Any mention of human rights in this statement applies selectively and is generally contingent upon geopolitical convenience. We would like to clarify that “universal” human rights claims may not universally apply and are subject to selective enforcement. Specific populations, such as the Palestinians, may experience inconsistencies in the application of these rights due to complex and evolving priorities, including but not limited to political alliances, historical narratives, and the definition of “ally.”

While we recognize that humanitarian values are cited as a guiding force, these values are enforced on a case-by-case basis, especially when expedient for Western interests. Please note that condemnation and concern for human rights may be invoked, postponed, or omitted entirely depending on factors like strategic interests, economic considerations, and popular narratives.

In short, “human rights for all” has, in this context, various exclusions, exemptions, and disclaimers—some assembly required.

We further acknowledge that selective concern may result in intensified rhetoric, where one group’s suffering is amplified while another’s is minimized or reframed as “too complex” for unequivocal support. This selective empathy aligns with the latest moral algorithms, which occasionally deprioritize human rights considerations in areas deemed politically sensitive. As a result, the concept of human rights may appear inconsistently applied, but rest assured, this approach remains consistent with long-standing traditions of expedient advocacy.

Moreover, Western audiences are gently reminded that expressions of solidarity and outrage are often tailored for maximal resonance with existing alliances, thus avoiding undue discomfort or confrontation. All public statements are crafted with careful attention to the values of liberty, justice, and freedom—as long as these do not interfere with existing defense contracts, resource access, or the stability of favorable governments.

In closing, please remember that any perceived hypocrisy in this policy is merely an unfortunate byproduct of balancing ethics with pragmatism. Human rights are, as ever, both essential and selectively optional.