Facing international outrage over civilian casualties, a landmark International Court of Justice ruling found a plausible risk of genocide and ordered restraint. Yet, instead of scaling back, the Israeli government chose to expand the battlefield.
In mid-June, Israeli aircraft struck deep inside Iran, hitting nuclear and military facilities hundreds of kilometres from its own borders. Iran had not attacked Israel. There was no UN mandate, no claim of an imminent threat—only a self-proclaimed “pre-emptive defence.” The strikes violated the clearest rule in the UN Charter: states may not use force against the territorial integrity of another state except in self-defence.
Rather than condemning the action, Israel’s Western allies moved to protect and, in some cases, participate in it. France confirmed that its Rafale jets shot down Iranian drones heading toward Israel during Tehran’s retaliation. The United States went further still, launching its own bombing raids on Iranian nuclear sites, saying they were meant to “degrade Iran’s capacity” to build a weapon. Britain, while insisting it took no direct role, deployed fighter jets and refuelling tankers to the region and contributed surveillance data through allied command centres.
Each of these moves may have been framed as “defensive,” but together they formed a shield around an illegal war of aggression.
A Double Standard Laid Bare
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Western leaders rightly invoked sovereignty, proportionality, and the UN Charter. When Israel violated those same principles, the same capitals fell silent—or worse, lent their power to the aggressor.
This is not a matter of nuance or realpolitik; it is a collapse of credibility. Law cannot be selective without becoming meaningless. The message to much of the world is now unmistakable: rules are for enemies; impunity is for friends.
Governments in the BRICS bloc — which now includes countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — issued coordinated statements condemning Israel’s actions and urging respect for Iran’s sovereignty. South Africa, already leading the genocide case against Israel at the ICJ, accused the West of “abetting illegality while preaching democracy.” In the African Union, leaders argued that the same powers demanding accountability for Russia’s actions in Ukraine were now violating the UN Charter themselves.
For the Global South, this double standard isn’t an abstraction — it confirms decades of suspicion that international law is enforced selectively, protecting Western allies while punishing everyone else. The result is a widening moral and diplomatic gulf between the West and much of the developing world — one that no amount of rhetoric about “shared values” can close.
Acting on Israel’s behalf under these circumstances isn’t just geopolitics—it is moral bankruptcy. It tells the world that democratic ideals can be suspended when the violator is an ally, and that international law bends to power.
Why This Matters Beyond the Middle East
The erosion of principle is contagious. If the West can reinterpret international law to excuse its own allies, why should any other state respect those same norms? Every missile fired “in support of Israel” weakens the global prohibition on aggression that has, however imperfectly, restrained wars since 1945.
It also corrodes the very foundation of Western diplomacy: the claim to stand for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. One cannot preach those values while enabling their destruction in Gaza and Tehran.
In mid-June, Israeli aircraft struck deep inside Iran, hitting nuclear and military facilities hundreds of kilometres from its own borders. Iran had not attacked Israel. There was no UN mandate, no claim of an imminent threat—only a self-proclaimed “pre-emptive defence.” The strikes violated the clearest rule in the UN Charter: states may not use force against the territorial integrity of another state except in self-defence.
Rather than condemning the action, Israel’s Western allies moved to protect and, in some cases, participate in it. France confirmed that its Rafale jets shot down Iranian drones heading toward Israel during Tehran’s retaliation. The United States went further still, launching its own bombing raids on Iranian nuclear sites, saying they were meant to “degrade Iran’s capacity” to build a weapon. Britain, while insisting it took no direct role, deployed fighter jets and refuelling tankers to the region and contributed surveillance data through allied command centres.
Each of these moves may have been framed as “defensive,” but together they formed a shield around an illegal war of aggression.
A Double Standard Laid Bare
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Western leaders rightly invoked sovereignty, proportionality, and the UN Charter. When Israel violated those same principles, the same capitals fell silent—or worse, lent their power to the aggressor.
This is not a matter of nuance or realpolitik; it is a collapse of credibility. Law cannot be selective without becoming meaningless. The message to much of the world is now unmistakable: rules are for enemies; impunity is for friends.
The Global South’s Reaction
The outrage has been especially strong across the Global South — the broad coalition of nations in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East that were once colonized or marginalized by Western powers. These states, from South Africa and Brazil to Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran’s regional neighbours, see the June 2025 events as yet another example of Western hypocrisy.Governments in the BRICS bloc — which now includes countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — issued coordinated statements condemning Israel’s actions and urging respect for Iran’s sovereignty. South Africa, already leading the genocide case against Israel at the ICJ, accused the West of “abetting illegality while preaching democracy.” In the African Union, leaders argued that the same powers demanding accountability for Russia’s actions in Ukraine were now violating the UN Charter themselves.
For the Global South, this double standard isn’t an abstraction — it confirms decades of suspicion that international law is enforced selectively, protecting Western allies while punishing everyone else. The result is a widening moral and diplomatic gulf between the West and much of the developing world — one that no amount of rhetoric about “shared values” can close.
Gaza and the Moral Void
The hypocrisy is amplified by timing. The June 2025 attacks unfolded while Gaza remained under siege and humanitarian agencies warned of famine and epidemic. Western states that had pledged “never again” to mass atrocity continued arming, funding, and now militarily assisting a government accused at The Hague of possible genocide.Acting on Israel’s behalf under these circumstances isn’t just geopolitics—it is moral bankruptcy. It tells the world that democratic ideals can be suspended when the violator is an ally, and that international law bends to power.
Why This Matters Beyond the Middle East
The erosion of principle is contagious. If the West can reinterpret international law to excuse its own allies, why should any other state respect those same norms? Every missile fired “in support of Israel” weakens the global prohibition on aggression that has, however imperfectly, restrained wars since 1945.
It also corrodes the very foundation of Western diplomacy: the claim to stand for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. One cannot preach those values while enabling their destruction in Gaza and Tehran.
Conclusion
Israel’s unprovoked strikes on Iran took place even as Israel faced global condemnation for its ongoing assault on Gaza. The subsequent involvement of the United States, France and the United Kingdom acting on behalf of a state accused of genocide while bombing another sovereign nation undermines every principle of legality, morality, and ethics that Western powers claim to defend. By providing offensive strikes, drone interceptions and logistical backing, these Western allies blurred the line between defence and complicity. This alignment exposes the hollowness of Western claims to uphold international law and human rights. Words like democracy and human rights ring hollow. They are slogans mouthed by governments that have traded principle for alliance, and law for convenience.
And the rest of the world — the Global South in particular — has stopped listening.
⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.
I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment, although I would argue that Western hypocrisy has long been apparent. "Imperfectly restrained" puts it very mildly. There have been plenty of wars, conflicts and general "diplomatic" meddling regarding foreign affairs involving The West since 1945. Moral bankruptcy is correct, it could be argued that the idea there was even any moral or ethical currency to begin with, was naught but an extremely thin veil, see-through in itself, and increasingly inadequate in it's intended purpose.
ReplyDelete