For decades, the United States has presented itself as a champion of human rights, accountability and the rule of law. Yet when these principles collide with the interests of one of its closest allies, they appear increasingly negotiable. Washington’s continued political and diplomatic protection of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become emblematic of this contradiction. The issue is no longer simply about one leader or one conflict. It concerns whether international law applies equally to all states or only to those lacking powerful patrons. If accountability is selective, justice risks becoming a tool of geopolitics rather than a universal principle. The International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Netanyahu over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity marked a watershed moment in international justice. Israel rejects the allegations, while the United States has consistently challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals and has opposed efforts to enforce the court’s decisions. Washington has also taken measures against the ICC, arguing that its actions threaten US sovereignty and the interests of its allies. Regardless of one’s view of the court’s legal reasoning, the broader question remains unavoidable: can the international legal system survive if powerful countries choose which rulings deserve respect? The answer has implications far beyond the Middle East. Successive US administrations have condemned alleged war crimes committed by adversaries, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to atrocities elsewhere. Those positions carry moral weight only if they are applied consistently. Shielding an ally from legal scrutiny weakens the credibility of future calls for accountability.  The staggering humanitarian toll in Gaza has intensified global demands for independent investigations and legal accountability. Across much of the world, the perception has grown that political considerations continue to outweigh legal principles whenever Israel is involved. Whether or not one accepts that assessment, its persistence is........

© The Patriot