The Board of Hypocrisy Part 1

When global powers speak about new peace structures and international boards, the language sounds responsible and visionary. It suggests leadership. It suggests stability. But behind carefully chosen words lies a dangerous reality. Donald Trump and the United States are playing a high stakes geopolitical game in which Israel’s security, and potentially its very existence, becomes part of a broader power calculation.

Empowering or aligning with countries that struggle with democratic credibility and human rights concerns while claiming to construct a framework for regional peace exposes a deep contradiction. It is not a strategy rooted in moral clarity. It is political theater.

Let us examine a few of the countries often positioned as relevant stakeholders.

Qatar is an absolute monarchy ruled by the Al Thani family. Political parties are not permitted, and executive authority rests with the emir, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. While advisory elections for part of the Shura Council were introduced in 2021, ultimate political power remains concentrated within the ruling family. Qatar is not a liberal democracy.

Women in Qatar are highly educated and active in professional life, yet elements of male guardianship continue to influence personal status issues. Migrant workers, who make up the majority of the population, have long faced scrutiny under the kafala sponsorship system despite recent reforms. Freedom of expression remains restricted, and criticism of the government can carry legal consequences.

Qatar does not formally recognize Israel. Doha hosts senior leaders of Hamas, which governs Gaza and is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union. At the same time, Qatar positions itself as a mediator during Gaza conflicts, facilitating financial transfers and ceasefire negotiations. Officially, it supports a two state solution based on the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as capital of a future Palestinian state.

Mediator or power broker. The distinction matters.

Indonesia is a democratic republic with a multiparty system and directly elected leadership. The current president is Prabowo Subianto. Since the fall of authoritarian rule in 1998, Indonesia has held competitive elections and experienced peaceful transfers of power.

Women participate widely in education and public life, yet regional disparities remain. In certain provinces, conservative religious bylaws affect women’s dress and conduct. Religious minorities sometimes face discrimination, and blasphemy laws have been used against minority communities.

Indonesia has never recognized Israel and remains one of the most consistent supporters of Palestinian statehood in international forums. Recognition of Israel is officially conditioned upon the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Kazakhstan is officially a presidential republic, but political power has historically been concentrated in the executive branch. Long time leader Nursultan Nazarbayev shaped a centralized system from independence in 1991 until 2019. His successor, Kassym Jomart Tokayev, has introduced limited reforms, though opposition and independent media remain constrained.

Elections are held, yet international observers have questioned their competitiveness. Public protests have at times been met with force. Women are active in education and employment, but domestic violence remains a serious concern, and legal protections have fluctuated.

Kazakhstan maintains diplomatic relations with Israel while also supporting Palestinian statehood within a two state framework. Its approach is largely pragmatic rather than ideological.

Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic with a multiparty system. The prime minister serves as head of government, while the president has a more ceremonial role. However, the military has historically exercised strong influence over politics, at times directly ruling the country.

Elections are held regularly, but political instability and tensions between civilian leaders and the military continue to shape governance. Women have constitutional rights and reserved representation in parliament, yet gender inequality remains pronounced. Forced marriage, honor killings, and limited economic participation in some regions remain serious challenges.

Religious minorities, including Christians, Hindus, and Ahmadis, face discrimination and vulnerability under strict blasphemy laws. Freedom of expression is limited, particularly regarding religion and criticism of the military.

Pakistan does not recognize Israel. Its founding leadership, including Muhammad Ali Jinnah, opposed the creation of Israel in 1947. Official policy maintains that recognition depends on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Public opinion remains overwhelmingly pro Palestinian.

So here we are. A proposed peace framework in which some participants do not recognize Israel at all. Others host or legitimize actors committed to Israel’s destruction. Several struggle with democratic credibility within their own borders.

Perhaps it would have been wiser to reduce external power projection rather than expand it. Perhaps the immediate regional actors should carry primary responsibility. Jordan. Israel. Lebanon. Syria. Gaza.

If the United States and Russia truly seek stability, they could begin by committing to dismantling terrorist infrastructures in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza. Peace is not created by declarations. It is created by removing the forces that perpetuate violence.

Leadership that gambles with Israel’s security while empowering regimes with their own internal contradictions is not bold. It is reckless.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)