Ofer Chen, a Zionist lawyer and PhD graduate from Tel Aviv University, critiques the series of reports in Zionist media regarding alleged human rights violations in Iran. He describes this approach as hypocritical, utilized by those advancing their own agendas.
Chen discusses the attacks from Zionist media and experts against various Western organizations, officials, and media for their criticisms of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. He notes that the silence of many Israeli experts regarding the West Bank while they focus on Iran uncovers a bitter truth: hypocrisy exists within the international human rights discourse. This is not a profound insight but rather an obvious acknowledgment that has been reiterated countless times.
The problem arises when this acknowledgment is presented as a one-sided indictment, which exempts Netanyahu’s supporters—who claim to be concerned about Iran’s internal situation—from critique. Here, hypocrisy reveals itself in its purest form.Chen argues that if one is to address hypocrisy, one cannot overlook the stark contradiction between the sudden concern of Israeli writers for the rights of Iranian citizens and the systematic violation of Palestinian rights by the Israeli government.
This is not an imported ‘progressive’ critique, but rather well-known facts: settler violence is a daily occurrence. The massacres committed by the ‘Youth of the Hills’ movement in Palestinian villages are commonplace—actions that not only go uncondemned but are often met with silence or even explicit support from ministers, Knesset representatives, and Israeli executive bodies. Anyone willing to ignore this reality while simultaneously shouting about human rights in Iran cannot criticize hypocrisy, as they embody the very definition of it.Chen further emphasizes the instrumental use of human rights by Zionists, stating that the claims made by this group reflect not only moral hypocrisy but also a cynical use of human rights as a propaganda tool. For them, human rights are not a universal value but rather a rhetorical weapon, wielded only when it serves to attack the Western community opposing Israel and Netanyahu’s policies.
It seems that Palestinians, like Iranians, are viewed as beings without rights, merely a variable in an argument. When Palestinian rights are violated by Jews, they remain silent. Yet, when the anti-Israel Iranian regime confronts protesters, they become champions of human rights and ethics. This is not a principled moral stance but rather a blatant and repugnant double standard.The expert points out deeper contradictions in the writings and articles of Netanyahu’s supporters, which strip their assertions of any moral or ethical credibility. Those who speak of human rights and ethics but remain silent or justify systematic incitement to violence and tension within Israeli society by their own government are unworthy of having their words heard.
In recent years, Netanyahu’s government has orchestrated a campaign of incitement that is violent and unrestrained against citizens, demonstrators, bereaved families, and reservists in Gaza. Attempts to run over protesters, calls for murder, public humiliation, and systematic destruction of legitimate civil protests are not trivial issues; they are the direct result of a political discourse that has turned violence into a political tool.Who is at the center of this discourse? Not fringe leftist activists, but the Prime Minister himself. When these individuals choose to present themselves as global moral authorities without uttering a word about the incitement, violence, and delegitimization perpetrated by the current Israeli leadership against its citizens, they are not merely hypocrites—they are complicit in these actions. This silence is not a neutral act; it is a political stance.A difficult yet necessary question arises: do Netanyahu’s supporters have any moral right to speak about human rights? Not in the legal sense, but in a value-driven context. Those who do not condemn human rights violations at home, who do not express concern about the transformation of civil protest into a legitimate target for violence, and who are not disturbed by the disrespect shown to families of prisoners in the name of ‘national loyalty’ cannot criticize hypocrisy, as they epitomize it.The criticisms from Netanyahu’s supporters regarding Western hypocrisy on human rights are not an indictment against ‘progressive leftists’; rather, they seek to use this issue as a shield for themselves. They want to say: the Westerners are hypocrites, so anything is permissible for us. It is permissible to inflict harm, permissible to remain silent, permissible to wield power without any consideration against any enemy or opponent. This dangerous, if not perverse, logic does not fundamentally address human rights but rather compares evils.In conclusion Chen highlights the hypocrisy of the global community regarding the definition and use of human rights. Yes there is hypocrisy in the discourse of the global progressive movement. However the same hypocrisy exists in Israel deeper and far more dangerous because it occurs where we have direct responsibility. Anyone genuinely wishing to discuss ethics must start at home: in the West Bank in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and in the media studios where any violence against Israeli citizens is justified under the guise of ‘patriotism’—or more accurately ‘the effort to maintain their coalition government.’
If we are to address hypocrisy we must first look within ourselves. ‘First adorn yourself then adorn others.’
