International law is being applied selectively based on geopolitical alliances rather than consistent principles
This disparity has reinforced perceptions among Global South nations that enforcement depends more on the identity of the perpetrator than the nature of the violation, fundamentally undermining trust in multilateral institutions.
Despite the post-World War II establishment of the United Nations and its promise of equal justice, this pattern has persisted
On the selective outrage in the Middle East, the double standards and hypocrisy have become not only visible but structural. At the heart of this crisis lies the selective applicability of international law.
Throughout modern history, anyone who follows the path and movement of the Middle East since 1917, the year of issuing the despicable Balfour Declaration, can recognize the roots of today’s instability. In that declaration, the United Kingdom, which had no sovereign ownership of Palestine, pledged the historical land of Palestine to European Jews. From that moment, a precedent was set, decisions about the region would be made by external powers, often detached from the will and rights of its indigenous population. Since that time, there has been no rational path through which one could confidently predict the region’s future, because the foundation itself was built on contradiction and imposed arrangements.
After the Second World War, humanity agreed to come together as an international community under the principle of “never again.” The United Nations Charter committed states “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.” These are noble principles. If applied equally and consistently, they would have saved millions of lives and reduced the need for excessive military expenditure that often comes at the expense of human development.
But this was not the case. Tens of wars erupted after the Second World War. Millions of innocent people lost their lives. Waves of migration and displacement struck entire continents. Tens of millions of refugees remain scattered across the diaspora. Tens of millions endure poverty and malnutrition. Military budgets in many countries have expanded at the expense of citizen welfare. Many fingers remain on the trigger, and millions of people still live in the crosshairs of another’s rifle. We are living on the brink of a global catastrophe, with fears of a wider war never far from reality.
The failure of the international community stems from many reasons, chief among them the selective applicability of international law, the selfishness of powerful countries, and the flagrant double standards and hypocrisy that guide the Global North in dealing with the affairs of the Global South. Nowhere is this more evident than in the special treatment afforded to Israel by segments of the international community, particularly powerful Western states. This special treatment has become so clear that many no longer believe in the credibility of international law itself or in multilateral mechanisms designed to uphold it.
One does not need to be a prophet or fortune teller to recognize that Israel has been accused of violating the international law since its creation. Israel’s birth certificate was United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, the partition plan of Palestine, which designated approximately 54 percent of the historical land of Palestine to be Israel and the remaining portion for a Palestinian state. By the end of 1948, Israel controlled approximately 78 percent of the land. While Resolution 181 called for the internationalization of Jerusalem, Israel occupied the western part of the city and later declared it its capital.
To list all violations of international law attributed to Israel would require volumes. Over the decades, Israel has faced numerous condemnations in various United Nations forums concerning settlement expansion, annexation policies, military operations, and treatment of civilians in occupied territories. Yet these condemnations have not translated into meaningful accountability. This persistent gap between declaration and enforcement illustrates the problem, the selectivity in applying international law.
A recent example often cited in discussions of double standards concerns the extensive sanctions imposed on Russia following the war with Ukraine. Thousands of sanctions have been enacted by Western countries against Russia. In contrast, and despite ongoing genocidal on Gaza and the hostilities in West Bank, Israel has not faced any levels of coordinated sanctions specially from major Western powers. Instead, military aid and political support have continued, reinforcing the perception that enforcement of international law depends less on the nature of the violation and more on the identity of the perpetrator.
This disparity has contributed to a sense of impunity. When a state repeatedly faces condemnations without tangible consequences, the message conveyed is that certain actors operate above the law. Such a perception does not only affect one conflict; it weakens the legitimacy of the entire international legal order.
Recently, we have witnessed another step taken by a key actor shaping the future of the Middle East, the United States, particularly through statements made by its ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. In public remarks and media appearances, Huckabee questioned the existence of a distinct Palestinian people and openly advocated for Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, referring to the territory by the biblical names “Judea and Samaria.”
In a lengthy interview with American Commentator Tucker Carlson, Huckabee expressed positions that many legal scholars would consider inconsistent with established international law and with longstanding United States policy regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. When asked whether Israel would be less legitimate if it were out of compliance with international law, Huckabee responded by questioning the legitimacy of the institutions applying that law, dismissing the International Criminal Court, ICC, and the International Court of Justice, ICJ, as “rogue organizations.”
This exchange highlights a broader and deeply troubling concern, international law is often defended as part of a rules-based order when applied to adversaries, but its legitimacy is challenged when scrutiny extends to allies. Such selective defense undermines the credibility of the entire system. The ICC and ICJ were established decades ago and have issued rulings welcomed by many Western governments when aligned with their interests. Yet when these institutions take steps that implicate Israeli officials, they are suddenly portrayed by some as illegitimate or politically motivated.
In defending Israel’s legitimacy, Huckabee has also relied on biblical references, particularly Genesis 12 and 17, presenting them as a divine “title deed” to the land. This shifts the argument from international law to theology. Such a reading assumes that the promises to Abraham apply exclusively to Jews and retroactively defines Abraham as “Jewish,” although the term emerged much later in history. Even if accepted for argument’s sake, Abraham’s descendants include Ishmael and the children of Keturah. A claim based purely on Abrahamic descent cannot logically exclude other lineages connected to the same patriarch.
By grounding legitimacy in selective theological interpretation rather than international law, Huckabee departs from the modern legal framework of statehood. His argument, if applied consistently, would not only complicate the Israeli–Palestinian question but would also destabilize international norms globally. Many nations could invoke ancient texts or historical claims to justify territorial expansion, erasing the post-1945 consensus designed to prevent exactly such conflicts.
The issue, therefore, is not only Palestine or Israel. It is the integrity of international law itself. When powerful states apply legal principles selectively, strictly against rivals and flexibly toward allies, they erode the universality that gives those principles meaning. The result is a fragmented world order where might prevails over right, and where smaller nations lose faith in institutions meant to protect them.
Selective outrage does more than expose hypocrisy, it deepens divisions, fuels resentment, and sustains cycles of violence. For Palestinians, this dynamic translates into prolonged occupation, stalled statehood, and a sense that their suffering does not trigger the same moral urgency afforded to others. For the broader region, it perpetuates instability and radicalization. And for the international system, it signals a dangerous retreat from the promise of equal justice under law.
If the commitment to “never again” is to retain any meaning, it must apply universally. International law cannot function as a tool of convenience. It must either bind all or risk binding none. Without consistency, the rules-based order becomes an empty slogan, and the erosion of trust in global institutions will continue.
The Middle East does not suffer from a lack of resolutions, declarations, or legal frameworks. It suffers from their uneven enforcement. Until the international community confronts the reality of its own double standards, selective outrage will remain a defining feature of global politics, and the erosion of international law will continue, one exception at a time.
Abdullah Mohammad A. Abushawesh is the current Ambassador of the State of Palestine to India.
Views expressed are personal
