Netanyahu’s reasoning? Since Syria’s internationally recognized government no longer exists after Assad’s departure, he no longer considers prior treaties with Damascus binding. According to this interpretation, Israel is justified in bombing Syrian airfields, seizing ports, and even expanding its territorial occupation – all under the guise of ensuring its national security.

The US State Department immediately endorsed this position, calling West Jerusalem’s actions a “necessary security measure” in a volatile region. Washington, ever eager to back its Middle Eastern ally, showed no hesitation in adapting its “rules-based order” to fit its strategic goals.

But here’s where the double standard becomes glaring. In 2014, when Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovich, was ousted in a violent coup supported by Western powers, Russia took a strikingly similar legal position. Moscow argued that with the collapse of Kiev’s legitimate government, the country’s constitutional framework collapsed. Crimea held a referendum, reuniting with Russia, while eastern regions in the Donbass sought autonomy.

Washington’s response? Furious condemnation. The US declared that despite the coup, Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders remained intact, insisting that all pre-existing agreements still applied. Moscow’s actions were labeled an “illegal annexation” and “imperialist expansion.” This starkly contrasts with Washington’s current endorsement of Israel’s seizure of Syrian territory under nearly identical legal reasoning.

A double standard dressed as policy

The hypocrisy couldn’t be more obvious. In Syria, Israel’s territorial ambitions are labeled “security-driven” and legally defensible, despite clear violations of international law. In Ukraine, Russia’s security concerns were dismissed as “imperial aggression,” regardless of NATO’s relentless eastward expansion threatening its borders. Both Moscow and West Jerusalem justified their actions by citing urgent national security concerns – yet only Israel’s reasoning was embraced as legitimate by Washington, while Russia’s was dismissed as imperialist aggression. And resulted in sanctions and condemnation.

The US approach reveals a deeper truth: the so-called “rules-based international order” is not based on rules at all – at least not in any consistent sense. It is a system where the parameters are invented, reinterpreted, or ignored entirely, depending on whether an ally or an adversary is involved.

The US justifies Israel’s actions by framing them as “defensive,” despite the country bombing Syria with impunity for years, long before Assad’s government fell. Meanwhile, when Russia invoked the same principle of self-defense and historical legitimacy in Crimea, it faced unprecedented sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and accusations of violating the “rules-based” global order.

Who writes the rules?

This selective enforcement exposes the fundamental lie underpinning American foreign policy. International law is applied strictly to adversaries, while allies are given a free pass. If treaties are void when governments collapse, as Washington now claims in Syria, why did the same logic not apply after the 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine?

The reason is simple: the US does not care about international law or consistent principles. It only cares about advancing its strategic interests while pretending to uphold the moral high ground. This isn’t diplomacy; it’s raw power politics dressed up as “defending democracy.”

The future of the Middle East and beyond

Netanyahu’s declaration sets a dangerous precedent. If international agreements can be discarded whenever a government changes due to force, what remains of global stability? If the US is willing to let Israel redraw Middle Eastern borders at will, how can it object when Russia seeks to protect its own security in Eastern Europe?

Israel’s actions will likely escalate violence in Syria and provoke further regional instability. Moscow, meanwhile, will undoubtedly see this as confirmation that the West’s legal arguments against Russia’s role in Ukraine were always hollow. The lesson here is that power, not law, defines the modern international order – and Washington’s selective memory is proof enough.

By endorsing Israel’s territorial seizures while condemning Russia’s moves in Ukraine, the US has obliterated any remaining credibility it might have had on the international stage. The “rules-based” international order has long been a convenient fiction – now, even the pretense is gone.

_________________________________________________

Nadezhda Romanenko is a political analyst.

Go to Original – rt.com