The ongoing tragedy in Gaza has laid bare the contradictions of global politics and the selective morality of those who claim to champion human rights. While Western governments have defended Israel even as its military actions devastated civilian life, many independent rights organizations—expected to speak with moral clarity—have also faltered. Their reluctance to confront abuses committed by Israel has raised troubling questions about the credibility of institutions that claim to stand above politics.
The recent resignation of Omar Shakir, former Israel-Palestine director at Human Rights Watch, illustrates this crisis of conscience. Shakir revealed that a report documenting Israel’s denial of the Palestinian right of return was blocked by the organization, fearing backlash. The report had described this denial as a “crime against humanity,” a phrase that would have carried significant weight in international discourse. Shakir’s departure, accompanied by his loss of faith in the institution, underscores how even respected watchdogs can succumb to pressure when powerful lobbies are involved. HRW defended its decision by citing the need for further analysis, but the delay itself speaks volumes about the difficulty of holding Israel accountable in a global environment where criticism is often silenced.
The Gaza conflict has exposed the hypocrisy of many Western states. As hundreds of thousands marched in London, Paris, and New York to condemn their governments’ complicity, official responses remained muted or defensive. Some leaders offered carefully worded sympathy for Palestinian civilians, but their policies continued to shield Israel from accountability. This duplicity has not gone unnoticed, and it has eroded trust in the very principles of justice and equality that these governments claim to uphold.
The Muslim world, too, has faced criticism for its slow and limited response. Only after last October’s ceasefire did regional governments begin to act with greater urgency. Yet the silence of rights organizations is perhaps more damaging, because it undermines the very idea of impartial advocacy. If defenders of human rights censor themselves to avoid offending powerful allies, their work risks becoming irrelevant.
The broader Western ecosystem amplifies abuses committed by adversaries while minimizing or ignoring those committed by allies. This imbalance distorts global narratives and leaves oppressed communities without a fair hearing. In Gaza, the suffering has been immense—families torn apart, homes destroyed, and generations scarred. To downplay or obscure these realities is to deny the humanity of Palestinians and to betray the universal principles of justice.
The lesson is clear: human rights cannot be selective. Advocacy loses its meaning when it bends to political convenience. The world must confront the full extent of Gaza’s suffering, not with hesitation or half-truths, but with honesty and resolve. Only then can the pledge of “never again” carry weight. If silence continues to prevail, the promise of human rights will remain hollow, and the people of Palestine will continue to pay the price of global complicity.
Today's E-Paper