The West’s performative condemnation of Israel’s crimes is another sign of the death of the international order

Western hypocrisy exposed the racial, geopolitical, and ideological biases behind the so called “international rules based order” which has allowed Israel to commit horrific crimes with impunity.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can also be found on Substack.

The joint statement issued on August 20, 2026, by the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom condemning Israel’s decision to publish construction tenders for a new settlement project is yet another example of Western performativity masquerading as moral outrage. It is a carefully calibrated piece of public relations designed to signal “concern” while ensuring that nothing changes on the ground. After decades of Israeli settlement expansion, apartheid policies, ethnic cleansing, and — since October 2023 — the genocide in Gaza, this statement is not only hollow; it is an indictment of Western complicity.

The statement declares that Israel’s decision is “unacceptable,” that settlements are “illegal,” and that the project threatens the “territorial contiguity” of the West Bank — something which is already the case. It notes “unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians” and warns domestic businesses in each country which might submit proposals to be part of the project of “legal and reputational consequences.” And yet, despite the gravity of these words, the governments issuing them have done nothing — absolutely nothing — to penalize Israel politically, economically, or militarily for its decades-long criminality. They have watched Israel build hundreds of thousands of Jewish‑only housing units, now home to more than 750,000 settlers, many of whom have terrorized Palestinians with impunity by stealing land, destroying homes, burning orchards, killing livestock, and murdering unarmed civilians.

This is not new. Western governments have perfected the art of expressing “grave concern” while enabling Israel’s crimes through military aid, diplomatic protection, and economic partnerships. Their statements are not expressions of moral courage, they are examples of geopolitical cowardice.

The collapse of Western credibility

Since October 2023, Israel has carried out what dozens of international legal bodies, human rights organizations, genocide scholars, and even former Israeli officials have explicitly called genocide. This is not rhetorical exaggeration. It is a legal and scholarly determination made by: the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry; the UN Special Committee; the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Israeli human rights group B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; Doctors Without Borders; Oxfam; Save the Children; the International Federation of Human Rights; the International Association of Genocide Scholars; Leading Israeli Holocaust scholars Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal, and Shmuel Lederman; as well as the 30 nations supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, among others.

When genocide is unfolding in real time, and when the perpetrators are openly declaring their intent to destroy a people, statements like the August 20 joint communiqué are inadequate and laughable.

Settler violence enabled by the Israeli state

The joint statement acknowledges “unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians.” This is an understatement. Settler violence is not episodic, it is systemic, organized, and often coordinated with the Israeli military. Human Rights Watch has documented settlers burning homes, destroying olive groves, killing livestock, and attacking Palestinian villages with firearms. Amnesty International has reported multiple incidents where settlers murdered Palestinians, including the killing of 19‑year‑old Qusai Matan in 2023 and the torching of homes in Turmus Ayya. B’Tselem has recorded settlers shooting unarmed Palestinians, burning orchards, and carrying out pogroms in towns like Huwara.

These crimes are not committed by “extremists.” They are committed by settlers who enjoy full legal, military, and political protection from the Israeli state. And Western governments know this. They have known it for decades. Yet they have done nothing to stop it.

Western complicity has enabled decades of Israeli crimes

The response to the Israeli announcement is part of a long pattern of Western governments issuing sternly worded condemnations while continuing to arm, fund, and diplomatically shield Israel. Western apathy is not passive—it is active complicity.

Consider the facts: Canada continues to export weapons and components to Israel, even as Israel commits genocide; the United States provides billions in military aid annually, including weapons used in Gaza; the UK, Germany, Italy, and France maintain defense contracts and intelligence cooperation with Israel; the EU refuses to suspend its Association Agreement with Israel, despite clear violations of human rights clauses; and no Western government has imposed sanctions on Israel for settlement construction, apartheid policies, or genocide.

These governments and their western allies have watched Israel violate: UN Security Council resolutions; the Fourth Geneva Convention; the Hague Conventions; the Genocide Convention; and the UN Charter, repeatedly for decades. And their response has been to issue statements like the one on August 20 — statements that are designed to create the illusion of action while ensuring that nothing changes.

The galling hypocrisy of the West

The most galling aspect of this performative outrage is the stark contrast with the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Within days of that attack, Western governments unleashed sweeping sanctions, froze assets, expelled diplomats, mobilized international institutions, and poured massive military aid into Ukraine. They acted decisively and forcefully — and they were right to do so.

But when Israel commits genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and apartheid, those same governments retreat into the familiar language of “grave concern” while continuing business as usual. No sanctions. No arms embargoes. No diplomatic isolation. No meaningful consequences of any kind.

This hypocrisy exposes the racial, geopolitical, and ideological biases at the core of the so‑called “international rules‑based order.” The West’s selective application of international law has shattered its credibility and effectively destroyed the post‑World War II international system. And it is not Russia or China that killed it. It is Western governments — led by the United States — through their unwavering complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Public relations, not policy

The August 20 statement is a textbook example of Western PR. It contains all the familiar elements: condemnation of settlement expansion; affirmation of international law; expressions of concern about violence; calls for Israel to “retract” its plans; warnings to domestic businesses; and the tired refrain of their commitment to a “two‑state solution.” But it lacks the only thing that matters, which is a commitment to taking action against Israel.

There is no threat of sanctions, suspension of arms sales, diplomatic consequences or economic penalties. There is also no mention of international legal action, support for ICC or ICJ prosecutions, or mention of any consequences.

Israel knows this and has known it for decades. That is why it continues its violations of every international law, convention or treaty to which it is a party.  It knows that the West will do nothing.

The only solution is coercive international action

If Western governments are unwilling to take meaningful action against a state that has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the international laws that bind all nations — if they refuse to stop the commission of war crimes and genocide through economic sanctions, arms embargoes, diplomatic isolation, and yes, if necessary, military intervention — then their statements expressing outrage are worthless. Words without consequences are not diplomacy, they are complicity.

Unless the world confronts Israel with real coercive force, the coming decades will descend into international anarchy. Other states with territorial ambitions or internal ethnic hierarchies will look to Israel as a model for how to behave toward their neighbours or toward minorities under their control. They will violate international law, commit atrocities, ignore UN resolutions, and rely on international paralysis to shield them from accountability. The international order cannot survive if genocide is tolerated. And right now, it is being tolerated openly, brazenly, and with full knowledge of those nations that have the power to stop it.

The joint statement is not a sign of moral leadership. It is a sign of moral collapse — the collapse of Western credibility, the collapse of the post‑war legal order, and the collapse of any claim these governments have to defending human rights or international law. It is the diplomatic equivalent of watching a house burn and issuing a press release about the importance of fire safety.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

OP-ED -- Refusal to condemn US-Israeli illegal war on Iran shows the hypocrisy of Canada’s ‘rules-based’ PM

Mark Carney’s powerful words at Davos now ring hollow as he fails to stand up to the US and Israel after their illegal attack on Iran.

 

By Fareed Khan 

This has previously been published on Rabble.ca.
A version of this can be found on Substack.

In the final judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946, the Allied powers delivered a verdict that still echoes as the bedrock of modern international law: “To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

 

That supreme international crime is being committed right now, in real time, by the United States and Israel. On February 28, these two rogue powers launched an unprovoked, unjustified assault on the sovereign territory of Iran. As missiles and bombs rained down one of the targets hit on the first day was a girls’ primary school in Minab, slaughtering at least 165 innocent schoolgirls. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was also assassinated along with a number of senior leadership figures. Civilian infrastructure, including oil depots, have been pulverized, more than 1,300 have been killed so far and more than 17,000 have been injured. This was not an act of self-defence, but rather naked aggression—the exact crime the Nuremberg Tribunal branded as a supreme evil. 

 

The history of the current Iranian regime is not a pretty one. Yes, it has been brutal, it crushes protesters, oppresses women, jails and tortures dissidents. That deserves unequivocal condemnation. But Iran’s brutality at home does not grant a license to other nations to bomb a sovereign state into submission. The rule of law is not a buffet. You don’t get to pick and choose when it applies based on whose regime you dislike. 

 

Yet that is precisely what Mark Carney is doing. Canada’s prime minister has refused—point-blank—to call this aggression by its proper name. He has issued tepid calls for “restraint” while conspicuously refusing to condemn the two nations that started this inferno. He even expressed support for the strikes, framing them as necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The reality, confirmed by anonymous US intelligence sources, the International Atomic Energy Association, and independent experts, is that Iran was nowhere near a functional nuclear weapon. No imminent threat existed. Diplomacy was progressing. Talks were constructive. Then came the missiles.  

 

Only weeks before the attack, Carney stood at the World Economic Forum in Davos and delivered a lofty speech about the need for “smaller nations” to band together to uphold international law, sovereignty, and the rules-based order. He spoke passionately about middle powers defending territorial integrity and rejecting the law of the jungle. So what was the point of that speech if he now endorses the very thing he criticized? Was it empty rhetoric designed to impress Davos elites while he quietly supported the very violations he claimed to oppose in January?  

 

If Canada truly believes in international law, why the cowardly silence when the world’s most powerful actors torch it? The question demands an answer. Is Carney only interested in upholding international law when it serves Canada and its allies? Or is he committed to the territorial sovereignty of all nations—ally and adversary alike?

 

Carney’s initial response to this new war screams selective enforcement. Canada was among the loudest voices condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Sanctions were imposed amid speeches filled with outrage. “Rules-based order” became a mantra. Yet when the United States and Israel launch an illegal war of aggression against Iran—bombing civilian sites, assassinating leaders, and igniting a regional conflagration—Canada offers support “with regret” at best, and deflection at worst. No demands for accountability, just platitudes about diplomacy while the innocent die. 

 

International experts are calling out this grotesque double standard. UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul has stated bluntly that the US-Israeli strikes “appear to breach the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggression” and lack any valid legal justification.  

 

Yusra Suedi, assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, warns that the attacks amount to a crime of aggression and expose the “unravelling fragility” of international law—precisely the same fragility the West highlighted when Russia invaded Ukraine but now conveniently overlooks for its own allies.  

 

Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University said, “The use of wanton military force has contributed to a sense of impunity for powerful states and has degraded the international law system.”   

 

The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has documented the pattern—a swift, unified condemnation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine contrasted with excuses, silence, or outright support for US-Israeli aggression against Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, and beyond.  

 

The greatest beneficiaries of Washington’s contempt for the UN Charter are the very actors the West claims to oppose—Russia, now emboldened in Ukraine, and China, watching for its moment in Taiwan. The message to the world is clear—international law is a weapon to be wielded against adversaries, never against ourselves. 

 

Instead of demonstrating principled leadership Carney has shown rank hypocrisy that shames Canada’s international reputation. Not surprising given his government’s refusal to recognize Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, despite the overwhelming evidence and the explicit findings of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Médecins Sans Frontières the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the UN and numerous other respected international organizations. 

 

Instead, Canada continues to ally itself with and politically shield nations committing the gravest of international crimes while Iran burns and its people suffer.By backing—or at minimum refusing to condemn—this war of aggression, Carney has aligned Canada with the very forces that he criticized in Davos, ones that ignore the rule of law, inflict chaos and suffering, while their victims are left to bury the corpses. We were supposed to have left that era behind after 1945. Yet here we are returning to the law of the jungle. 

 

The strikes were launched while negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were reportedly advancing. The 2015 nuclear deal with Iran—negotiated under Barack Obama—was working until Trump tore it up at Netanyahu’s behest. Carney knows this, yet he calls for “restraint” now that the genie is out of the bottle. He condemns Iran’s retaliation but refuses to name the original aggressors. Why? 

 

Because consistency would require Canada to stand on principle against powerful allies. Because admitting the attack on Iran violates the UN Charter would expose the hypocrisy. Because Carney’s vaunted Davos vision is performative theatre not meant to apply to the crimes of allies. 

 

Canada cannot claim moral authority when our prime minister shrinks from stating the obvious—the US-Israeli assault on Iran is illegal, dangerous, and a direct breach of the UN Charter and the territorial sovereignty of a member state. Carney’s refusal to condemn it reveals exactly where his true commitments lie—to power and alliance above principle. 

 

The world is watching. Smaller nations—the very ones Carney claimed to champion in Davos—are taking notes. If Canada will not defend the rules when it matters most, against the most powerful violators, then Carney’s words were worthless. International law either applies to everyone or it applies to no one. The shame belongs to him—and to every Canadian who still believes their government stands for something more than selective hypocrisy. 

 

The path forward is anarchy unless leaders like Carney find the courage to speak truth to power—starting with naming the supreme crime for what it is. Until then, his Davos speech will stand as a monument to empty rhetoric and moral bankruptcy. 

© The View From Here.  © Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.