Wars in the Middle East can end when all parties adhere to international law
John McCain was right about the need to uphold International Law
When former U.S. Senator John McCain opposed the George W. Bush administration’s torture policies, he did so with unmistakable clarity. As a former American pilot captured and tortured by the Viet Cong, McCain often emphasized a simple truth: if one party in a conflict justifies violating international norms, it opens the door for the opposing side to do the same. His words, emblazoned on the Red Cross website, remain powerful and relevant today:
"The Geneva Conventions and the Red Cross were created in response to the stark recognition of the true horrors of unbounded war. And I thank God for that. I am thankful for those of us whose dignity, health, and lives have been protected by the Conventions," McCain said in 1999.
Those words ring louder than ever today as Israel—long positioning itself as a perpetual victim—is now decrying damage, though without casualties, to a hospital near a military site in southern Israel and to Israeli television stations that were warned of being targeted.
In the wake of World War II, the international community established a new legal order. This order prohibited the acquisition of land by force and set clear guidelines on the rules of war. Accountability mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), were created to enforce these rules. Signatories of the Rome Statute—125 countries, excluding the U.S. and Israel—are legally bound to cooperate with the ICC in investigating and prosecuting war crimes, including through arrests, evidence-sharing, and the provision of witnesses.
Moreover, 153 countries, including the U.S. and most European nations, are signatories to the Genocide Convention and are therefore obligated to prevent and punish acts of genocide, whether committed in war or peace.
When countries fail to uphold these legal commitments—particularly concerning Israel’s documented violations against Palestinians—they forfeit the moral and legal ground to condemn other nations, such as Iran, for similar actions.
Let’s be clear: attacks on hospitals, medical facilities, places of worship, or media offices must be unequivocally condemned—regardless of the perpetrator.
Israeli media recently aired footage showing blown-out windows and plumes of black smoke rising from the Soroka Medical Center. Yet, its own spokesperson confirmed there were “no serious injuries to patients or staff.” Despite this, Israel’s defense minister accused Iran of committing war crimes.
This latest round of military exchanges between Israel and Iran underscores the urgent need for a consistent, rules-based international order. While some argue that war is inherently chaotic and ungovernable, the truth is that international humanitarian law exists for precisely this reason. The problem is not the absence of rules, but the selective enforcement of them, too often manipulated by political interests that shield allies from accountability.
This global order collapses when nations continue supplying weapons to a country that repeatedly violates these laws, especially when the ICC wants its leaders for war crimes.
The double standard extends far beyond the Israel-Iran context. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the international community swiftly imposed harsh sanctions to punish Moscow for its breach of another country’s territorial integrity. Yet, Israel has violated the sovereignty of its neighbors for decades—most recently escalating tensions with Iran without provocation—without any meaningful consequences.
Russia was expelled from international sporting competitions, yet Israel, whose soccer teams play in illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, continues to enjoy full privileges in global sports bodies like FIFA. Despite violating FIFA regulations, Israel has never received the “red card.”
When Hamas committed atrocities against Israeli civilians, world leaders unanimously defended Israel’s right—as a UN member state—to self-defense. But does this principle apply equally to Iran, Syria, or the Palestinian people under occupation?
Israel has enforced an unlawful and inhumane blockade on two million Palestinians in Gaza for years. When a peaceful flotilla attempted to break the siege to deliver food and humanitarian aid, Israel intercepted the ship, detained its passengers—including prominent environmentalists and elected officials from Western nations—and deported them.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." This belief in a just moral arc also animated the lifelong struggles of leaders like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. Senator McCain’s principled stance in defense of international law remains a lasting legacy today.
The violent cycle engulfing the region began with Israel’s illegal and unilateral breaches of the territorial integrity of a fellow UN member. The UN Security Council—created to maintain peace and security—has been paralyzed, often due to U.S. vetoes aimed at shielding Israel from censure.
The adage “what goes around comes around” speaks to the notion that justice will ultimately catch up with those who abuse power. It is high time for the international community to recommit to a fair and consistent legal framework, one that prioritizes justice over politics and accountability over selective outrage.
**********************************
Daoud Kuttab, an award-winning Palestinian journalist and former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University, is the author of "State of Palestine NOW," practical and logical arguments about the best way to bring peace to the Middle East. Available in English, French, German, and audiobook.