The lecture hall at Harvard was packed. Five hundred students, notebooks open, expecting another careful, balanced discussion on international law. Instead, they got something far more unsettling.
The professor stepped forward, scanned the room, and posed a challenge that cut through the academic routine.
“Name one country that criticizes Israel,” he said, “and I will show you that it has committed far worse violations of international law.”
At first, hesitation. Then confidence.
“France,” a student called out.
- “Algeria. Indochina. Systematic violence against civilians.”
“Britain.”
- “Iraq. Kenya. Malaya. Brutal suppression.”
“Spain.”
- “Morocco. Western Sahara.”
“Turkey.”
- “Kurdistan. Cyprus. Entire populations erased from history.”
"Denmark?"
-“Greenland. Forced assimilation policies. Indigenous rights ignored for decades.”
"United States?"
“Iraq. Afghanistan. Civilian casualties. Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo.”
One by one, the examples stacked up. Not obscure footnotes, but well documented chapters of modern history. Empires, occupations, insurgencies crushed with force. Civilian populations caught in the crossfire, often deliberately.
The room grew quieter with every response.
The point was not that Israel is beyond criticism. No serious legal or moral framework would argue that. The point was far more uncomfortable: the global conversation is not applied evenly.
Many of the loudest voices invoking international law today come from states with long records of violating it when it suited their interests. Yet those histories are rarely part of the discussion. They are archived, reframed, or simply ignored.
Instead, Israel is often treated as a unique case. Not just scrutinized, but isolated. Judged not only by universal standards, but by expectations that few other nations are ever asked to meet, certainly not retroactively.
This asymmetry raises a difficult question. Is the criticism really about law and human rights, or is it shaped by politics, convenience, and selective memory?
International law was designed to be universal. Its credibility depends on consistent application. When it becomes a tool used selectively, it risks losing both moral authority and practical relevance.
The professor’s closing argument lingered in the air long after the lecture ended. Not because it was comfortable, but because it forced a confrontation with something many prefer to avoid.
If the same standards were applied across the board, how many nations would pass the test they so confidently administer to others?
Until that question is taken seriously, the debate will remain less about justice and more about narrative.
Comments
Post a Comment