There is something deeply troubling about the manner in which Israel and the Jewish people have once again become the focus of an extraordinary campaign of political condemnation, public vilification, and international hostility.
When public figures such as Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Zohran Mamdani feel able to malign Israel and Jews in sweeping, inflammatory and often baseless terms – and to do so with the apparent confidence that social media will provide them with millions of receptive followers – one is entitled to ask a fundamental question: is something seriously wrong with the political and social discourse in America?
The question is not merely whether particular statements are offensive or misguided. It is whether a broader phenomenon is developing in which hostility toward Israel and Jews has become socially acceptable, politically advantageous, and increasingly immune from serious scrutiny.
The same concern arises in Europe.
When governments and political leaders in Ireland, Spain, Canada, Australia, and Britain appear willing to embrace, or lend credence to, false allegations of genocide, deliberate starvation and other grave accusations against Israel and its leaders without the factual and legal basis for such allegations, one must ask whether European governments have become incapable, or unwilling, to resist politically motivated campaigns against Israel.
More fundamentally, one must ask whether some of the traditional European prejudices against Israel, and indeed against Jews, are once again finding political expression under the guise of fashionable political narratives.
The Influence of Domestic and Foreign Pressure
These concerns are reinforced by the increasingly powerful political influence of Muslim constituencies and organizations in several Western democracies, as well as by foreign financing and lobbying.
Citizens exercising political influence is not inherently improper, regardless of their religious or ethnic background. In a democracy, every citizen is entitled to participate in political life. The legitimate question arises, however, when domestic or foreign political pressures appear to influence national policy at the expense of a state’s broader strategic interests, democratic values, and constitutional principles.
Are some Western governments allowing narrow political calculations, economic interests, or electoral considerations to override their traditional commitments to freedom, equality, and the protection of minorities?
The apparent failure of some governments to respond adequately to antisemitic demonstrations, threats and attacks – particularly when such conduct is accompanied by hostility toward Israel and Jews – only reinforces these concerns.
When Jewish communities are subjected to intimidation, synagogues are attacked, Jewish institutions require extraordinary security protection, and cemeteries are desecrated, governments have an elementary obligation to protect their citizens. The right to demonstrate and express political views cannot extend to intimidation, racial or religious hatred, or violence.
A Disturbing International Double Standard
The same pattern appears within international institutions.
The United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, and other international bodies have devoted extraordinary attention to Israel, producing a seemingly endless succession of resolutions and condemnations.
This raises a legitimate question: has the international system lost sight of the principles upon which it was founded?
The United Nations Charter is based upon principles including the sovereign equality of its members, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the maintenance of international peace and security. Yet repeatedly singling out one member state, while far more serious conflicts and humanitarian catastrophes receive comparatively limited attention, inevitably damages the organization’s credibility and moral authority.
It is therefore legitimate to ask whether the United Nations has permitted itself to become hostage to shifting political majorities whose conduct is not always consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter.
If so, the question is not whether the United Nations should abandon its founding principles, but precisely the opposite: whether it is time to restore those principles to the center of the organization’s activities.
The same concern applies to the conduct of senior international officials. The Secretary-General and other senior UN officials occupy positions that demand the highest standards of impartiality and objectivity. When senior officials repeatedly appear to single out Israel while failing to devote comparable attention to other conflicts and crises, questions inevitably arise concerning the credibility and impartiality of the international system.
The Palestinian Issue and the Erosion of International Commitments
A further and particularly troubling phenomenon concerns the treatment by Western states of the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian Authority.
Many Western governments have historically sponsored, financed, and supported the Oslo process and subsequent Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Those agreements created reciprocal obligations and were intended to provide the legal and political framework for resolving outstanding issues through negotiation.
Yet when states that helped create and endorse that framework subsequently support initiatives that bypass, weaken, or undermine its fundamental commitments, the credibility of their own diplomatic guarantees is inevitably called into question.
One must therefore ask: what confidence can Israel, or any state, place in international assurances concerning future agreements if the states providing those assurances are themselves prepared to disregard or circumvent the commitments embodied in existing agreements?
The issue is not whether one supports or opposes Palestinian statehood as a political objective. The issue is whether fundamental principles of international relations and treaty commitments are to be respected.
International agreements cannot retain their credibility if governments enforce them selectively for political convenience.
The Palestinian Authority and Terrorism
Another serious question concerns the continued international characterization of the Palestinian Authority as a moderate and legitimate partner for peace. In contrast, substantial concerns remain regarding Palestinian incitement, glorification of terrorism, and financial support for individuals convicted of terrorist offenses and their families through their “Pay-for-Slay” policy.
Western governments cannot reasonably demand that Israel take political risks in the pursuit of peace while simultaneously ignoring conduct by the Palestinian leadership that encourages or rewards violence.
Nor can the international community credibly condemn terrorism in one context while rationalizing or minimizing it in another.
If Palestinian leaders publicly promote hostility toward Israel, tolerate antisemitic rhetoric, or fail to confront terrorism unequivocally, the international community should not excuse such conduct merely because it considers the Palestinian Authority politically useful.
Hamas, Hizbullah and the Lessons of October 7
The issue becomes even more serious in relation to Hamas and Hizbullah.
These organizations have repeatedly expressed their hostility toward Israel and their determination to continue armed struggle against it. The atrocities committed by Hamas and its allies on October 7, 2023, demonstrated with horrifying clarity the consequences of dismissing such declarations as mere rhetoric.
The international community should have learned a fundamental lesson from that day: terrorist organizations, particularly Islamist terror groups, must be judged by what they say, what they do, and what they openly declare they intend to do – not by what the international community wishes them to become.
Political naivety is not a substitute for strategy.
Nor should the desire to engage with extremist organizations, or the hope that they can somehow be transformed into moderate political actors, lead democratic states to overlook their ideology, their methods, or their declared objectives.
The Iranian Regime and the Wider Strategic Threat
The same principle applies to Iran.
The Islamic Republic’s policies and activities extend far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its support for terrorist proxies, its regional military activities, its threats against Israel, and its challenges to international security cannot responsibly be treated as merely another diplomatic disagreement.
Western governments must ask themselves whether their pursuit of short-term economic or diplomatic accommodation is undermining their ability to confront a much broader strategic threat.
The issue is particularly acute when the regime or its proxies threaten freedom of navigation and the internationally protected principle of free passage through international waterways.
The international community cannot credibly defend the rules-based international order while simultaneously tolerating systematic challenges to those rules whenever political or economic considerations make enforcement inconvenient.
The Central Question
The cumulative effect of these developments is difficult to ignore.
Israel appears repeatedly to be treated as an exceptional case: subjected to an extraordinary level of international scrutiny, condemnation and political pressure. At the same time, comparable or more serious conduct elsewhere receives substantially less attention.
This does not mean that Israel, like every other state, should be immune from criticism. Legitimate criticism is an essential component of international relations and democratic discourse.
But criticism becomes something entirely different when it is selective, disproportionate, detached from facts, or based upon standards that are not applied consistently to other states and peoples.
Nor should criticism of Israel become a convenient vehicle for antisemitism.
The Jewish people should not be held collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, just as no other nationality or religious community should be held collectively responsible for the policies of a government.
Questions That Demand Answers
The questions raised here are therefore not rhetorical exercises. They concern the integrity of Western democracy, the credibility of international institutions, and the future of the rules-based international order.
Why has Israel become such a disproportionate focus of international condemnation?
Why are allegations against Israel so readily accepted before their factual and legal foundations have been properly examined?
Why do Western governments appear increasingly reluctant to confront antisemitism when it is expressed in the context of hostility toward Israel?
Why are existing international agreements selectively disregarded when political circumstances change?
Why does the international community continue to place faith in organizations that openly reject the principles of democracy, coexistence, and peaceful relations?
And why, after the horrors of October 7, do some governments still appear willing to believe that organizations committed to Israel’s destruction can somehow be accommodated into a peaceful political order without first abandoning their fundamental ideology?
These are not questions to dismiss as partisan rhetoric.
They go to the heart of Western foreign policy’s credibility and the international system itself.
The answers will determine whether democratic states continue to defend objective standards, reciprocal obligations and the rule of law – or whether political expediency, ideological fashion, and domestic pressure will increasingly determine international policy.
These questions demand serious and honest answers. And they demand them before it is too late.
