Netanyahu and Maduro: Who gets justice and who gets immunity?
Washington’s raid on Venezuela is sold as law enforcement, but silence on Gaza exposes how international law is bent to protect allies and punish adversaries
By Shabana Ayaz
WASHINGTON (MNTV) – When the U.S. abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a dramatic cross-border operation, it claimed fidelity to the rule of law and vowed to bring him to justice.
Yet on the other part of the globe, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defies every law on earth and moves freely despite active international arrest warrants over Gaza. Therefore, there is a stark message: international law applies selectively, and seizure of Venezuela’s president has less to do with accountability than with choice.
U.S. officials insist the January 3 raid in Caracas was not an act of war but law enforcement. Maduro, they argue, was already indicted in U.S. courts on narco-terrorism and drug trafficking charges. Extradition, they say, was impossible. Regional security demanded action. President Donald Trump framed “Operation Absolute Resolve” as a necessary step to protect American lives and dismantle criminal networks.
That defense collapses under scrutiny.
The operation relied on overwhelming military force, ignored Venezuelan sovereignty, bypassed international mechanisms, and delivered a sitting head of state to a U.S. courtroom.
If domestic indictments alone justify armed abduction abroad, then the restraints of international law are effectively void. Experts warn that calling this “law enforcement” empties the term of meaning and replaces due process with raw power.
The contrast with Israel is unavoidable. Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including the alleged use of starvation as a weapon.
The warrants, issued in November 2024, remain active in January 2026. More than 80,000 civilians have been killed, with extensive documentation by international bodies and human rights groups. The gravity and scale of these alleged crimes far exceed those cited in the U.S. case against Maduro.
Yet Washington rejects the ICC’s authority, sanctions the court, and continues to host and support Netanyahu. Observers point to the contradiction. U.S. law is treated as universal when used against an adversary, while international law is dismissed as irrelevant when it implicates an ally. This is not a legal argument. It is a political choice.
Defenders of this posture argue that the United States is not an ICC member and therefore owes the court nothing. But that reasoning rings hollow after Caracas. Non-membership did not restrain Washington from acting beyond its borders. What is being asserted is not principle, but privilege.
Analysts further argue that portraying Maduro’s capture as a mere law-enforcement operation distorts the reality. In their view, the action amounted to a state-level abduction for leverage, driven less by justice than by strategic interests in Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and the pursuit of indirect control over them.
This follows a familiar pattern in which the language of law, human rights, and accountability is deployed to target resource-rich but politically inconvenient states. Seen in this light, Maduro’s seizure appears less as an act of justice and more as part of a broader effort to secure economic and geopolitical advantages under the cover of international legality.
Legal scholars warn that the precedent is dangerous. If powerful states normalize extraterritorial abductions under the banner of justice, others will follow suit. The result is not order, but imitation and escalation. International law becomes rigid for the weak and flexible for the strong.
An honest reading leads to one conclusion. If accountability justifies extraordinary action, then it must apply to all leaders, including allies. Shielding Netanyahu while abducting Maduro does not defend the rule of law. It exposes its selective use. Equality before the law is not optional. Without it, international justice loses legitimacy, and peace becomes collateral damage.
Shabana Ayaz is a Pakistani journalist and writer based in Türkiye.
Have Your Say!
Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Please share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@soundvision.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a Muslim Network TV’s representative. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
Tweet: @MuslimNetworkTV
We must take charge of our narrative. Research indicates that 92% of their Muslim coverage is negative. Help us change that.
