IOC Discovers 'Neutrality' Only Applies When Israel Isn't Involved
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has declared Indonesia’s exclusion of Israeli athletes from a global gymnastics event unacceptable, warning the nation could lose its rights to host future sports. The mainstream narrative casts this as Indonesia violating principles of 'political neutrality.' Yet, conspicuously absent from the IOC's moral outrage is any historical reference to its own
selective application of these principles, especially when the occupying state is a Western ally. One might recall the IOC's lengthy deliberation over banning South Africa during apartheid – an ethical quandary that took decades to resolve, unlike this instant condemnation. Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population, has no diplomatic relations with Israel, a fact often ignored by
these calls for 'neutrality.' When will the IOC apply its 'no politics' rule to the illegal annexation of Palestinian land, or to Israel’s military occupation, both of which profoundly impact Palestinian athletes' ability to compete? How many 'rules-based international orders' does it take before we question whose rules, and which order, truly matters?