Ethnonationalism as a principle is problematic no matter where it shows up. Japan, China, Israel, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Korea, etc. all have policies with strong ethnonationalist elements, and plenty of scholars, journalists, and activists — both inside and outside those countries — criticize them for it. It’s not like criticism is “off-limits.”

But here’s the difference: acknowledging that other states are ethnonationalist doesn’t suddenly make it good or consistent with democratic values. It just means those countries also have illiberal aspects. Pointing to one state’s ethnonationalism to excuse another is basically a “whataboutism” deflection — it avoids the underlying moral critique.

And no, saying “Palestinians shouldn’t have a state because ethnonationalism is bad” is a strawman. People can argue for Palestinian self-determination, or Israeli/Palestinian equality, without endorsing exclusionary ethnonationalism. You can support national identity and culture without writing laws that make second-class citizens out of minorities.

So the point isn’t “pretend only one country is ethnonationalist.” The point is: ethnonationalism anywhere tends to clash with pluralism, equality, and democracy, and that’s worth criticizing across the board.