By Sardar Khan Niazi

For decades, the United States has presented itself as a champion of human rights, accountability and the rule of law. Yet when these principles collide with the interests of one of its closest allies, they appear increasingly negotiable. Washington’s continued political and diplomatic protection of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become emblematic of this contradiction. The issue is no longer simply about one leader or one conflict. It concerns whether international law applies equally to all states or only to those lacking powerful patrons. If accountability is selective, justice risks becoming a tool of geopolitics rather than a universal principle. The International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Netanyahu over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity marked a watershed moment in international justice. Israel rejects the allegations, while the United States has consistently challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals and has opposed efforts to enforce the court’s decisions. Washington has also taken measures against the ICC, arguing that its actions threaten US sovereignty and the interests of its allies. Regardless of one’s view of the court’s legal reasoning, the broader question remains unavoidable: can the international legal system survive if powerful countries choose which rulings deserve respect? The answer has implications far beyond the Middle East. Successive US administrations have condemned alleged war crimes committed by adversaries, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to atrocities elsewhere. Those positions carry moral weight only if they are applied consistently. Shielding an ally from legal scrutiny weakens the credibility of future calls for accountability.  The staggering humanitarian toll in Gaza has intensified global demands for independent investigations and legal accountability. Across much of the world, the perception has grown that political considerations continue to outweigh legal principles whenever Israel is involved. Whether or not one accepts that assessment, its persistence is damaging to the legitimacy of international institutions. Even within the United States, debate has become increasingly pronounced. Public opinion, civil society organizations and sections of the political establishment have questioned the unconditional nature of American support for Israel. That debate reflects a broader recognition that strategic partnerships cannot permanently override concerns about humanitarian law. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s claimed that he would arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his next visit to the U.S.  Mamdani eventually admitted he had no authority to carry it out, especially as the U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which issued a warrant for Netanyahu.  While criticism of Israel was once confined to the party’s progressive wing, recent events such as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Netanyahu’s alignment with former President Donald Trump have swayed even moderate and older Democrats toward reevaluating U.S. support for Israel. History demonstrates that justice is often delayed but seldom extinguished. The international community has repeatedly insisted that no individual is above the law. That principle cannot remain credible if exceptions are carved out for the most powerful or their closest partners.  The United States has long claimed leadership in defending a rules-based international order. That leadership carries responsibilities as well as privileges. If Washington continues to shield Netanyahu from legal accountability while demanding justice elsewhere, it risks reinforcing the perception that international law is applied selectively. Such an outcome would weaken not only the ICC but the broader architecture of global justice that the United States has often pledged to uphold. The choice before Washington is therefore larger than its relationship with one Israeli leader. It is a choice between defending a consistent system of international accountability or accepting a world in which power, rather than principle, determines who is held to account.