Inconsistent hypocrisy

The charge of hypocrisy is one which is levelled at anyone and everyone by anyone and everyone these days, yet seemingly few of its users seem to know the meaning of the word.  One such example is Dr P.N. Kirstein in a letter to today’s Gulf News:

The George W. Bush administration should be condemned for its hypocrisy. The regime is demanding that Iran bury its nuclear ambitions but is silent on Israel’s nuclear weapons.


n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1.  The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2.  An act or instance of such falseness.

What Dr Kirstein means is that the George W. Bush administration should be condemned for inconsistency in this instance, not hypocrisy.  You’d have thought a doctor, not to mention the letters editor of a national newspaper (who entitled the letter “What a hypocrisy!”) would have known that, wouldn’t you?


2 thoughts on “Inconsistent hypocrisy

  1. I don’t even consider it inconsistent – Israel developed their nuclear weapons in the 1960s (with French help) prior the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Further Israel is not a member of that treaty (Iran is a member of the treaty). Israel has never acknowledged (or denied) having nuclear weapons and therefore is not among the nations to publicly assert membership in the nuclear club.

    I tend to think Israel gets off far too easily for their actions and policies. However, the vitriol that has poured out of Iran towards the US and west since 1979, make it far easier to imagine Iran setting off a nuke in NYC (if they had one) – than Israel touching one off in Tehran.

  2. Pingback: White Sun of the Desert » Pot vs Kettle

Comments are closed.