Israel’s scapegoating undermines global governance

The international community’s response to conflicts and human rights violations reveals a troubling pattern of selective moral outrage, where actions by certain states, Israel in particular, receive vastly different treatment to comparable or even more severe actions by others.

Recent events, particularly the India-Pakistan escalation of 2025 and ongoing restrictions on media access in various conflicts, demonstrates how Israel faces disproportionate scrutiny and condemnation compared to other nations engaging in similar military operations, civilian casualties, and restrictions on press freedom. International institutions, civil society organisations, and media outlets apply fundamentally different standards when evaluating Israeli actions versus those of other states, undermining both the credibility of global-justice mechanisms and the principles of equal treatment under international law.

The escalation of conflict between India and Pakistan offers a stark illustration. In May 2025, following a terrorist attack in Kashmir that killed 26 people, India launched “Operation Sindoor”, firing missiles into Pakistani territory and killing at least 26 civilians, including women and children. Pakistan reported that India had struck six locations, with civilian buildings being targeted, and at least eight people confirmed dead including a three-year-old child. This represents what Pakistan’s prime minister characterised an “act of war”.

The international response to these civilian casualties has been notably muted. While the United Nations Security Council held closed consultations at Pakistan’s request, no emergency session was convened, no resolutions were passed, and no significant condemnation emerged from the international community. The United States, rather than threatening sanctions or aid cuts, actually approved $131 million (R2.3 billion) in military assistance to India during this period of escalation. US President Donald Trump’s response was limited to calling the situation “a shame”, and expressing hope it would “end very quickly”.

This restrained response contrasts sharply with the way similar Israeli actions are received. When Israel conducts military operations that result in civilian casualties, the international community responds with immediate emergency UN Security Council sessions, widespread condemnation, and calls for investigation. The UN General Assembly’s tenth emergency special session on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing since 1997, and has convened more than 30 meetings, making it the most frequently reconvened emergency session in UN history. Recent Israeli military action in Gaza has prompted immediate emergency sessions, with UN Secretary-General António Guterres denouncing “mass destruction” and “heartbreaking” civilian casualties.

The numerical disparity in casualties doesn’t explain this differential treatment. The Gaza conflict has resulted in more than 25 000 Palestinian deaths according to Gaza’s health ministry, compared to 1 200 Israelis killed in the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack. However, the India-Pakistan escalation, involving comparable civilian casualties relative to the scale of the attacks, has received minimal international attention despite occurring between nuclear-armed powers.

Another area revealing stark double standards is restrictions on media access and press freedom during conflicts. India implemented significant media restrictions during its tensions with Pakistan, including blocking Pakistani YouTube channels and news organisations; instructing media to rely solely on official briefings; and pressuring international media to adopt government-preferred terminology. India also blocked Kashmiri media outlets, with The Kashmir Walla website and social media accounts made unreachable within India, while its founder editor remains incarcerated on charges including “seditious” and “anti-India” articles.

These restrictions on the press during active conflict have received minimal international criticism compared to similar measures involving Israel. Though the Foreign Press Association has criticised Israel for preventing foreign journalists from entering Gaza independently since October 2023, similar restrictions by other nations during conflicts don’t generate equivalent international pressure or media attention.

The contrast becomes more pronounced when considering that Israel faces sustained international pressure over media-access restrictions during wartime, while other nations implementing similar or more severe restrictions during their conflicts receive comparatively little scrutiny.

The application of sanctions and economic pressure reveals perhaps the most glaring double standard in international response. Despite India’s military strikes and its restrictions on media freedom, no major Western nation has threatened sanctions or economic isolation.

In contrast, Israel faces constant threats of sanctions and economic pressure from multiple Western nations. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, has warned that his country could apply sanctions against Israelis over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The United Kingdom (UK) is actively considering sanctions against two Israeli cabinet ministers. More than 800 lawyers and judges have called for UK sanctions on Israel, demanding concrete action to halt what they characterise as “serious violations of international law”.

The US has also threatened to cut military aid to Israel if humanitarian conditions in Gaza don’t improve, with secretary of state and defence officials sending a formal letter warning of potential aid reductions within 30 days.

The cultural and academic boycott movement represents another dimension where Israel faces unique international pressure. The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement has successfully convinced “tens of thousands of artists across the world and a rapidly growing number of arts organisations” to endorse publicly the cultural boycott of Israel. International venues and festivals are pressured to reject funding and sponsorship from Israeli institutions, with cultural boycotts explicitly modelled on the anti-apartheid movement against South Africa.

Consumer boycotts targeting Israeli goods are actively promoted in multiple countries. These systematic economic and cultural boycotts targeting an entire nation’s cultural and economic output have no parallel in contemporary international relations, even for countries engaging in conflicts with comparable or higher civilian casualties.

No similar systematic boycott movements have emerged targeting India despite its recent military actions, media restrictions, and civilian casualties in Pakistan.

International legal frameworks further demonstrate these double standards. The International Court of Justice has issued orders regarding Israeli actions in Gaza, with the European Union explicitly calling for their full implementation. And the UN General Assembly’s regular emergency sessions on Israel represent an unprecedented level of sustained international pressure.

Meanwhile, the UN Security Council’s closed consultations on India-Pakistan tensions concluded without any formal statements or resolutions, despite Pakistan’s characterisation of India’s actions as an “act of war”.

This selective moral outrage undermines the credibility of international institutions and the principles of equal treatment under international law. It may also perpetuate cycles of conflict by creating perceptions of bias that undermine diplomatic solutions and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

While legitimate concern about Israeli actions and policies deserves attention, the application of different standards based on the identity of the actors rather than the nature of their actions represents a failure of international justice. The international community must recognise and address these inconsistencies to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of global governance systems designed to protect human rights and maintain peace and security.

• Nkateko Muloiwa is a political researcher with an interest in international and local affairs. He provides political commentary on issues ranging from the Middle East to rural South Africa. He recently completed his Masters in Political Studies and is pursuing an MSc in Science Communication at the University of the Witwatersrand. He also has interests in the geopolitical significance of Israel in the Middle East.