Actor Paul Newman takes up the story.
Paul Newman remembers when Israel shot down a passenger plane in 1973, compared to when the soviets did.
— IsraelExposed (@xIsraelExposedx) March 15, 2025
He points out that Americans are told what to be outraged about. pic.twitter.com/JhMr5vIEqx
Western Double Standards: How the West Treats Countries Differently for Similar Crimes
The West has long prided itself on telling the world that it upholds democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. However, a closer examination reveals this to be a sham.
As a clear example, its response to global events often reveals a glaring inconsistency in how it treats different nations for similar actions. This double standard is most evident in the way Western governments and media react to Russia and Israel, among others, exposing a selective approach to accountability and justice. Over the last 50 years, numerous instances illustrate this pattern of preferential treatment for allies while harshly punishing adversaries.
The Case of Russia: Sanctions and Isolation
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the West responded with an unprecedented wave of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military aid to Ukraine. Western leaders condemned Russia’s actions as an unacceptable violation of international law, calling it an act of aggression and an attack on sovereignty. Russian oligarchs faced asset freezes, businesses were severed from Western markets, and media outlets sympathetic to the Kremlin were banned or heavily restricted in Europe and North America.
However, this reaction was not unique to 2022. Since the Cold War, the West has taken a hard stance against Russian (formerly Soviet) actions that contradict its strategic interests. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was met with economic sanctions, a U.S.-led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, and extensive funding of Mujahideen fighters, many of whom would later form extremist groups. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 also prompted Western sanctions and diplomatic condemnations. While Russia has undoubtedly engaged in aggressive territorial actions, the punitive measures taken by the West contrast sharply with its handling of other nations guilty of similar transgressions.
The Case of Israel: A Stark Contrast
In contrast, Israel’s actions in Palestine have often been met with far more leniency. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, defying UN resolutions calling for withdrawal. Over the decades, Israel has expanded settlements in occupied territories, enforced blockades, and carried out military operations that have resulted in significant civilian casualties. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned Israeli actions as violations of international law, yet the response from the West remains largely muted.
Instead of imposing sanctions, Western nations, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, continue to provide diplomatic cover and military aid to Israel. The Camp David Accords in 1978 and the Oslo Accords in the 1990s were framed as attempts at peace, but they failed to curb Israeli expansion into Palestinian territories. Every major Israeli military operation, from the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to recent conflicts in Gaza, has resulted in civilian casualties and destruction, yet the West has refrained from punitive economic or diplomatic measures. Meanwhile, Palestinians engaged in resistance, whether violent or nonviolent, are frequently labelled as terrorists, further solidifying the one-sided approach.
The Broader Pattern of Selective Outrage
This inconsistency is not limited to Russia and Israel. Other examples include:
- Iraq and Libya vs. Saudi Arabia: The West justified military interventions in Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) under the pretext of eliminating tyrannical regimes that violated human rights. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, despite its well-documented abuses, including the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and its brutal war in Yemen, continues to receive Western arms sales and diplomatic protection.
- Iran vs. U.S. Allies: Iran faces harsh sanctions and international isolation for its nuclear ambitions, while countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel have developed nuclear capabilities with little to no consequences.
- Apartheid South Africa vs. Israel: During the 1980s, the West imposed severe sanctions on South Africa to pressure the end of apartheid, yet Israel, which numerous human rights organisations have accused of implementing apartheid policies against Palestinians, has faced no comparable penalties.
Such selective enforcement of international law weakens the credibility of the West’s moral authority and its pretence that it is a democracy. When one country is punished harshly while another is shielded from consequences, it fosters resentment and cynicism among the global community. Countries in the Global South, in particular, see these double standards as evidence of Western lies and hypocrisy and self-interest rather than a genuine commitment to justice.
The Need for Consistency
For the West to regain credibility on the global stage, it must apply the same standards to all nations, regardless of political alliances or strategic interests. If international law and democracy are to have any real meaning, they must be enforced and practised impartially. This means holding allies accountable in the same way that adversaries are, ensuring that principles of justice and human rights are upheld universally rather than selectively.
Until then, the West’s claims of defending democracy and international law will continue to ring hollow, serving only as a tool of political convenience rather than a true commitment to global justice.
