In a world seemingly driven more by realism, perhaps every nation should be given the chance to defend itself from terror, war and violence. Although the last half of the previous century was defined by increasing multilateralism and faith in trans-national organizations, shown by the seemingly exponential development of such entities, the world has reached a new era in which powerful nations seem to exercise their will on a more unilateral basis, regarding coordination of efforts across a multi-national front as more of a hindrance and formality, a vestigial or primitive part of foreign affairs and international policymaking.

The United States has provided such examples in recent years, specifically in its pursuit of terrorism overseas. America has endured wars in the Middle East for the sake of her domestic security. The justification of the military action in Afghanistan has been that the security of America, her interests and her citizens, depend on the rooting out of terrorists and nations supportive of terrorism.

The world as a whole stood by and watched the United States take on Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001. Although resistance and protest did exist to some degree, many nations were quick to jump on the bandwagon in supporting U.S. forces throughout its campaign in the name of justice for terrorists. The “coalition” was not militarily necessary, but was arguably politically necessary. The U.S. could have and would have acted alone, if required. Regardless, the war was not criticized.

The world, however, is quick to criticize other nations when they turn to the same tactics for much the same reasons.

The Associated Press reported Sunday that Israel struck a reported Islamic Jihad training base inside Syria, marking the first time Israel had taken military action in Syrian territory in three decades.

Instead of recognizing that the solution to Israel’s security concern was the destruction of this training base, world leaders were quick to censure Israel in the harshest terms.

“Many people across the globe feel that Israel is above the law,” said Fayssal Mekdad, Syria’s U.N. ambassador.

This seems to be a well established trend in world thinking: A nation can take the actions it needs to protect its country and its sovereignty, especially when another nation attacks it first – except when Israel is involved.

The widely-accepted U.S. attack on Afghanistan, including its removal of the Taliban from the country, which is remarkably similar (although on a larger scale) to Israel’s attack on Syrian land, has been seen in much different light. In the case of Afghanistan, the U.S. removed from power a government which was understood to be harboring terrorist group al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

In the case of Syria, Israel has attacked land in a country which is understood to be harboring terrorist group Islamic Jihad. Islamic Jihad is largely responsible for the attacks Israel has endured in recent years, including the attack Saturday in Haifa, which killed 19 innocent bystanders including four children.

Although the two situations are similar, the world has been quick to judge – and quick to do so more harshly and more unfairly than ever before – simply because the situation involves Israel.

In the most recent situation, multilateral approval was not necessary. Israel acted alone in the interest of her safety, using a conventional approach established by the example of the U.S. We should support Israel in her quest for safety and security, her actions on realist principles and the same acceptable methods that we have previously founded.

As Americans and as human beings, we need to be more careful in recognizing the similarities in these situations and in understanding the root causes for why so many see them as different. We need to be more careful – and less hypocritical – in our judgment of other nations. We need to stop criticizing Israel simply for being Israel, and we need to realize when our criticism comes for such a reason.