Unless the international community abandons double standards, global politics will continue to be characterized by oppression and slaughter.
Those who keep an eye on the events in West Asia in modern history can note that the infamous Balfour Declaration issued in 1917 is the root of today’s instability and turmoil. In that declaration, Britain had promised to give the historical land of Palestine to European Jews, who had no ownership rights on Palestine. This set a precedent that decisions regarding this area would be taken by external forces, which would often be independent of the wishes and rights of the original inhabitants. From that time on, there was no reasonable way to be confident about the future of this region, because its foundation was laid on imposed systems.
After World War II the world said “never again.” Under this principle the international community agreed to sit together. The UN Charter committed countries to “protect succeeding generations from the danger of war” and “to create conditions in which justice and respect for the responsibilities of treaties and international law can be maintained.” These are good principles if they were applied evenly and consistently. Then millions of lives would be saved and there would be no need for huge military expenditure, which comes at the cost of human development.
But this did not happen. There were many wars after the Second World War. Lakhs of innocent people lost their lives. Waves of immigration and displacement affected all continents. Millions of refugees are still scattered. Millions of people are suffering poverty and malnutrition. In many countries the military budget has grown at the expense of people’s well-being. Many fingers are still pointed at weapons and millions of people are still living in the crosshairs of others’ guns. We are living on the brink of world destruction and the fear of a major war is not far from reality.
There are many reasons for the failure of the international community. Chief among them are the selective implementation of international law, the selfishness of powerful countries and the blatant double standards and hypocrisy adopted by Northern Hemisphere countries in matters of the Southern Hemisphere. This is even more evident in the special treatment given to Israel by some of the international community, especially the powerful Western countries. This special treatment has become so obvious that many people no longer trust the credibility of international law itself or the multilateral system designed to uphold it.
One does not need to be an astrologer to understand that Israel has been accused of violating international law since the beginning. Israel’s birth certificate was United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which was a plan for the partition of Palestine. In it, about 54 percent of the historical land of Palestine was earmarked for Israel and the remaining part for the Palestinian nation. By the end of 1948, Israel occupied about 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.
Over the past several decades, Israel has faced repeated criticism in various UN forums over its settlement expansion, occupation policy, military operations and treatment of civilians in the occupied territories. Yet, no meaningful accountability has been achieved. The persistent gap between declarations and implementation reflects selective thinking in the application of international law. A recent precedent in discussions of double standards concerns the sanctions imposed on Russia following the war with Ukraine. Western countries have imposed thousands of sanctions against Russia. In contrast, despite the ongoing massacre in Gaza and attacks in the West Bank, Israel has not faced any level of concerted sanctions, especially from the major Western powers. Instead, it has received continued military assistance and political support, further reinforcing the perception that violations of international law are reported only in select cases. Its message is that some are above the law. Such thinking weakens the legitimacy of the entire international legal system.
Recently, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a key figure in determining the future of West Asia, openly advocated Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, calling the area by its biblical names “Judea and Samaria.” In a lengthy conversation with American columnist Tucker Carlson, Huckabee said things that many legal experts would consider contrary to existing international law and longstanding UN policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He was asked, if Israel does not follow international law then questions will be raised on its legitimacy. In response, Huckabee questioned the legal validity of law enforcement agencies. He said that the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are “evil organisations”.
In defense of Israel’s legitimacy, Huckabee cited the Bible, particularly Genesis 12 and 17, and presented them as a divine “ownership” of the land. This shifts the argument away from international law and towards religion. Such a reading would assume that the promises made to Abraham applied only to the Jews and that Abraham would later be described as a “Jew,” although this term came much later in history. Assuming this for the sake of argument, Abraham’s descendants include the children of Ishmael and Keturah. A claim based only on Abraham’s lineage does not exclude other families belonging to the same family tradition.
By basing legitimacy on a selective religious interpretation rather than international law, Huckabee departs from the country’s modern legal framework. If his words are followed, not only will the Israeli-Palestinian question become difficult, but international rules will also become meaningless around the world. Many countries may cite old texts or historical claims to justify territorial expansion, thereby undermining the post-1945 consensus that was designed to prevent precisely such disputes.
Therefore, the issue is not only of Palestine or Israel, but also of international law. When powerful states apply legal principles selectively, strictly against adversaries and flexibly against allies, they subvert those principles. Therefore, the world order has disintegrated, where power is increasingly used and where small countries lose confidence in the institutions that protect them.
For Palestinians, this change means a prolonged occupation, frozen statehood, and a realization that their suffering does not provide the same moral urgency as others. This increases instability and radicalization across larger regions, and for the international system it signals a dangerous retreat from the promise of equal justice under the law. If the “never again” commitment has any meaning, it should be implemented across the world. International law cannot serve as a tool of convenience. It should apply equally to everyone. If this does not happen, the system based on rules and regulations remains a hollow slogan.
There is no dearth of resolutions, declarations or legal frameworks in West Asia. The problem is uneven implementation. Until the international community confronts the reality of double standards, selective action will continue to characterize global politics and the lack of international law will continue.
(Palestine Ambassador to India, views are personal)