After World War I, the world came together to establish the League of Nations, an entity designed to prevent another cataclysmic war. It emphasized collective security as a means of deterring aggressor states. However, it ultimately failed when that collective security didn’t materialize. When smaller or politically fractured countries, like China, spoke out against Japan’s invasion of their territory, condemnation was the only option the League could offer, as it lacked effective enforcement mechanisms. Eventually, nations began leaving the League, and it became an empty husk, one devoid of any real power. It was ultimately disbanded in 1946, and its symbolic powers were transferred to the newly formed United Nations.
A century after World War I, we are witnessing the same shortfalls in its successor, the United Nations and its 'rules-based order.’ Nowhere is this more evident than in the West’s shielding of Israel. Enforcement and arbitration mechanisms are reserved for those at the top of the power dynamics. This ultimately contradicts the United Nations’ own charter to use international law to solve issues without having to resort to violence.
Western countries frame Israel as one of their most strategic partners in the Middle East because of its thriving tech industry, economy, and a democratic system of representative government where all its citizens have access to political agency, no matter their religion. Israel is framed as a resilient society in the face of constant existential threats seemingly lurking at every corner. In truth, it is a society steeped in collective psychosis and built on the dispossession of indigenous land that is a testing ground for some of the world’s most inhumane weapons and policies. But this society does not exist in a vacuum. It is propped up by a group of nations that themselves are responsible for some of history's most terrible episodes of violence and ethnic cleansing.
The United States, the European Union, Britain, Canada, and Australian politicians all share the same talking points whenever the slightest criticism of Israel is detected. They get on their podiums and declare that ‘Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, it has a system of laws that hold it accountable, the only Jewish state, and it’s a rules-based society.’ Despite Israel’s abysmal track record of human rights abuses, its use of arbitrary detention, and its well-documented ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. Collectively, the countries that use these talking points prop up and shield Israel from accountability. These are the very countries that once committed or continue to commit human rights abuses. That is not coincidental. There is a vested interest in maintaining a facade of a ‘rules-based order.’ Inside the United Nations lies the Security Council, in which the five permanent member states —namely, the U.S., France, the U.K., Russia, and China —sit. They hold veto power and have used it many times before to protect themselves or their closest allies from accountability. The strategy is to absorb any blows from governments of conscience, draining their resources and manpower until they exhaust all their efforts in a game designed to make them fail because they lack the military or agency to force a resolution. In a lengthy process, member states that are not part of the Security Council or its ten non-permanent member states are required to undergo a lengthy appeals process, which often ends without any tangible effects.
By creating a semblance of avenues they can take to put an end to Israel’s terrorist activities, Western countries actively sideline the global majority while giving Israel the time it needs to carry out its ethnic cleansing policies. We are taught that there are procedures in place that a government can follow to reach a solution using nonviolent means.
We are told that these procedures govern the world, this supposed ‘rules-based order.’ This framework of laws and rules is equipped with protection mechanisms for the world’s most vulnerable populations. The United Nations, International Court of Justice, and International Criminal Court (ICC) present themselves as platforms and spaces where we can hold those who break the rules accountable because the world supposedly learned its lesson from the horrors of World War I, colonialism, and the Holocaust. Yet those horrors didn’t disappear; justice was only meted out when deemed politically expedient. Those robbed of agency on the world stage were doomed to suffer.
In 1994, in Rwanda, the Tutsi minority ethnic group was butchered for nearly 100 consecutive days by the Hutu majority. Approximately 1 million people were slaughtered while waiting for some type of rescue by countries that had a role in shaping that predicament. Belgium, Rwanda’s previous colonial overlord, which had set the groundwork for giving the Hutu majority political agency and power, decided to withdraw 90% of its peacekeeping forces, leaving the Tutsi minority defenseless. One year later, in ‘95, the Bosnian genocide took place; one of its gruesome markers was the annihilation of 8,000 Muslim men and boys by the Serbian army. Both of these genocides were well documented, yet many of their perpetrators were never brought to justice. The world learned that policies were put in place only to be disregarded as soon as those at the bottom end of the power dynamic need them most. Impunity for those with power is not a relic of the past; it is actively maintained and entrenched in the modern day. As witnessed in the international response to the International Criminal Court's decision on Israeli leadership.
Netanyahu was charged with “starvation as a war crime, crimes against humanity, and intentionally directing attacks against civilians” by the International Criminal Court. Despite the court issuing a warrant for his arrest, several ICC member states have welcomed him. Hungary, having a legal responsibility and obligation to arrest Netanyahu, disregarded its responsibilities to uphold international law and welcomed him with full military honors, instead of the criminal he was, in April of 2025. Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, went as far as to say he “promised the ICC's arrest warrant wouldn’t be enforced.” But Hungary wasn’t the only country to disregard what should be legal norms. Netanyahu had to travel through the airspace of several ICC member states to get to Hungary in the first place; none of them used their air forces to intercept his airplane; instead, they allowed him passage through their territory. Instead of acting as a bulwark against injustice, these governments have become accomplices and enablers of injustice. Moreover, in response to the ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu, Republican elected officials in the United States drafted a bill using the language, “Target Israel, and we will target you.” (Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act) The US government then proceeded to sanction the ICC;
“The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, some of which may include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” (White House Statement)
International rules and laws do not apply equally to all parties. When the people of the world attempt to hold institutions accountable, they are actively silenced or threatened to ensure that US interests are protected. In an article published by the Middle East Monitor, ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan said, “he received threats while conducting investigations against top Israeli officials, with a senior figure [from the USA] telling him the Court was 'built for Africa and for thugs like Putin', and not for the West and its allies.” (Middle East Monitor) Cynically, Israel really has shown the world that it is an exception.
The Israeli exception to rules extends beyond laws; even sporting groups, such as FIFA, the world governing body for football (soccer), have clear policies outlined in their statutes. Under FIFA's own human rights policy, member states are required to respect the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Failure to adhere to these rules could result in expulsion from the body. (Inside FIFA) When Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, FIFA banned the state from all its games within days. When it came to Palestine, FIFA postponed the meeting scheduled to speak on the issue four separate times. According to The Palestine Chronicle:
“The Asian Football Confederation called on FIFA to speed up its ruling on Palestine’s Israeli complaint, filed a year ago. The PFA’s complaint covers the IFA’s support for military action in Gaza and the West Bank, the inclusion of six clubs from illegally built settlements on West Bank land in local competitions, and the systematic targeting of Palestinians, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 582 athletes, including 270 football players. More than 286 sports facilities in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have also been destroyed.”(Palestine Chronicle)
The leading proponents of the ‘rules-based order’ have gone out of their way to protect Israel as it breaks every rule under the sun. Two years after October 7th and four postponed meetings later, FIFA President Infantino made a statement saying “FIFA cannot solve geopolitical problems,” ultimately deciding not to sanction Israel. The strategy of shielding Israel extends beyond international politics and sports. It is also evident on college campuses.
US campuses like Harvard and Columbia University have recently settled cases with Zionist students who alleged antisemitic harassment during the encampment protests that swept the US in 2023 and ‘24. As reported by NPR, both institutions ultimately paid millions of dollars. They agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism that labels criticism of Israel and Zionism as antisemitic.
The supposed ‘rules-based order’ is a facade, a glass house built on even shakier foundations, and people across the world are learning the lesson associated with protecting the pariah Israeli state.
Simply acknowledging the hypocrisy of the rules-based order is not enough. Its essence is to maintain the status quo. The unspoken rule is that the law is used against the weak, not the strong. Like the US Congressmen who claimed the ICC was built for others, not for themselves, the unspoken rule is that the ‘rules’ are for them, not for us. The genocide of Gaza is the Order’s most glaring contradiction because it is livestreamed daily for the entire world to witness. The long-term cost of giving Israel absolute impunity for its crimes against humanity will be the unraveling of the Order itself. The very system the West built to manage the rest of the world is coming undone by its own actions and inactions.
Proponents of these world institutions may say that they are only as powerful as countries want them to be. But the reality is that these institutions are part of a superstructure created by and serving the interests of the ruling class—the powerful countries, wealthy elites, and other actors that form the economic foundation of the current global order. They were never designed to be neutral arbiters; they were intended to be extensions of power. They don’t just influence the system—they underwrite it. That is why the United States can act as a shield for Israel at the United Nations Security Council, vetoing with impunity any measure that challenges its ally. The world’s hegemon can simply disregard any rule that contradicts its foreign policy because the system is, in the final analysis, an instrument of that policy. So then, what is the point of believing these institutions can actually safeguard the rights of humanity? Until they are fundamentally restructured to be independent of the powers they are meant to adjudicate, they are doomed to the same fate as their predecessor, the League of Nations. An entity dissolved because it was structurally powerless to stop the incoming tide of World War II, a conflict that saw over 100 million lives ended.
The ‘rules-based order’ taught us that notorious world criminals are held accountable because the world came together and agreed to uphold mechanisms for protecting the world's most vulnerable people. Israel and its ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people have unmasked the facade for what it truly is: a system of double standards where governments and the ruling class reserve the right of violence against the very people they purport to safeguard through a system they control. Everyone else must abide by a completely different set of rules. Palestine is another litmus test, and the ‘rules-based order’ has failed it.
