By: Abdullahi Inuwa Special Report
Outspoken Nigerian human rights lawyer and activist, Chief Malcolm Omirhobo, has ignited fresh debate over the Isr@el-Ir@n war by taking a bold stance in defense of Ir@n, saying his support for the embattled Islamic Republic is rooted in truth, justice, and international law — not antisemitism.
In a series of posts on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account, Omirhobo condemned Isr@el’s recent military actions in Gaza and against Ir@n, as well as the United States’ involvement in the conflict, insisting that standing against Isr@eli aggression does not amount to hatred of Jews.
“I am not antisemitic for criticizing Isr@el for her war crimes in Gaza,” Omirhobo wrote. “I am not antisemitic for standing with Ir@n against Isr@el’s unprovoked attack. I am not antisemitic for condemning the United States’ bombing of Ir@n.”
Omirhobo, known for his symbolic court appearances and fearless civic engagements, laid out a detailed nine-point argument justifying his position, urging the global community to “stand on the side of the truth” and reject what he called the double standards applied to Israel’s conduct in international affairs.
1. Nuclear Hypocrisy and Treaty Violations
According to Omirhobo, Ir@n has demonstrated more commitment to global nuclear stability than Isr@el.
“Ir@n signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) and has submitted itself to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Isr@el, on the other hand, has refused to sign the NPT and denies any meaningful oversight of its nuclear program.”
He added that estimates suggest Isr@el holds between 75 to 400 nuclear warheads, while Ir@n possesses none — yet it is Ir@n that faces constant international pressure and military threats.
2. Territorial Aggression and Occupation
Omirhobo accused Isr@el of aggressively expanding its territory through unlawful means, in violation of international law.
“Isr@el has stolen Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese lands through war, terror, and conquest. Ir@n has not illegally annexed or occupied any territory,” he wrote.
He described Isr@el’s actions as “colonial conquest cloaked in religious justification,” contrasting it with Ir@n’s observance of internationally recognized boundaries.
3. Existential Threat Narrative
Omirhobo flipped the mainstream Western narrative that paints Ir@n as a threat to Isr@el, arguing instead that it is Isr@el that poses a real and immediate danger to Ir@n’s sovereignty.
“Isr@el has bombed Iran’s allies, assassinated Ir@nian scientists, and launched cyberattacks — all without formal provocation. Ir@n has shown restraint. So who’s the real threat?”
He insisted that Ir@n has a right to defend itself, especially after repeated provocations and assaults on its territory and diplomatic facilities.
4. Racism and Apartheid Allegations
Omirhobo doubled down on the international consensus by several human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, that Isr@el operates an apartheid regime.
“Isr@el is a racist state that runs an apartheid system over illegally acquired lands. Ir@n does not run any apartheid regime, nor does it institutionalize racial supremacy,” he asserted.
He argued that Isr@el’s policies towards Palestinians — including restricted movement, unequal access to services, and systemic land seizures — mirror the injustices of apartheid-era South Africa.
5. Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
The activist accused Isr@el of committing war crimes, including acts that could amount to genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian population.
“Isr@el has bombed hospitals, schools, and refugee camps. What else do we need to call it genocide? Ir@n has never committed such atrocities against any nation or people,” Omirhobo stated.
He said the latest war in Gaza, with mass civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure, should outrage the international community rather than elicit silence.
6. War Criminals and Legal Impunity
Malcolm pointed out that several Isr@eli leaders are facing legal scrutiny for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
“Isr@eli leaders have been declared wanted fugitives for inhuman and cruel treatment of Palestinians. Ir@nian leaders, despite decades of sanctions and pressure, are not fugitives or wanted war criminals,” he noted.
He criticized what he called “selective justice” by international courts, which he claims disproportionately target nations resisting Western dominance.
7. Propaganda and Disinformation Campaigns
Omirhobo further accused Isr@el of engaging in systematic misinformation to demonize Ir@n over the past four decades.
“For over 40 years, Isr@el has painted Ir@n as the enemy of the free world through disinformation, propaganda, and manipulation of global media. Ir@n has not done the same,” he wrote.
He alleged that this one-sided narrative has blinded many to the atrocities committed by Isr@el, while portraying Ir@n as an aggressor without cause.
8. The Question of Global Silence
One of the most impassioned parts of Omirhobo’s commentary was his lamentation over the silence of global powers and institutions in the face of what he described as Isr@eli impunity.
“So what are we talking about? Why is the whole world condoning Isr@el? Why are we shy or afraid to condemn Isr@el? Let us stand on the side of the truth — it is not antisemitic to condemn Isr@el.”
He cautioned against equating criticism of Isr@el with antisemitism, emphasizing that many Jews around the world also oppose Isr@el’s policies.
9. Standing with the Oppressed, Not the Powerful
In concluding his remarks, Omirhobo described his support for Ir@n not as a blanket endorsement of the Ir@nian regime, but as a principled stand for fairness and justice.
“This is not about Ir@n being perfect. It’s about choosing between a nuclear-armed apartheid regime committing war crimes and a country that has signed treaties and submitted to inspections but is being bullied for its defiance.”
Reactions and Implications
Reactions to Omirhobo’s statement have been mixed. While some hailed him as a rare voice of conscience in an era of moral cowardice, others accused him of oversimplifying complex geopolitical realities.
Political analysts note that Omirhobo’s intervention adds a new dimension to African voices challenging Western narratives on Middle Eastern conflicts, especially as more countries in the Global South reassess their foreign policy alignments.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with his views, Chief Malcolm Omirhobo’s words are certain to spark further discourse — about international law, justice, and the moral responsibility to call out oppression, regardless of the perpetrator.
“When the truth becomes a threat to power, silence becomes complicity,” Omirhobo warned. “We must speak, and we must stand. Not for politics, not for popularity — but for what is right.”
About The Author
