Time to end diplomatic hypocrisy

As the world awakens from a long diplomatic lethargy, it is high time we address an inconvenient truth: the glaring disparity in how the international community assigns blame and metes out justice.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the disproportionate focus on Israel, while some of the world’s most brutal regimes—responsible for exponentially greater crimes—receive far less scrutiny and condemnation.

For over 75 years, Israel has been subject to an unrelenting wave of criticism, resolutions, and investigations by the United Nations and other international bodies.

Whether it’s the Human Rights Council or the General Assembly, Israel is frequently portrayed as the root cause of instability in the Middle East.

While Israel’s actions, like those of any nation, deserve scrutiny, the intensity with which it is singled out starkly contrasts with the relative silence or tepid condemnations regarding regimes and groups responsible for atrocities that are far more severe.

Take Syria, for example, where the Assad regime has committed unspeakable acts of brutality against its own people—chemical attacks, mass executions, and the systematic. destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Despite overwhelming evidence, attempts to hold Assad accountable have been stymied by geopolitical maneuvering and the all-too-familiar game of veto politics.

Meanwhile, Israel faces consistent condemnation for actions that, while deserving of critique, pale in comparison to the mass atrocities committed by Assad, Hezbollah, or Iran.

This discrepancy is not just a failure of diplomacy; it’s a failure of moral clarity.

The international community’s selective outrage undermines the principles of justice and fairness it claims to uphold. How can we, in good conscience, turn a blind eye to the atrocities of regimes that have turned their own countries into wastelands of human suffering, while relentlessly pursuing resolutions and investigations against Israel for defending itself in a complex and hostile environment?

Of course, Israel plays a pivotal role in a protracted conflict, and it is understandable that its actions would attract attention. However, this attention should not come at the expense of addressing egregious human rights violations committed elsewhere. True justice demands a consistent application of accountability, rather than focusing on one nation at the exclusion of others.

The missed opportunity of French diplomacy

The inconsistency of international justice can be seen not only in multilateral institutions but also in the foreign policies of individual nations, such as France.

Once a major player in Lebanese politics, France has struggled in recent years to maintain its influence, particularly in the face of Hezbollah’s growing power and Iran’s deepening involvement.

Despite its long-standing ties to Lebanon, French diplomacy has faltered, especially when compared to its more vocal stance against Israel.

Following the Beirut port explosion in 2020, France took a leading role in calling for reforms in Lebanon.

President Macron’s visits, while high-profile, ultimately achieved little.

Lebanon’s political elites, especially Hezbollah, ignored these efforts for reform.

France’s subsequent engagement with Hezbollah, despite the group’s designation as a terrorist organization by parts of the EU and many Western countries, is emblematic of the broader diplomatic hypocrisy we see in the international system.

France’s willingness to negotiate with Hezbollah, while issuing hollow condemnations of Israel, highlights a dangerous inconsistency in its approach to regional actors.

This diplomatic double standard is not unique to France, but it is illustrative.

France regularly condemns Israeli military actions with strong rhetoric, often invoking human rights principles. Yet, when it comes to the destabilizing actions of Hezbollah, Syria’s Assad regime, or Iran, France’s approach is far more muted.

This echoes the broader hypocrisy of the international community, where regimes responsible for far greater atrocities evade accountability while Israel remains a focal point of criticism.

By engaging with Hezbollah as a legitimate political entity, France has tacitly accepted its influence over Lebanon—an influence that has eroded the country’s sovereignty and destabilized the region.

This soft approach toward Hezbollah and other actors like Iran and Syria contrasts sharply with the vocal condemnations Israel regularly faces for defending itself in a complex and hostile environment.

The result is a diplomatic imbalance that undermines the credibility of international institutions and individual nations alike.

Selective Justice and the role of the ICC

This inconsistency is not limited to diplomatic rhetoric—it extends to international institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established to hold the world’s most heinous war criminals accountable. Yet, the ICC’s selective focus raises serious questions about the fairness and objectivity of international justice. Recent reports indicate that the ICC has considered—or may have even issued—a warrant against Israeli

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, further perpetuating the narrative that Israel remains a prime target of disproportionate scrutiny.

While accountability for any alleged crimes must be pursued, one cannot help but notice the glaring absence of similar actions against leaders responsible for far worse atrocities.

Where are the ICC warrants for Bashar al-Assad, whose regime has committed chemical attacks and presided over mass executions of civilians in Syria? Why have Iranian leaders, deeply involved in regional destabilization and the backing of groups like Hezbollah, escaped similar scrutiny? How has Hezbollah, operating as both a militant group and a political actor, evaded international prosecution despite its flagrant disregard for international law and the havoc it has wreaked in Lebanon and beyond?

Some may argue that leaders like Assad or Iranian officials evade ICC prosecution because their countries are not members of the Rome Statute, which limits the ICC’s jurisdiction. This is a valid point, but it does not tell the whole story. Even when regimes are not ICC members, the United Nations Security Council can refer cases to the ICC, as itdid with Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir. The real issue is that geopolitical interests—particularly the vetoes from powers like Russia and China—have shielded Assad and other leaders from justice. 

This selective use of international mechanisms reflects not a failure of legalframeworks, but a failure of political will.

Moreover, the ICC’s pursuit of Israeli leaders, despite Israel not being a member state, raises questions about why some cases are prioritized over others. For example, the ICC has been able to investigate Israel due to Palestine’s ability to refer cases as a non-member observer state. Yet no similar effort has been made to hold Syrian, Iranian, or Hezbollah officials accountable for far worse crimes, even though mechanisms like the UN Security Council exist to facilitate such referrals.

This selective pursuit of justice, focusing on Israel while other brutal regimes operate with impunity, undermines the credibility of international institutions. It suggests that international justice is not applied evenly but driven by political considerations and geopolitical alliances. This is not just a failure of the ICC—it is emblematic of a broader trend in which the international community’s moral authority is eroded by its own selective outrage.

The Path Forward: Rebalancing International Justice As we move forward in an increasingly polarized world, we must resist the temptation to fall into the trap of diplomatic hypocrisy. True justice demands consistency. It demands that we condemn the barbarism of regimes in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and other hotspots with the same vigor and commitment that has been disproportionately reserved for Israel.

Only then can we claim to uphold the ideals of fairness, dignity, and human rights that the international system was designed to protect.

To achieve this rebalancing of justice, reforms within international institutions must ensure that veto powers are not used to shield the worst violators. Mechanisms for investigating human rights abuses must be impartial and comprehensive, covering all actors equally.

The credibility and effectiveness of the international justice system depend on holding every violator accountable, regardless of their geopolitical alliances or the complexity of their circumstances.

The time has come to rebalance the scales of international justice. Those who commit atrocities on a grand scale must be held accountable with the same vigor as those navigating complex, protracted conflicts. Anything less is a disservice to the very concept of justice itself.