The wars in Ukraine and Palestine highlight one of the most striking contradictions in international politics: the selective application of the principle that land should never be taken by force.
When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and later launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Western governments responded with sanctions, military aid for Kyiv, and strong declarations that borders cannot be redrawn through aggression. Ukrainian resistance has been praised as both legitimate and heroic.
But Palestinians have long argued that their land, too, has been taken by force, through settlement expansion, displacement, and occupation. Their resistance is rarely described as legitimate. Instead, it is often condemned as terrorism, while Israel continues to enjoy extensive military, economic, and political support from Western allies.
Double Standards on Display
This contrast has not gone unnoticed. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has urged European leaders to avoid “double standards” in their responses to Gaza and Ukraine. Analysts such as Shada Islam have suggested that Europe’s muted action on Israel, compared to its robust sanctions on Russia, reflects deeper structural biases and historical legacies.
Public commentary has echoed the same concerns. Writers like John Wight in the Morning Star and Mustafa Akyol in Middle East Eye have argued that the West risks undermining its credibility by insisting on international law in one case while appearing to ignore it in another.
A Mirror Effect?
Some observers have even suggested that Moscow may be using its demands on Ukraine to highlight these contradictions. By pressing for territorial concessions, Russia forces Western leaders into a position where they cannot accept land being taken by force. Yet this is precisely what Palestinians have been asked to accept for decades.
If land concessions are unacceptable in Ukraine, how can they be promoted as a path to peace in Palestine? The inconsistency raises uncomfortable questions about whether international norms are applied universally, or only when they align with strategic interests.
The Cost of Inconsistency
The credibility of the so-called “rules-based international order” rests on consistency. If defending one’s homeland against invasion is legitimate for Ukrainians, then the same principle should logically extend to Palestinians. Applying international law selectively not only deepens mistrust in the global South but also erodes Western moral authority.
As the conflicts continue, the test for the West is not just about Russia or Israel. It is about whether it can uphold the principles it claims to defend — without exception.