What Did the Walk-Out Expose? Intolerant Authoritarians Fill the UN

Last Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel—the leader of the only Jewish state in the world and the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East—stood before the UN General Assembly to address the world. The response? 77 out of 193 UN member states—nearly 40%—either dramatically marched out as Netanyahu took the stage or weren’t even in the room.

You might have thought that the world’s most “refined” diplomats—supposedly the elite arbiters of international discourse, trained to engage with leaders and uphold the ideals of diplomacy—would at least stay in their seats and listen. But apparently, refinement, professionalism, and basic decency are optional when ideology trumps reason. Instead, they revealed themselves as timid, performative bigots who can’t tolerate a Jewish democracy or a single dissenting voice.

Nothing says “diplomatic excellence” quite like a performative exit of representatives of the most despotic regimes on earth.

Most of the walkouts were Muslim-majority countries, with the bulk of them authoritarian or outright non-democratic, and a handful of fragile democracies so riddled with corruption they can barely function. The rest of the walkouts included colorful characters like North Korea, Botswana, Lesotho, Colombia, Venezuela, and Eritrea—a lineup that reads like a world tour of dysfunction.

The walk out also exposed another undisputable truth -- there are A LOT of Muslim-first nations on earth. So many, in fact, that after exiting the plenary en masse, the hall was pretty empty. And this begs the question: is the creation of yet another 99% Muslim nation, namely "Palestine," actually going to contribute to world stability or progress? As the "Gaza as a State" project draws to an ignomius close as a result of Hamas' horrific October 7th massacres, the answer is crystal clear, and empatically, "no," as we argue in our related essay.

Will the creation of yet another 99% Muslim nation contribute to world regional stability and progress towards peaceful coexistence?

The stunt was intended to embarrass Israel—but for anyone paying attention, it backfired spectacularly. What it actually revealed is that many of these countries cannot tolerate the existence of one tiny Jewish state, or even the idea that someone might speak in disagreement with the tired anti-Israel tropes they recite daily at the UN. The mass walkout was less a statement about Israel than a confession: they are intolerant, insecure, and afraid of ideas that challenge their worldview.

Contrast this with Israel: a democracy where free speech, opposition parties, and dissenting opinions are part of daily life, where disagreement isn’t met with mass walkouts or performative indignation. The difference couldn’t be more glaring.

This event exposes a bitter truth: in much of the world, authoritarianism and performative intolerance still dominate, and the mere presence of a Jewish democracy is apparently too much for some to handle.

If the UN really wants to be a “community of nations,” it might first ask its members whether they can sit in a room and actually listen. Walking out on Israel didn’t diminish Israel—it simply exposed the fanatical intolerance of those who fear hearing the truth spoken directly to them.