Has Israel Done Irreparable Damage To The US ‘Rules-Based Order’?
Thus, while the Rules-Based Order has been challenged before predominantly by multipolar states who have zero tolerance for US nonsense, the last nail in the coffin was wrought by Israels' rampage.
The ongoing military actions in the Middle East, particularly those undertaken by Israel, have sparked discussions and outrage about the integrity and credibility of the United States Rules-Based Order. Recently, Israel has escalated its military operations, conducting airstrikes in various states including Syria, Lebanon and Gaza which resulted in significant civilian casualties and have raised serious ethical and political questions regarding the double standards that often pervade the United States foreign policy. The article argues how the US and its Israeli protectorate have eroded the remaining confidence in the West's Rules-Based Order.
Israel's military operations in Gaza and other neighboring countries have become increasingly aggressive, with the US protectorate conducting strikes that target not only military assets but also civilian infrastructures, bombing densely populated areas, leading to the loss of innocent lives. The number of civilian deaths resulting from Israeli military operations may surpass those caused by despots that the US has forcibly removed. This pattern of behavior shows a critical inconsistency in how international norms are applied and feeds the perception that while Israel is permitted to engage in military actions that result in civilian casualties, similar actions – or mere accusations of such actions – by other nations often conjures swift condemnation and punitive measures from the US-led west and its vassal states.
Rules-Based Order & International Law
It's also worth noting the fundamental legalistic and discursive differences in the direction of world politics that is currently emerging between the United States and its allies on one side, and the Chinese and Russians on the other. This is the conflict between what the Western powers refer to as a rules-based international order versus a more traditional old-fashioned principle of international law, which is the basis for the approach taken by the Chinese and Russians.
The difference between the rules-based order and international law lies in their foundation. International law is based on the consent of all countries and is documented in the UN Charter, the decisions of the Security Council, and the General Assembly. Additionally, there is a large body of court decisions dating back to the 19th century that have also shaped international law. International law is generally administered through courts, the most important of which is the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Treaties are sometimes, but not always, administered by national courts. As a result, we have a matrix of law created through various legal mechanisms: the UN Charter, Security Council resolutions, international treaties, and court decisions which all together make up international law. On the other hand, the rules-based international order is a very different concept that can sometimes be difficult to define exactly what it is. The term which gained prominence in the 1990s is mainly used by the United States and the UK, which talk about it as if it were synonymous with international law.
The unwavering support that the US provides to Israel complicates its position as a credible mediator in Middle Eastern conflicts. When the US fails to hold its allies accountable for their actions, it undermines its own narrative of promoting a just and equitable international order. This inconsistency is leading to rising skepticism among nations regarding the reliability of US intentions and policies. The selective enforcement of the Rules-Based Order’s authoritative mimicry of international law creates a significant dilemma for the United States. Thus, while the Rules-Based Order has been challenged before predominantly by BRICS member states who have zero tolerance for US nonsense, the last nail in the coffin was wrought by Israels' rampage.
Furthermore, the growing perception that the US allows its allies to act with impunity contributes to an erosion of its credibility on the global stage. Even though the Rules-Based Order scheme is a neocolonial version of authentic international law it requires some balance in its approach to Israel, so as to maintain a face of accountability and equality, but this has become increasingly difficult to uphold when the Israelis operate without facing consequences for their actions.
Historically, the US is the nation that constantly has intervened in dozens of states worldwide in various ways ranging from economic sanctions, embargoes, weaponization of arrest warrants, freezing of assets or banning from SWIFT against countries under the pretext of promoting democracy and removing despotic regimes. However, the number of Palestinian civilian deaths which many believe has reached genocidal proportions resulting from Israeli military operations has exceeded those caused by the so-called despots' governments that the US has forcibly removed in the past and yet there is no coordinated Rules Baser Order response to Israel. This stark comparison challenges the ideological justification of Rules-Based Order that the US invokes when engaging in international conflicts and de facto Hybrid War.
Erosion of Credibility For The US ‘Rules-Based Order’
The United States has historically provided unwavering support to Israel, which complicates its position as a mediator in Middle Eastern conflicts. The US Rules-Based Order performance of accountability and justice becomes difficult to utilize when the West's post-modern crusader state of Israel operates without facing consequences for its actions. The actions of Israel in the Middle East, particularly its military operations against civilian populations, pose a significant challenge to the United States' ability to maintain a credible ruse.
The apparent double standards in the enforcement of any restraint and the lack of accountability for Israel significantly undermine the believability of the international law mimicking scheme that the US seeks to promote. Without a commitment to consistency and accountability, the United States and Israel have ruined the Rules-Based International Order's effectiveness as a neocolonial discursive tool that imitated international law’s authority.