In the grand theater of international politics, the latest performance revolves around a peculiar question that has sparked debate like an overcooked potato salad at a summer barbecue: Why do some folks bristle at the existence of a Jewish state? Because, let’s face it, it’s not exactly riveting entertainment when an argument devolves into an ethnocentric tug-of-war. Yet, in this particular drama, it appears some commentators have finally donned their moral capes, only to reveal their hypocrisy.
The crux of the matter surfaces when one takes a good look at the notion of ethnocracies. When one of our dear commentators zeroes in on the discomfort surrounding Israel, they sprinkle their commentary with the belief that all nations should be inclusive. While the sentiment tugs at the heartstrings, it skims over the fact that many countries around the globe might as well be running a “No Ethnics Allowed” club. Take that great bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia, for instance. If you dare suggest building a church there, you might as well book your one-way ticket to the great beyond. Apparently, there’s a strict dressing code at that establishment—namely, a complete lack of freedom of religion.
This raises a truly perplexing question: why do we hold Israel, the only Jewish state, to a vastly different standard? It’s as if critics think that a Jewish state is like an oversized slice of cheesecake—obvious, indulgent, and entirely out of place in a healthy society. Yet, those same critics don’t seem inclined to slam ethnocentric states across the globe with the same fervor. Instead, they often toss around accusations like confetti, gleefully ignoring the myriad nations that embrace ethnocracy with open arms—or perhaps more accurately, closed borders.
Certainly, the cherry-picking of outrage is a treat unto itself. Critics wax poetic about their universal principles while turning a blind eye to the reality of countries that are less than welcoming to various cultures. Imagine trying to practice Christianity in many parts of the Middle East! It would likely turn into a real-life episode of “Survivor” the minute you set foot in those states. Meanwhile, Israel remains one of the few places in that region where freedom of religion, including the ability to build a church or a mosque, persists—albeit with the usual red tape that comprises any urban planning effort.
The irony here is thicker than a bowl of chili at a county fair. The left often champions the cause of “diversity” and “inclusion,” yet many seem appallingly oblivious to the poky realities that lie in nations such as Iran and the aforementioned Saudi Arabia. It’s almost as if they’d rather have their ideological cake and eat it too, with little consideration for the results. The world could do with a little less performative outrage and a smidge more introspection. So, the next time an intrepid progressive takes to the soapbox, they might just want to consider the wider canvas of global politics, while acknowledging that states can have their nuances—and maybe, just maybe, a Jewish state isn’t the hill worth dying on after all.
In a world where the flavor of outrage seems to shift as often as the tide, wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a little consistency? After all, if you’re truly opposed to ethnocracies, it would be wise to extend the critique beyond the borders of that tiny sliver of land called Israel. It’s a big world out there, and perhaps it’s time for a more nuanced conversation—complete with a few less sharpened arrows aimed at the Jewish state and a few more at those other notable offenders around the globe.
