The Board of Hypocrisy Part 2

If part one exposed the contradiction of empowering states that do not even recognize Israel, part two examines a different layer of the same problem. Countries that claim strategic relevance, regional influence, or diplomatic weight, yet carry their own democratic deficits, regional ambitions, and double standards.

Again, the question is simple. Is this truly about peace, or about leverage.

Turkey presents itself as a regional power and an indispensable NATO member. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the country has moved away from the secular liberal model it once promoted. Political opposition figures have been arrested, independent media faces pressure, and the judiciary’s independence has been questioned internationally.

Turkey officially recognizes Israel and maintains diplomatic relations, yet rhetoric from Ankara has often been sharply critical, especially during Gaza conflicts. Erdoğan has positioned himself as a vocal defender of the Palestinian cause and has hosted senior Hamas figures in the past. At the same time, trade between Turkey and Israel has continued even during periods of political tension.

Turkey’s approach is transactional. Public condemnation, private pragmatism. Regional ambition wrapped in ideological language.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy ruled by the Al Saud family. Political parties are not permitted, and national elections do not determine executive power. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has introduced economic and social reforms under the Vision 2030 program, including expanded opportunities for women to drive, work, and travel without prior guardian approval.

Yet political dissent remains tightly restricted. High profile arrests of activists and critics have drawn international concern. The kingdom does not operate as a liberal democracy.

Saudi Arabia does not formally recognize Israel, but in recent years there have been quiet security contacts and discussions around potential normalization. Riyadh officially supports the Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions recognition of Israel on the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Strategic calculation again outweighs ideology. The kingdom balances domestic legitimacy, regional rivalry with Iran, and its relationship with Washington.

Belarus is widely regarded as one of Europe’s most authoritarian states. President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled since 1994, consolidating power and suppressing opposition movements. Elections have been repeatedly criticized by international observers as neither free nor fair. Public protests have been met with force, arrests, and intimidation.

Belarus maintains diplomatic relations with Israel and historically hosted a Jewish community that traces back centuries. However, its foreign policy is closely aligned with Russia. In international forums, Belarus often follows Moscow’s strategic positioning.

The country’s internal governance record raises obvious questions about its credibility in shaping democratic outcomes elsewhere.

Mongolia is often described as an electoral democracy in a region dominated by authoritarian powers. It holds competitive elections and has experienced peaceful transfers of power. However, governance challenges persist, including corruption concerns and economic dependency on powerful neighbors.

Mongolia maintains diplomatic relations with Israel and generally pursues a balanced, pragmatic foreign policy. It does not play a central ideological role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but aligns with broader international consensus positions in multilateral institutions.

Its inclusion in broader diplomatic structures may signal neutrality, but neutrality alone does not equate to strategic influence.

Azerbaijan operates under a highly centralized presidential system. President Ilham Aliyev has been in power since 2003, succeeding his father. Elections have been criticized by international observers for lacking competitiveness, and political opposition faces constraints. Independent media operates under pressure.

Azerbaijan maintains strong diplomatic and security ties with Israel, particularly in defense cooperation and energy trade. Israel has been a significant supplier of military technology to Azerbaijan, especially visible during the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

At the same time, Azerbaijan presents itself as a supporter of Muslim causes internationally. Its approach to Israel is pragmatic and strategic rather than ideological. Security cooperation coexists with rhetorical support for Palestinian statehood.

Once again, the pattern is clear. Pragmatism. Leverage. Strategic hedging.

So what does this board truly represent?

It is not a coalition of stable liberal democracies committed to consistent principles. It is a mosaic of monarchies, hybrid regimes, electoral democracies with uneven human rights records, and entrenched authoritarian systems. Some recognize Israel. Some do not. Some trade with Israel while condemning it. Others host actors openly committed to its destruction.

And yet this is presented as a credible structure to shape the future of the region.

If the goal is lasting security, the starting point cannot be diplomatic symbolism. It must be dismantling armed proxies, curbing incitement, and demanding mutual recognition as a non-negotiable baseline.

Israel lives in a neighborhood defined not by theory, but by rockets, militias, and shifting alliances. External powers that treat this reality as a chessboard risk miscalculation of historic proportions.

Peace cannot be outsourced to contradiction.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)