US Double Standards Intensify: Israel's Presence in Syria Called 'Security,' Russian Actions in Ukraine Termed 'Aggression'
Netanyahu's justification for his recent land acquisition highlights the obvious hypocrisy of his Western backers. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
Netanyahu’s recent justification for his latest territorial claims highlights the blatant hypocrisy of his Western allies.
This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the 1974 separation of forces agreement with Syria is “no longer valid” due to the fall of Bashar Assad. This agreement, facilitated by the United Nations, had banned military deployments in the buffer zone of the Golan Heights, an area legally recognized as Syrian territory yet occupied by Israel since 1967.
Netanyahu’s reasoning hinges on the idea that the absence of a recognized Syrian government nullifies previous treaties. This interpretation allows Israel to justify bombing Syrian airfields, seizing ports, and expanding its occupation, all framed as necessary for national security.
The US State Department quickly backed this stance, labeling West Jerusalem’s actions as a “necessary security measure” in a volatile region. In its eagerness to support its Middle Eastern ally, Washington showed no reluctance in adjusting its “rules-based order” to align with its strategic goals.
However, this situation starkly exposes a double standard. In 2014, following the violent ousting of Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovich, supported by Western powers, Russia adopted a comparable legal argument. Moscow contended that the collapse of Kiev’s legitimate government signified the disintegration of the country’s constitutional framework, leading to Crimea’s referendum to reunite with Russia, while areas in Donbass sought autonomy.
Washington’s response then was one of outrage. The US insisted that, despite the coup, Ukraine’s sovereignty remained intact and all previous agreements still applied. Russia’s actions were condemned as an “illegal annexation” and “imperialist expansion.” This response is in stark contrast to Washington's current endorsement of Israel's occupation of Syrian territory under similar legal arguments.
The hypocrisy at play is clear. In Syria, Israel’s territorial ambitions are deemed “security-driven” and legally supported, despite evident breaches of international law. In contrast, Russia's security concerns are dismissed as “imperial aggression,” overshadowed by NATO’s expansion posing a threat to its borders. Both Russia and Israel justified their actions citing urgent security needs, yet only Israel’s rationale has been accepted as legitimate by Washington, with Russia’s dismissed as imperialist.
This approach unveils a deeper reality: the so-called “rules-based international order” is not grounded in consistent principles. Instead, it is a framework manipulated based on the nature of the countries involved – allies enjoy leniency while adversaries face strict enforcement.
The US defends Israel’s actions as “defensive,” despite Israel conducting airstrikes in Syria for years prior to Assad’s fall. Conversely, when Russia invoked similar principles of self-defense in Crimea, it faced severe sanctions and international isolation.
This selective enforcement reveals a fundamental flaw in American foreign policy. International law is upheld strictly for adversaries, while allies receive a pass. If treaties become void following governmental changes due to force, as claimed in Syria, why was this rationale not applied after Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan coup?
The underlying reason is straightforward: the US prioritizes its strategic interests over adherence to international law or consistent principles. The focus is on advancing its agenda while projecting a façade of moral superiority, reducing diplomacy to a form of raw power politics masked as “defending democracy.”
Netanyahu’s statement sets a troubling precedent. If international agreements can be disregarded whenever a government shifts due to force, what foundation remains for global stability? If the US permits Israel to redraw Middle Eastern borders freely, what objection can it raise when Russia seeks to secure its interests in Eastern Europe?
Israel’s actions are likely to intensify violence in Syria and heighten regional instability, while Moscow will interpret this as validation that the West's legal arguments against its actions in Ukraine were fundamentally flawed. The overarching lesson is that power, rather than law, dictates the modern international landscape, and Washington’s selective application of its principles underscores this reality.
By endorsing Israel’s territorial claims while condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the US has effectively dismantled its remaining credibility on the global stage. The "rules-based" international order has long been a convenient fiction, and now even the illusion has been stripped away.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the 1974 separation of forces agreement with Syria is “no longer valid” due to the fall of Bashar Assad. This agreement, facilitated by the United Nations, had banned military deployments in the buffer zone of the Golan Heights, an area legally recognized as Syrian territory yet occupied by Israel since 1967.
Netanyahu’s reasoning hinges on the idea that the absence of a recognized Syrian government nullifies previous treaties. This interpretation allows Israel to justify bombing Syrian airfields, seizing ports, and expanding its occupation, all framed as necessary for national security.
The US State Department quickly backed this stance, labeling West Jerusalem’s actions as a “necessary security measure” in a volatile region. In its eagerness to support its Middle Eastern ally, Washington showed no reluctance in adjusting its “rules-based order” to align with its strategic goals.
However, this situation starkly exposes a double standard. In 2014, following the violent ousting of Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovich, supported by Western powers, Russia adopted a comparable legal argument. Moscow contended that the collapse of Kiev’s legitimate government signified the disintegration of the country’s constitutional framework, leading to Crimea’s referendum to reunite with Russia, while areas in Donbass sought autonomy.
Washington’s response then was one of outrage. The US insisted that, despite the coup, Ukraine’s sovereignty remained intact and all previous agreements still applied. Russia’s actions were condemned as an “illegal annexation” and “imperialist expansion.” This response is in stark contrast to Washington's current endorsement of Israel's occupation of Syrian territory under similar legal arguments.
The hypocrisy at play is clear. In Syria, Israel’s territorial ambitions are deemed “security-driven” and legally supported, despite evident breaches of international law. In contrast, Russia's security concerns are dismissed as “imperial aggression,” overshadowed by NATO’s expansion posing a threat to its borders. Both Russia and Israel justified their actions citing urgent security needs, yet only Israel’s rationale has been accepted as legitimate by Washington, with Russia’s dismissed as imperialist.
This approach unveils a deeper reality: the so-called “rules-based international order” is not grounded in consistent principles. Instead, it is a framework manipulated based on the nature of the countries involved – allies enjoy leniency while adversaries face strict enforcement.
The US defends Israel’s actions as “defensive,” despite Israel conducting airstrikes in Syria for years prior to Assad’s fall. Conversely, when Russia invoked similar principles of self-defense in Crimea, it faced severe sanctions and international isolation.
This selective enforcement reveals a fundamental flaw in American foreign policy. International law is upheld strictly for adversaries, while allies receive a pass. If treaties become void following governmental changes due to force, as claimed in Syria, why was this rationale not applied after Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan coup?
The underlying reason is straightforward: the US prioritizes its strategic interests over adherence to international law or consistent principles. The focus is on advancing its agenda while projecting a façade of moral superiority, reducing diplomacy to a form of raw power politics masked as “defending democracy.”
Netanyahu’s statement sets a troubling precedent. If international agreements can be disregarded whenever a government shifts due to force, what foundation remains for global stability? If the US permits Israel to redraw Middle Eastern borders freely, what objection can it raise when Russia seeks to secure its interests in Eastern Europe?
Israel’s actions are likely to intensify violence in Syria and heighten regional instability, while Moscow will interpret this as validation that the West's legal arguments against its actions in Ukraine were fundamentally flawed. The overarching lesson is that power, rather than law, dictates the modern international landscape, and Washington’s selective application of its principles underscores this reality.
By endorsing Israel’s territorial claims while condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the US has effectively dismantled its remaining credibility on the global stage. The "rules-based" international order has long been a convenient fiction, and now even the illusion has been stripped away.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
