European Union flags flutter outside the EU Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, on June 17, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Yves Herman

There is a peculiar phenomenon in international politics that becomes increasingly obvious whenever Israel is discussed. Countries with centuries of conquest, persecution, colonial exploitation, and mass violence behind them suddenly present themselves as guardians of international morality.

Israel, a country whose existence is inseparable from thousands of years of Jewish history, has become a convenient target for governments eager to demonstrate their moral credentials without examining the contradictions within their own positions — or the actual situation that is occurring in Israel.

Consider the enthusiasm with which some European politicians describe Israel as a colonial enterprise. Britain once governed an empire stretching across continents, exploiting distant territories and suppressing populations demanding independence. France maintained colonial control over Algeria for more than a century, using torture and brutal repression in its struggle to retain power. The Netherlands built enormous wealth through overseas expansion, while Dutch forces committed systematic violence during Indonesia’s struggle for independence.

These were genuine colonial enterprises, established by European powers seeking territory, economic advantage, and political domination far beyond their ancestral homelands. Yet representatives of countries with such histories sometimes describe Jewish national self-determination in the ancestral Jewish homeland as though it were merely another European imperial adventure. The distinction should be obvious, but acknowledging it would complicate a politically convenient narrative.

Jewish history did not begin when European antisemitism reached its murderous climax during the Holocaust. It did not begin with the British Mandate, the Balfour Declaration or Israel’s independence in 1948. Jewish civilization emerged in the Land of Israel thousands of years ago. Jerusalem was central to Jewish religious and national identity long before modern European countries existed. Hebrew, Judea, ancient Jewish kingdoms, archaeological discoveries and centuries of Jewish religious practice testify to a connection that survived conquest, exile and persecution.

Jewish communities also maintained a presence in the land throughout the centuries. None of this means that Palestinian Arabs have no history, rights, or legitimate aspirations. It means that portraying Jews as foreign intruders without indigenous historical roots is a profound distortion. A political argument that requires erasing Jewish history is not an honest interpretation of the past.

The contradictions become even more troubling when accusations of genocide enter political debate. Germany, responsible under Nazi rule for the systematic murder of six million Jews, understands the historical and legal significance of that crime better than almost any other nation. Spain expelled Jews in 1492 unless they converted, while its Inquisition persecuted religious minorities and suspected secret practitioners of Judaism. The Ottoman Empire carried out the Armenian genocide, a historical reality that Turkey continues to dispute in its official characterization.

These histories do not disqualify modern governments from criticizing Israel, nor do they make today’s citizens personally responsible for their ancestors’ actions. But they should inspire intellectual humility, particularly when politicians invoke the most serious accusations recognized by international law.

Genocide is not simply another word for warfare, destruction or civilian suffering. It requires specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. Allegations concerning Israel must therefore be examined through evidence and applicable law rather than accepted or dismissed through political slogans. Civilian deaths deserve serious scrutiny, regardless of which military is responsible. Hamas’s deliberate attacks against civilians, its hostage-taking and its military operations within densely populated areas must also be part of any serious examination of the conflict.

A consistent commitment to human rights cannot selectively overlook atrocities because acknowledging them would complicate a preferred political narrative.

What troubles me most is the selectivity of international outrage. When other countries face accusations of abuse, their governments are often granted the luxury of historical complexity, security considerations, and political context. Israel, by contrast, is frequently discussed as though its history can be reduced to a handful of emotionally charged accusations. The massacre of Oct. 7, the continued threats from terrorist organizations, and the historical persecution of Jews become secondary considerations, sometimes disappearing from the conversation altogether.

This does not mean that Israeli decisions should escape investigation or criticism. Israel is a democracy whose citizens openly challenge their own leaders. It means that criticism should be informed, proportionate, and consistent, rather than driven by a determination to find Israel guilty before examining the evidence.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether governments have the right to criticize Israel. They unquestionably do. The issue is whether they are prepared to apply the principles they proclaim with equal seriousness to themselves, their allies and their adversaries. Historical awareness should produce humility rather than moral arrogance. International law should serve justice rather than political convenience. Jewish history should be treated as an essential part of understanding Israel, not as an inconvenient detail to be discarded.

The world does not need fewer questions about Israel. It needs better questions, greater historical honesty and the courage to apply the same standards to everyone. Nations that demand accountability from Israel should welcome that same scrutiny of their own conduct.