International law theoretically prohibits aggression, permitting the use of force, but only in self-defense or with United Nations authorization. Yet in reality, powerful nations and their allies frequently manipulate these rules to demonstrate their arrogance. The 2003 invasion of Iraq led by America and Britain, later condemned by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as violation of the UN Charter, is a glaring example of this arrogance. Similarly, USA drone strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria killing thousands of civilians go unaccounted for. Meanwhile, smaller and non-Western states face severe consequences for their comparable actions. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres cautioned in 2024, the world has entered into an “age of impunity,” where some flout international law without consequence.
We all know that Western actions are routinely exempted from scrutiny. The USA led Iraq War launched under dubious pretenses was later called “illegal” yet the UN failed to take any action. The USA conducted thousands of air strikes (drone and manned) across the Middle East and the UN was helpless to stop aggression. Ukrainian fighters resisting Russian aggression are armed by Europe and the USA, while Palestinian or Syrian groups doing the same are labeled terrorists. An analyst puts a reasonable question before the world conscience: “Which form of resistance do we consider legitimate”? Why are “Ukrainians… armed by Western countries” called heroes, but “Palestinians… bombed with the USA support” are deemed terrorists?
In the recent past Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, targeting Iranian, Hezbollah, and their bases. The key western powers provided shields to Israeli strikes. Yet the international response was surprisingly weak. Each raid was presented as “self-defense” against terror threats. The UN remained helpless because the USA conveniently vetoed resolutions for peaceful settlement and provided diplomatic cover to Israel. Qatar's envoy in the UN complained: “There is no deterrent on Israel if repeated violations of international law go unpunished”.
The UN experts and NGOs opine that this immunity (selective) for Israel is blatant. The UN Secretary-General Guterres warned that some countries feel that they are free to violate the UN Charter or invade another country. His phrasing, an “age of impunity”, captures how Israel’s Western supporters view international law as a tool, not a limit. Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), an international humanitarian organization, blasted the USA for its veto of a Gaza ceasefire resolution and termed it “a veto against humanity”. Through its veto the US has signaled that international humanitarian law can be applied selectively and that the lives of some people matter less than the lives of others. Likewise, Amnesty’s leader Agnes Callamard denounced the veto as a “brazen” weaponization of American power that undermines the UN’s credibility.
What does this mean on the ground? While the Israeli government carries out strikes on Iran or Syria, no country and even the International Court of Justice intervene. In January 2024 the UN Security Council even failed to condemn an Israeli strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus. Israel carried out its strikes, from Gaza to Tehran, freely as if protected by a special mandate of “self-defense.” Some Human-rights groups argue that this status is manufactured and the international law permits it. An analyst bluntly observed, Israel “doesn’t operate outside the law; it moves within a legal framework that quietly permits its actions”. In other words, law is being applied precisely to favor powerful states, particularly Israel.
The Western governments themselves enforce these double standards. The USA, UK and European Union claim to uphold the rule of law globally, yet their actions often betray hypocrisy. For instance, in recent years, the Security Council overwhelmingly passed a ceasefire resolution for Gaza. The USA vetoed it with British remained absent. The international NGOs protested about the hegemony of a lone superpower over the UN only to please its ally. Meanwhile, the very countries that led the war on terror now scold others for terrorism. In the 1980s the USA backed the Taliban and projected them as “freedom fighters”. After the dismemberment of the Soviet Union it branded the same ‘freedom fighters’ as terrorists.
The UN resolutions denouncing Israeli occupation of Palestinians are largely ignored by America and its allies. In Geneva, powerful states insisted on discussing climate or trade, not the atrocities against the people of Gaza. According to Palestinian group Al-Haq, many Western capitals “swiftly imposed sanctions” on Russia after its attack on Ukraine, but they undermined efforts to even investigate Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. Their callous hypocrisy reveals a global hierarchy which means that sovereignty and human rights apply fully to some nations and partially to others.
Historical parallels drive the point home. In 2003, both the USA and UK invaded Iraq amidst accusation that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. The government of President Saddam Hussain was overthrown. After looting Iraq’s reserves and destroying its infrastructure they installed a puppet government and left. The invasion was a blatant violation of the UN charter but the world body maintained a criminal silence. Years later former British Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly acknowledged intelligence errors in the pre-war assessments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. “I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you can ever believe”, the English newspaper Guardian quoted Balir. Similarly, after 9/11 the USA waged decades of secret drone wars abroad, killing thousands of civilians but these strikes drew little protest from Western public. However, when a handful of Taliban killed NATO troops in Afghanistan they made a violent hue and cry.
Today’s pattern of power politics is clear. The institutions of international law allow it. A commentator argues, current global legal norms may not be failing, because they were framed to uphold existing power imbalances. Dominant states write the rules, define terrorism, and dole out consequences. When Israel strikes Iran or Lebanon, it is framed as entitled “self-defense.” When Palestinians or Syrians strike back they are branded outlaws.
Double standards of the Western media, in framing of conflicts, also goes in favour of Israel. For them white or European victims are more important than Arab and Muslim fighters whom they consider demonized. The western media covering Ukraine’s siege, for example, emphasized heroic defense of democracy by Ukrainian forces, flooding screens with images of brave soldiers and innocent refugees. On the contrary, Palestinians under siege are often dubbed as “human shields” for terrorism. A journalist Mat Nashed notes Western outlets “dehumanise Palestinians” and “legitimize Israeli violations of international law”, conveniently forgetting the half-century illegal occupation of Israel. Palestinians killed are rarely called “victims” in the headlines, whereas Israeli losses trigger tearful national solidarity.
Experts refer to this as racial and ideological bias. Former CNN reporter Arwa Damon observes that Western news still treats Muslims as ‘terrorists’ - a rhetoric of post‑9/11 stereotypes. One study noted that Palestinian fighters are almost automatically labeled terrorists, while Ukrainians carrying weapons are called volunteers. A new Humanitarian editorial asks: “Why do we expect Palestinians not to show resistance… while Israel is never accounted for its crimes against humanity?”. Indeed, Palestinians who appear on Western TV are often interrogated: “Will you condemn Hamas?” a condition not imposed on Israeli officials. This framing presumes Palestinians have no legitimate rights, while Israel’s claims of “self-defense” go unquestioned.
Media analysts sum it up: Western coverage helps to “elevate and perpetuate narratives that treat certain people as more human than others”. Europeans and Americans are viewed as civilized victims whereas the Middle Eastern fighters are largely seen as objects of counter-terrorism. According to a Palestinian academician this rhetoric portrays Palestinians not as oppressed but aggressors. The impact is deadly. The Westerns only see one side of the picture and appreciate strikes against Palestinians that would have been condemned if reversed.
These double standards undercut any claim that international law is a neutral guardian of justice. Brazil’s president put it at the UN, “the right to defense has become the right to vengeance.” If only certain actors are accounted for, the very idea of a rules-based order loses moral authority. Legal scholar Richard Falk and others have long warned that the “post-World War II makeover” of colonial power structures persisted under the UN façade. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently recalled that just as apartheid was condemned, “we will not remain silent and watch as apartheid is perpetrated against others. Angela Davis, a civil-society leader, echoed this by noting that equating Palestinian liberation with terrorism is sheer insult to their struggle for rights.
The facts speak volumes. Western states and Israel repeatedly violate the sovereignty of other small and weak countries with impunity, then insist on strict laws against them. This racial logic, labeling some “freedom fighters” and others “terrorists” based on ethnicity, has been criticized by human rights groups, legal experts and even the UN. Until these powers apply the same rules to themselves, international law will lack credibility. Recently, it was demanded to treat Ukraine and Palestine equally under the law. By doing so we can restore any credibility to the global order.
0 Comments