatedly criticized Iran’s executions and repression. In 2025, the UN Human Rights Office reported that Iranian authorities had executed at least 841 people by August 28th alone. However, public perception matters. When diplomats physically leave the hall during one leader’s speech, while another leader representing a government accused of similar, severe human-rights abuses receives an international platform, people naturally question whether the standards are consistent. The United Nations was created to uphold principles that should apply beyond geography, religion, political alliances, or military power. Palestinian lives matter. Israeli lives matter. Iranian lives matter. The victims of Hamas matter. The victims of state repression in Iran matter. Condemning one government does not require silence about another’s actions. Opposing Hamas terrorism should not mean ignoring Palestinian civilian suffering. Supporting Iranian protesters should not mean casting aside the suffering of Israelis. The real question, therefore, is not simply “Who walked out?” It is: “Does the international community apply the same moral and legal standards to every government, or do geopolitics decide whose suffering receives the loudest response?” If the United Nations is truly an institution for all peoples, its credibility ultimately depends on whether it defends human rights consistently—even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
By Suzzy Majumder
South Africa is infamous for a long history of enforcing violent and racist policies under the Apartheid system. From 1948 to 1994, virtually all political power in the country was held by the white minority, which forced the Black, Coloured, and Indian populations to live in designated areas under squalid conditions without full citizenship rights. Consequently, South Africa was the premier example of a pariah state during the second half of the 20th century, resulting in mass economic, diplomatic, and cultural boycotts. This backlash was successful in starving the Apartheid Regime, which resulted in universal suffrage that allowed Nelson Mandela to become the country’s first Black president. He peacefully transitioned South Africa to democracy and a race-blind meritocracy, easing decades of interracial tensions and violence. But instead of continuing his nonviolent legacy towards reconciliation, his successors have instituted a new form of Apartheid that has stifled prosperity for South Africans of every race. The African National Congress (ANC), Mandela’s party, has been rife with corruption since the end of his presidency. The party has implemented numerous laws discriminating against the non-Black population under the guise of empowering historically disadvantaged ethnic groups. For example, one of these laws, The Employment Equality Act, mandates race-based quotas for businesses’ hiring designed to limit white employment. Similarly, The Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act of 2000 gives preference in awarding government contractors based on factors that include race. And perhaps the most destructive, the Broad-based Black Empowerment Act requires businesses in certain sectors to have at least 30% black ownership. The result of each of these laws, no matter how much their names try to sound uplifting in contrast to the dreadful Apartheid era, have had disastrous consequences largely for South African’s black population, ironically. Elon Musk has attempted to bring satellite internet to South Africa’s impoverished communities, but his Starlink has been blocked from operating due to insufficient black ownership that violates the BB Black Empowerment Act. The law also has cost up to 4% of South Africa’s GDP in compliance costs and bureaucracy navigation alone, and with the others only moves the country away from meritocracy that would allow the most qualified businessmen of any race to generate wealth to reverse the country’s economic decline. Over a third of Black South Africans are unemployed, and the country has the world’s highest Gini Coefficient for income inequality. In terms of health, life expectancy has been worsened by the AIDS epidemic, and infrastructure challenges have brought long blackouts and poor road quality. But instead of allowing the training of doctors and engineers purely based on talent, South African universities use intense affirmative action that puts race before academic qualifications. Not coincidentally, much of the White population with valuable economic skills has emigrated in recent decades to Western countries, leaving a shrinking pool of talent for the country. High-ranking members of other South African parties, such as Julius Malema, continue to worsen racial tensions by ignoring or even encouraging violence against white farmer communities. This has led to President Trump accepting many of said farmers as refugees, taking away what could be a vital food source for an economically struggling country. But his response to the new form of South African Apartheid, even including sanctions on many key ANC figures, will not be enough unless it is copied on a global scale reminiscent of the country’s isolation before 1994.
By Edward Kim
On September 13, a Russian drone struck a passenger train near the Polish border, minutes after a delegation of senior Western officials – among them former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt – had passed through the station. Two days later, NATO fighter jets shot down a drone that entered Lithuanian airspace overnight. While officials are investigating the origins of this drone, they have also said that these drones were carrying explosives, and that this was the first interception of this kind done in Lithuania’s history. Lithuania, a small nation in eastern Europe, borders Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave, and is thus potentially vulnerable to Russian military action. Then, on September 17th, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned parliament that Russia is planning strikes on NATO countries, especially those who have provided support to Ukraine amidst the Ukraine-Russia war. “According to intelligence assessments, Russia’s plan … includes hybrid drone and missile strikes against countries supporting Ukraine, including Poland,” Tusk said. Russia may not invade, but it is building the apparatus for an escalation, testing the line that NATO holds. The Potential Threat The most telling evidence of potential escalation comes from looking at how European nations are responding. Germany, for example, is preparing its hospitals for a potential Russian attack on NATO, according to Bloomberg. In a report that modeled possible scenarios, the German army estimated that the hospitals could receive as many as 1,000 wounded service members a day. Furthermore, on Thursday, September 17th, Finnish President Alexander Stubb told his country it was “worth mentally preparing for something to happen”, including a potential escalation of Russian military action. It is worth noting that Finland borders Russia, a border that spans 1340 kilometers (833 miles), making it the largest border shared between the Russians and a NATO member. French President Emmanuel Macron, on September 18th, summoned party leaders and France’s 2027 presidential candidates for an emergency meeting to discuss the Ukraine-Russia war, the Iran war, and the oil crisis. European leaders are using their position in the public’s eye to sound the alarm. This does not mean that an attack on Europe and NATO-aligned countries is imminent, but it does point towards a priming effect, where the public is made aware of what could well be an escalation. This could also be a strategy for Europe to deter Russian action, sending the signal to Moscow that any attempt to cross into NATO territory, or probe it with drone attacks, will be met with force. A Drone War Preceding Something Larger? Russia’s strategy of escalation is to take small steps to blur the lines of what is considered acceptable. Drone strikes in Poland, drone activity in Lithuania, and probing of airspace, through what are called “hybrid” attacks, allow Russia to enter a grey zone. Escalate in seemingly subtle yet deniable ways, and Europe can – in the name of restraint – decide not to act on it. This probing method is a tool that is used to test a target before pushing forward with a deeper, large-scale invasion. Europe is responding by emphasizing preparation, trying to project unity, and signaling to the Russians the cost of any Russian invasion of NATO-aligned countries. Is a Russian invasion a plausible threat in the near future? We do not know, but the signals are not encouraging. Ukraine has also escalated, launching hundreds of drones at Moscow on Sunday, September 20th; the attack targeted oil refineries and killed 3 people. This is part of a broader Ukrainian drone campaign to weaken Russia’s oil production, a key part of Moscow’s plan to keep Russia afloat amidst the war: Russian crude oil throughput, 2024-2027 Image source: IEA Ukraine has effectively been able to hang on in this war, with Western support. And as their technology has improved, their drone attacks on Russian oil infrastructure have proven to be more effective and sustained. Russia, therefore, has been struggling to maintain crude oil output, as we can see a sharp drop starting in June of 2026. Thus, we are seeing escalation on both sides. Ukraine is conducting more effective attacks on Moscow, and Russia is moving to use drone attacks on Ukraine-allied NATO nations. The Lesson Of 2022 The question remains, however, whether the recent alarm is part of a broader unease that the war will escalate beyond Russia and Ukraine. Would Russia be willing enough to do a ground invasion on the eastern front, thereby directly involving NATO countries like France and Germany in a hot war? It seems implausible, but then again, before 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seemed implausible, even as Western intel found Russian troop buildup across the Ukraine-Russia border. This intel, which was made public, preceded the invasion of Ukraine, which happened days later. Interestingly, at the time, the U.S. struggled to convince allies about the threat, who openly doubted that Putin was seriously preparing an invasion. Zelensky himself spent months dismissing the warnings, publicly urging Ukrainians to stay calm rather than stock up, and insisting he did not believe a major war was coming that year. The disbelief seemed psychological. Analysts could not fathom that Russia, in the 21st-century world order, would rationally commit to a large-scale, land invasion of Ukraine. I shared that skepticism at the time, thinking it would be an absolutely foolish move on Moscow’s part, given Russia’s investments in weakening Ukraine through other means, such as funding rebels in eastern Ukraine. The world would be wrong to underestimate Russia’s brazenness again. In the same way that a Russian invasion of Latvia or Poland seems unthinkable and irrational, the same logic was used to dismiss claims of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. If NATO is well prepared, it will learn from these mistakes. Perhaps that is why Europe is ringing the alarm bells. There is, however, the potential risk of overcorrection. Baltic states, including Estonia’s Secretary General, have tried to de-escalate claims about an imminent invasion to dampen any panic. This is an interesting
By Vaibhav Sinha
Follow Us