Everywhere Insiders 17: Annexation, UN Arrears, Uyghurs, Statehood
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discusses the optics of UNGA80 over its outcomes, President Trump’s stated opposition to West Bank annexation, and U.S. arrears that limit UN reform. She contrasts China’s “stability” narrative with repression of Uyghurs and extradition pressure, and notes Nepal and Bangladesh developments reflect influence, not orchestration. On Palestinian statehood recognitions, she argues unconditional moves empower authoritarian actors and should be tied to elections, hostages’ release, demilitarization, and rights commitments. She urges Western leaders to back a Palestinian transitional authority, cautioning that symbolic gestures, sanctions, and information warfare harden factions and prolong conflict.
Interview conducted September 26, 2025.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here for Everywhere Insiders. Most oversized item: UNGA80. Any thoughts on the state of play? Many statements by significant and influential people, but any thoughts from you?
Irina Tsukerman: The logistical drama—stuck escalator, teleprompter glitch—set the tone more than any policy breakthrough. Both incidents occurred on the opening day of the General Debate on September 23, 2025. On substance: President Trump publicly said he would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. That was his stated position as of September 26, 2025. Analysts note follow-through is uncertain, and Netanyahu’s coalition had mixed views on annexation. Trump’s UN address ran about 56–57 minutes—not nearly two hours—and focused on migration, climate, and a broad critique of multilateralism.
Regarding UN funding, the United States carries arrears estimated in the billions and has proposed paying far less than its assessed contributions for FY2026—constraints that make it challenging to advance major UN reform initiatives. Member states risk losing their vote if their arrears exceed the dues for the previous two years. China branded itself an “island of stability,” but the record is mixed. There’s no verified evidence that Beijing directs Hamas propaganda on TikTok; what we do know is that there’s an ongoing debate about TikTok’s role in shaping narratives on the Israel–Hamas war.
Regionally, Nepal saw large youth-led protests this month; Beijing publicly called for order, but isn’t orchestrating the unrest. Bangladesh experienced a 2024 mass uprising, leading to Sheikh Hasina’s resignation and the establishment of a caretaker government; since then, Dhaka has edged closer to China on specific projects. That’s influence, not proof of a China-run coup. Bottom line: UNGA80 opened on September 9, 2025, with the General Debate running from September 23 to 27 and 29. The week featured sharp rhetoric, a U.S. pledge against West Bank annexation, big talk on reform but little concrete movement—constrained by U.S. arrears and politics.
Jacobsen: The Uyghurs—that’s barely on the agenda anymore.
Tsukerman: There has also been recent interference with Tibet and other places. China has been trying to extradite fleeing Uyghur activists from different countries with mixed success. It claims to be concerned with national security, but many of these activists are simply critics of China. They have no links to militant activity, not even armed self-defence. Countries complying with China’s extradition demands against peaceful activists are violating asylum obligations under treaties many of them have signed. This is deeply disturbing and undercuts China’s claim that its detention facilities are for re-educating revolutionaries. In reality, the Uyghurs as a whole are being targeted.
Jacobsen: As a side note, I’d like your opinion. We often see hesitation to act against powerful nations with large militaries or those with Security Council vetoes, such as Russia under Putin. Does the same hold, even more so, for the United States or China?
Tsukerman: Definitely for China. We have seen no enforceable action against it. With the United States, it’s not only the veto power. The U.S. has positioned itself as a democracy, and while many disagree with its foreign policies, it has not been accused of genocide on the scale of the Uyghur genocide, which the U.S. officially recognized during Trump’s first term. Since the creation of the UN, the U.S. has not been accused of genocide in that sense. That could change, especially given that Trump has alienated nearly everyone in one way or another. Ironically, he may gain support from Russia and China, since he has given them much of what they want, despite their hostility. It’s unclear whether moves through UN institutions could directly affect the U.S., but American influence is already eroding, with allies joining other blocs or voting against U.S. positions.
Jacobsen: Four countries—Portugal, the U.K., Australia, and Canada—have recently recognized Palestinian statehood, pushing the total number of recognitions into the 150s. These are national positions, not UN actions. In 2012, Palestine received UN observer state status, ranking slightly above the Holy See, and in 2024, it was granted additional privileges. Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu condemned Western countries for embracing Palestinian statehood, accusing them of sending the message that “murdering Jews pays off.” He stated he rejected this recognition “in the harshest terms.” He added that France, Britain, Australia, Canada, and others recognized Palestinian statehood after the horrors of October 7, 2023, which he said were praised by nearly 90% of Palestinians. He called that “a mark of shame.” Strong language and starkly divided views continue to dominate one of the most important international events each year. What are your thoughts so far?
Tuskerman: This is not helping Palestinians, who remain divided and under authoritarian, corrupt governments. Abbas claimed the Palestinian Authority would reform, appointed his successor, and promised elections. Yet there have been no honest elections in about 18 years. With Hamas, the situation is worse. They have killed their opposition and recently executed individuals accused of collaborating with Israel. Whether those accusations were true or not is irrelevant—these could easily have been critics of Hamas targeted under pretenses.
The fact that these organizations claim to represent Palestinians, and that recognition was given unconditionally rather than tied to free and fair elections or transparent, human-rights-abiding governance, is a disservice to Palestinians more than to Israel. Israel will defend itself regardless, and these political gestures do not change that. Real pressure on Israel would require sanctions, economic isolation, or ruptures with allies, not symbolic recognition.
What recognition without conditions does is encourage terrorist organizations to claim legitimacy. If Hamas and others are treated as de facto governments, why should they cooperate with mediators like Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, Egypt, or Israel? This dynamic prolongs conflict rather than resolving it.
Recognition could have been conditional on reforms: releasing hostages, Hamas stepping down, recognizing Israel as a state, committing to peace and security, and signing international human rights obligations. Even if Palestinians chose a monarchy, it should be under legitimate frameworks, not the arbitrary control of leaders who shift positions for convenience. Without durable institutions, current actors are incentivized to cling to power and continue fighting for survival.
Meanwhile, they claim propaganda victories, which allows them to recruit more followers. The message they present is: “After a horrific terrorist attack, we gained international recognition.” That message is not only to Palestinians but to the entire region: this is the way to pressure Israel and the global community. It radicalizes the area further and emboldens factions in the West that fund or promote Hamas and similar groups.
On the ground, politically, nothing has changed. However, recognition can strengthen the bad actors already in place. It is possible to pressure Israel politically without handing victories to extremists. Western leaders could work with Palestinians seeking to remove their corrupt leadership toward a civilian transitional authority committed to de-radicalization and demilitarization. Instead, Western leaders rushed to gain approval from constituencies and signal foreign policy relevance, without considering the consequences—the information warfare and political fallout. That is precisely what we will see: no improvement for Israelis or Palestinians, and rising demands from the same constituencies. These demands may go beyond aid or ceasefires and include unilateral sanctions against Israel, without enforcing sanctions on Hamas or its enablers, such as Qatar. We are already seeing this. The European Commission has threatened sanctions on Israeli trade while doing nothing to pressure Qatar, which continues to host Hamas’s political leadership. These are destabilizing signals and certainly not conducive to resolving the conflict.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 
As a father from Gaza, I fear for my kids' future. Will they ever know peace?
LikeLike
Remote Reply
Original Comment URL
Your Profile