When Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam stated that Donald Trump deserved “tremendous” praise for his role in brokering a peace process in Gaza, the comments appeared entirely detached from the deeper reality of US involvement in the crisis.
The statement, made on 9 October 2025, hailed Trump’s “personal interest” in facilitating a ceasefire and release of hostages, and credited him with creating “more hope than there was previously.”
However, this portrayal omits one crucial fact: the United States, including under Trump’s leadership, actively enabled this war to continue for almost two years.
Since the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza conflict on 7 October 2023, the United States has vetoed six United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions that called for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire, including on 4 June and 18 September 2025, months after Trump’s inauguration on 20 January 2025.
Each of those vetoes represented an opportunity to halt the war and prevent further devastation in Gaza. Instead, Washington’s repeated rejections allowed the conflict to escalate.
By the time the current ceasefire proposal emerged, at least 67,194 Palestinians had been killed in Israel’s war on Gaza, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Many more remain missing and are presumed to be buried beneath the rubble.
Among the dead are over 20,000 children. Israel’s military campaign has dropped an estimated 200,000 tonnes of explosives—the equivalent of 13 Hiroshima bombs, according to Gaza authorities.
These bombs were not theoretical weapons. They were supplied, in large part, by the United States.
As such, to portray Trump’s involvement as purely peacemaking is to ignore the material and diplomatic support that made the conflict possible. The US was not a passive observer—it was a critical enabler.
Moreover, Trump’s apparent shift toward peace was not necessarily the product of moral conviction, but of changing political realities.
According to a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted between 22 and 27 September 2025, American public opinion has undergone a dramatic shift.
While 47% of voters sided with Israel in October 2023, only 34% now support Israel, with 35% expressing sympathy for Palestinians—a reversal of prior trends. Notably, support has dropped even among Republican voters, signalling a rare bipartisan erosion.
Approximately 60% of Americans now oppose additional economic or military aid to Israel, and 40% believe Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, nearly double the 2023 figure.
These are not marginal changes. As the New York Times observed, this represents one of the most significant shifts in US public opinion on a foreign policy issue in decades.
The erosion of support is occurring in a hyper-polarised political environment, and reflects growing public revulsion at the scale of destruction in Gaza.
In that context, Trump’s move to back a ceasefire can be seen not as a bold act of statesmanship, but as a reaction to overwhelming domestic pressure. It was not leadership—it was political necessity.
Israel’s capacity to carry out its campaign has always depended on unwavering US diplomatic cover and weapons supply. Without these, the war would not have continued at this scale.
The notion that Trump “influenced” Israel to change course ignores the more uncomfortable truth: he could have stopped it much earlier, but chose not to.
For Shanmugam—a senior Singaporean minister responsible for national security—to frame the US role as laudable without reference to this broader reality is deeply troubling.
Singapore has historically taken a balanced and cautious stance on international affairs, especially in conflict zones. At times, this caution has given way to principled clarity — as seen in Singapore’s swift condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and its decision to impose targeted sanctions in defiance of great power pressures.
But praising a figure whose administration vetoed peace, enabled mass civilian deaths, and supplied the bombs that devastated Gaza undermines the credibility of that neutrality. It suggests that Singapore’s principles may be applied inconsistently — and that political alignment, rather than moral clarity, is guiding its response to the Gaza war.
Other democratic nations, in response to the same atrocities, have taken far more decisive action.
Countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Ireland have formally recognised the State of Palestine, joining more than 150 countries worldwide. These acts go beyond symbolism—they represent a growing international consensus that Palestinian statehood is essential for any viable, lasting peace.
Yet Shanmugam has taken a markedly different stance. Speaking at the Middle East Institute’s annual conference on 2 September 2025, he warned that recognising a Palestinian state “very immediately” might actually harm the Palestinian cause.
He questioned whether recognition, in the absence of a “viable government” or “viable two-state solution”, would “advance or hurt” Palestinian interests.
He argued that such recognition would not change “facts on the ground” and could even undermine Palestinians’ long-term position.
But this view misreads the political moment.
The global tide of recognition has not been an academic gesture—it has been a concrete attempt to shift political pressure and restrain Israel’s ongoing assault, which the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have described as genocide.
The recognition of Palestine by major democracies has strengthened international legal momentum and isolated Israel diplomatically in ways that go beyond symbolism. This shift has made space for concrete political consequences—including arms embargoes, sanctions, and a growing wave of public and legal challenges against those complicit in the war.
Crucially, this cumulative international pressure—including diplomatic recognition, ICJ proceedings, and the largest global protests against Israel in decades—has helped force a change in Israel’s posture.
The current ceasefire proposal did not emerge from US influence alone. It was driven by the relentless mobilisation of civil society, international condemnation, and a shifting moral consensus across democratic states.
Singapore has been notably absent from this tide. While its officials have voiced concern over civilian casualties, the government has not joined calls for a ceasefire, has not recognised Palestine, has not participated in arms restrictions, and has avoided public support for the international legal proceedings that have helped push this ceasefire into being.
Singapore’s authorities instead investigated and cautioned individuals who spoke out against Israel’s actions or expressed support for Gaza. In one instance, three Singaporean women who were part of a group delivering petitions on the Palestinian cause were charged in court, accused of organising a pro-Palestinian procession to the Istana.
This passivity stands in stark contrast to the actions of many peer nations—and raises serious questions about Singapore’s commitment to upholding international law, human rights, and moral leadership.
Shanmugam’s earlier remarks suggest a passive, wait-and-see approach that ultimately delays justice.
In the face of overwhelming civilian deaths and displacement, the suggestion that recognition must wait until the conditions are perfect ignores the urgency of the crisis and the lessons of history. It also downplays the impact of global moral and legal legitimacy in confronting systemic violence.
Singapore, by contrast to these other nations, has remained hesitant. While it has issued statements condemning the scale of civilian casualties—calling the destruction “unconscionable” and saying that Israel’s actions “have gone too far”—it has not formally acknowledged the war as a genocide.
When asked directly in Parliament whether Singapore would label Israel’s actions as such, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan deferred to the International Court of Justice, noting that it had “not yet arrived at a verdict.”
This legalistic neutrality, while diplomatically safe, does little to reckon with the scale and immediacy of the humanitarian catastrophe.
Furthermore, there has been no public disclosure or denial of whether Singapore maintains any defence trade relationships with Israel, raising difficult but necessary questions about the government’s transparency and consistency.
This silence—combined with the remarks made in praise of Trump’s role—risks sending the signal that Singapore is out of step with the global consensus and unwilling to take meaningful positions in moments that demand moral clarity.
To be clear, the ceasefire and hostage release agreement now being discussed is a welcome development. But praising the arsonist for helping to control the fire, while ignoring who poured the fuel and blocked the exits, is not just short-sighted—it is a moral failure.
Peace in Gaza must be pursued with urgency. But it also demands accountability. That begins with recognising who helped perpetuate the war, who blocked its resolution, and who profited—politically or materially—while thousands died.
And it must extend to those who remained silent, or worse, discouraged meaningful international actions—when silence cost lives.
The post Praising Trump for Gaza ceasefire ignores US complicity and six UN vetoes appeared first on The Online Citizen.
