One question captures the essence of the relationship between allies: what happens when one ally, sometimes embodying evil spiritedness, errs?
Does the relationship end as a sense of justice prevails? Does the virtuous ally terminate the collaboration or at least ask the other one to renege on the actions it has taken? Does turning a blind eye to the other’s actions entail complicity in them?
When grievances erupt on the world stage, the ripples of reaction to them can be felt across the globe. These grievances might arise from injustices, the violations of rights, invasions, or other causes.
The first response to a grievance is through diplomatic channels. Governments summon ambassadors to question actions, release official statements on the matter in question, or issue strong condemnations. Another way to respond to grievances is by imposing sanctions. These may include economic restrictions, travel bans, or arms embargoes designed to punish actions taken or force a change in behaviour. A last resort is military intervention.
The West has often reacted in this way to regimes it considers aggressive. Such responses have varied in form and consequences, ranging from diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions to military interventions and support for opposition movements.
The West can and has mobilised quickly and decisively against certain states, among them Apartheid South Africa, the Iraq of former president Saddam Hussein, the Serbia of former president Slobodan Milošević, and the Russia of President Vladimir Putin. Yet, when it comes to Israel, its responses tend to be symbolic at best.
From the 1960s to the 1980s, the West increased its diplomatic and economic pressure on South Africa’s Apartheid regime, contributing to the eventual dismantling of the Apartheid system and the establishment of a multiracial democracy in 1994. In the 1990s, the Western powers, primarily through NATO, intervened in the Balkans to halt aggression, most notably the ethnic cleansing campaigns led by the Milošević regime in Serbia.
They also launched Operation Desert Storm after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, expelled the Iraqi forces, and restored Kuwait’s sovereignty. In 2011, they intervened in Libya to end the rule of former Libyan leader Muammar Al-Gaddafi, with Western airstrikes and support for opposition forces contributing to the downfall of the regime. The Western countries imposed sanctions on Russian individuals and companies after the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Although the postwar trajectories of many of these conflicts have often been fraught with instability, these examples highlight the West’s attempts to restrain regimes perceived as threats to what it considers to be global security.
But will the West ever react to the actions carried out by Israel? None of the above-mentioned actions has been carried out during the current war on Gaza – no sanctions, no condemnations, and no arms embargo. Despite its waging a war of annihilation in Gaza, Israel is still fully supported by Western governments that have remained inactive in the face of brutal starvation tactics and repulsive inhumanity.
They have abstained from taking any fundamental action against Israel, and their support for it is ongoing, perhaps most visibly in the realm of military assistance. US F-35 fighter jets, the US Iron Dome missile-defence system, and intelligence-sharing agreements continue to reinforce Israel’s capabilities.
Even after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, he was met with 52 standing ovations by members of the US Congress. At the UN Security Council, the US continues to block all Resolutions against Israel. Most recently, the US State Department has said it will deny visas to Palestinian officials heading to the US to attend a UN meeting where many states plan to recognise the state of Palestine.
Why is the West unable, or unwilling, to take a stand against Israel, even in the face of mounting criticisms and appeals for justice?
The double standards are evident. Despite pro-Palestinian grassroot protests in many Western countries, judicial voices such as the ICC, and independent human rights organisations such as Amnesty International all criticising Israel, Western governments have not enacted any important commitments to resolve the war on Gaza and the atrocities inflicted on the Palestinians.
At the heart of the West’s relationship with Israel lies the legacy of the Holocaust in Europe. For many in Europe in particular, supporting Israel has become a form of atonement for historic guilt. This determines political discourse to this day in many Western countries, making criticism of Israel an especially sensitive subject.
Any Western leader seeking to take a strong stance against Israel risks being accused of anti-Semitism or of minimising the historical suffering of Jewish communities in Europe. This historical burden, while not the sole factor, continues to cast a long shadow over Western policy.
Israel’s strategic role in the West, particularly in the US, also cannot be overstated. In the US, pro-Israel lobbying groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) exert considerable influence over Congress. Political candidates are keenly aware that support for Israel is a litmus test and those who stray from this consensus risk alienating donors and voters alike.
Taking a hardline stance against Israel could backfire and provoke a backlash from powerful lobbying groups. The experience of individual Western politicians who have attempted to censure Israel and have faced political isolation or career setbacks as a result serves as a warning to others.
The likelihood of a decisive Western stand against Israel thus remains remote. The status quo persists not out of ignorance of the genocidal situation in Gaza but because the risks of criticising Israel are deemed too great.
The writer is a former professor of communication who is based in Vancouver, Canada.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 4 September, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: