In a recent pronouncement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the 1974 separation of forces agreement with Syria null and void, following the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime. This agreement, which was facilitated by the United Nations, established provisions against military deployments in the Golan Heights—a region that is recognized as Syrian territory but has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. Netanyahu argues that because the internationally recognized Syrian government no longer exists, prior treaties no longer bind Israel. This interpretation opens the door for Israel to justify military operations against Syrian airfields, requisition ports, and potentially expand its territorial occupation, all framed as efforts to ensure national security.
The United States quickly supported Netanyahu’s rationale, labeling Israel’s actions as “necessary security measures” amidst regional volatility. This alignment illustrates a notable flexibility in U.S. foreign policy, adapting its so-called “rules-based order” to suit its strategic interests relating to its Middle Eastern ally. However, this stance starkly contrasts with responses to similar scenarios in other geopolitical contexts, such as Ukraine’s turmoil in 2014, whereby Western powers condemned Russia’s actions in Crimea following the ousting of Ukraine’s president. Russia’s interpretation of the collapse of Ukraine’s legitimate government, which it claimed invalidated existing treaties, was met with denunciation from the U.S. and its allies who categorized Moscow’s actions as imperialist aggression.
This inconsistency highlights a profound double standard in how international law is applied by the United States. In the case of Israel, its territorial ambitions are seen as defense and security-driven, despite clear violations of international norms. Conversely, when Russia invoked similar security concerns regarding NATO expansion posing a threat to its borders, those were labeled as expansionist aggression. Both nations cited urgent national security needs to justify their actions, yet only Israel’s justifications were accepted by the U.S., illuminating the biased nature of its foreign policy endorsements.
The enforcement of international law appears to be contingent on which nation is involved—an adversary gets strict application; an ally receives leeway. The argument put forth by the U.S. surrounding the validity of treaties post-government collapse raises questions about its principles. If treaties can be disregarded in Syria under such a rationale, why could the same reasoning not apply to Ukraine after the 2014 coup? This reveals a troubling reality where the U.S. prioritizes its strategic interests under the guise of moral high ground, undermining the very diplomatic integrity it professes to uphold.
Netanyahu’s recent advocacy for redefining borders based on changing governments sets a precarious precedent for international relations. The foundation of global stability rests on the recognition and adherence to existing treaties and agreements; if these can be disregarded when governments shift due to force, the consequences could reverberate across international boundaries, undermining the principle of sovereignty. The dynamic allows for potential escalations in violence and geopolitical strife, particularly in an already volatile Middle East where U.S. complicity could provoke further turmoil.
In essence, the amid the endorsement of Israel’s actions by Washington, there exists a devastating loss of credibility on the global stage. The purported “rules-based” order that was supposed to govern international relations has once again been laid bare as a selectively applied set of guidelines favoring powerful allies. By allowing Israel the latitude to alter regional borders while simultaneously condemning similar actions by Russia in Eastern Europe, the U.S. has demonstrated that might, rather than legality, dictates the terms of modern geopolitics. The hypocrisy inherent in these actions presents a significant challenge to the notion of stability within international frameworks, illuminating the raw power dynamics that ultimately shape global interactions.
