"RULE OF LAW: Israel’s government is subject to rule of law. Ex-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went to prison for 16 months for bribery and obstruction of justice. President Moshe Katsav served five years in prison for sexual crimes."
Point taken. Conspicuously missing is any mention of Netanyahu's legal problems. Let's be honest, shall we?
He has been accused, as anybody can be, but is (like all accused) legally innocent unless and until indicted, tried, and convicted of a crime.
In the opinion of people I trust, the charges against him look flimsy, and may well be entirely political. But we won’t know for (fairly) sure until they are dropped or tried.
Jordan and Oman?? Are you kidding? They're not the worst, but they certainly aren't up to Israel's standards. Netanyahu may well be corrupt--but I'm not inclined to accept that as fact just because all the cool kids on the schoolyard agree that he is. My perceptions are similar to those stated above by Mr. Alazar.
If you're touting the adherence to the rule of law, and you fail to even mention the most current example where that applies, it doesn't reflect well on your argument.
I'm not deflecting at all. If you are an honest person you would acknowledge that the independent Israeli legal system will deal with any charges against Netanyahu as they do against every other accused Israeli including a former prime minister and president (as noted). You obviously have a preconceived and false view of Netanyahu as do so many Israel haters, that he is a dictator or above the law or that he decides who gets punished or anything else like that. Cut the crap.
A curious feature. The Arab World is awash in cronyism, nepotism and bribery--stage-managed by the "wasta"--the middleman. But I never hear the press, social media denizens, politicians demanding investigations, resignations, etc. But with Israel--and Netanyahu in particular--there is an endless thud of people dropping to their fainting couches ad whoosh of fists waving in the air. As said above, Netanyahu may very well have done some illegal things, but thus far, he was not been accused by legal authorities--even though a great number of them hate his guts. But among some Westerners, the logic is straight out of Alice in Wonderland: "SENTENCE FIRST, VERDICT AFTERWARDS!"
People often critize that to which their opponents are most sensitive, almost regardless of whether it is true or relevant, because the point is to shove him off balance. Even more true today when the Zeitgeist is deeply cynical about any such thing as objective truth, and it's much more acceptable to nakedly reduce everything to a tribal power struggle.
In this case, people know that Israel (and Jews generally) actually care very much if they are a just, wise, enlightened and compassionate people. So if you yell at Israel "You are injust! You are corrupt! You are cruel!" the one thing of which you can be 100% sure, even if you are the most uncouth bear to lumber out of a cave recently, is that Israel will take your criticism seriously, will dwell and even stew over it, asking itself: is this true?
On the other hand, for most Arab countries, and many other peoples of the world, if you say "You are unjust! You are corrupt! You are cruel!" the response will be a laugh or a curse. Who cares what you think? Fuck off. Or even: And so? We are in service to God, and that matters more than any of these small other matters.
So what? Netanyahu (and spouse) is currently accused of various things. As far as I am aware none of these have been tried so he/they may or may not be guilty*. Yes he's doing everything he can to delay/evade trial but so what? The judicial process is still running. There are similar issues with major politicians in the US, Spain, the UK (Scotland at least) and Japan that I can think of off the top of my head. For some weird reason there aren't such issues in Jordan, Saudia Arabia or Qatar or really any other Middle East state
* Personally I think the two of them are likely guilty of some, but others are rather like the specious OrangeManBad trials in the US
I'm no apologist for Hamas, and no "river-to-the-sea" sympathizer. I want to understand this horrible war and the associated issues. But I wonder about the statement that "the ratio of civilian-to-combatant casualties in Gaza are lower than in most urban conflicts—including America’s conduct of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and territories controlled by ISIS." Using stats from the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University pertaining to those wars (available at https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Direct%20War%20Deaths_9.1.21.pdf) about 56% of casualties were civilian (approx 375k civilians vs approx 300K combatants). It seems very likely that the ratio of civilians killed in Gaza is much higher than that. Even the IDF says two thirds of Gaza casualties are civilian, but other reputable sources say it is a good bit higher and that up to 70% may be women and children. Some sources say the norm is 90% civilian casualties, so high civilian casualties do not necessarily = war crimes. But it does seem that Israel is being indiscriminate in its military response. Terrorists always hide among civilians. That's who they are. A civilized nation can decide to do its best to avoid civilian casualties, understanding that a lot of innocents will die anyway. Or it can rationalize civilian deaths and pay little attention to avoiding them because the terrorists hide among civilians and some of those civilians support the terrorists. When the history of this conflict is written, what will it say about Israel's choice?
"But it does seem that Israel is being indiscriminate in its military response." It does SEEM that way, if one buys Hamas's bullshit statistics--and unfortunately, a large portion of the stenographers with press badges are more than happy to buy those bullshit statistics and disseminate them without question. Here's a good article from an extremely reliable source (HonestReporting) to help you understand why the stats are, in fact, BS. The article links to some X/Twitter links by Salo Aizenberg--and I highly recommend going through his threads of tweets. The implausibility of and inconsistencies in the Hamas data are almost comically inept.
I do not know the Brown University project that you cite, but it was co-founded by Professors Neta Crawford and Catherine Lutz. Judging from quick Google searches, Crawford appears to use the Gaza Ministry of Health (i.e., Hamas) as her go-to source for data. Ten years ago, Crawford wrote that retaliation by Israel does not work and then gave the usual cycle-of-violence arguments. Lutz signed a letter demanding a ceasefire in Gaza almost as soon as Israel began its operations. Her petition contains the usual caterwauling about being "silenced" in criticizing Israel. Perhaps I'm judging too quickly, but the link you provide seems like the usual pap from the anti-Israel crowd.
If Israel wanted to kill civilians indiscriminately there is literally nothing Hamass and friends could do to stop them. Hamass knows that and so has built its entire campaign around using Gazans as human shields. The fact that Israel has not caused hundreds of thousands of Gazan deaths yet is a sign of just how cautious and discriminating they have been.
Plus there is considerable evidence that a significant fraction of Gazans (significant being of the order of 25%) actively supports Hamass and willingly provides assistance to them thereby removing them from the civilian category. Needless to say there is almost no way to independently confirm whether a "civilian" is actually an innocent human shield or not.
thank you for this clear outline of why Israel needs to be supported, even if you dont support the current prime minister. It's clear you are not advocating supporting anyone who is avoiding legal action. Ironically the US is in a similar situation with it's current candidate. Those who are burning the American flag on campuses have no idea what the alternattive looks like. Just ask the women in Iran. see Washington Post's current ariticle on how Iran is using the opportunity to violently strip women of their basic rights.
I am agnostic on whether Netanyahu is or is not “avoiding legal action.” I am also agnostic on whether he has, in fact committed any crimes; if he has not, then avoiding legal action is a perfectly honorable strategy. You may contend that he has committed crimes, and I of course have high respect for you; but others for whom I have high respect have argued that the accusations lie somewhere between overblown and baseless. I don’t have the knowledge or the bandwidth to make an informed assessment and don’t plan to until and unless prosecutors actually charge him with something and hold a trial.
As for “Ironically the US is in a similar situation with its current candidate,” one could argue that such is true, but only if you are referring to Biden—whose family dealings and personal involvement in said dealings are legitimate targets for investigation; his slippery finances have been well-known for decades. The other current candidate is quite clearly NOT avoiding legal action, as he is spending every day immersed in legal action.
I think it fair to say that the chief executive of a country must defer private legal action—whether to escape just punishment or to clear his name from an unjust accusation—in order to do his job, which is of overwhelming importance. Every country accepts this. I think it fair to say, therefore, that both Biden and Netanyahu are deferring legal action without any prejudice to either.
As to Trump, it can truly be said that he is trying to delay legal action, preferably until after the election, by all legal means—and that, too, is perfectly proper, whether he’s innocent or guilty.
And you don't need the cool kids to tell you what you already know.
His position on the settlements, his undermining of our president by coming to speak to Congress at the invitation of the opposition, and his indictments speak for themselves.
Our president has and claims no right not to have opposing speeches made about him; and Congress is entitled to invite whomever Congress pleases. Are you new here?
Jordan entered several wars of aggression against Israel. That is not what I’d call peaceful. It also was almost overthrown by the predecessors of Hamas in the 1970 Civil War, before (wisely) expelling the (so-called) Palestinians. That isn’t what I’d call stable.
About Oman’s history I don’t know enough.
Israel is a model of stability: it has never had any threat of a turnover of government by force, and has often had turnovers to the opposition peacefully. (Can Jordan or Oman boast that?)
It has often been the target of wars of aggression but has never launched one. Even when it “preempted” in 1967 it was after acts of war by the other side.
Lest we forget, under the international law Uti Possidetis the borders of Israel were set by the 1947 partition, and the 1948 armistice lines reflected an Arab invasion and occupation, which was lifted in 1967 and has no legal effect, so Israel’s legal borders now are those of 1947 (pending peace treaties). Whomever Israel chooses to settle within them is strictly an internal matter and nobody else’s business.
Well, when you put it like that... ("duh" alert for the skeptics). I have to repeat an observation made before and in other contexts - there are two kinds of people in this world: those who recognize evidence, and those who don't. There is very little movement between the two - fortunately in one direction, unfortunately in the other. How to steepen the curves is the challenge.
Buried in a reply but worth calling to people’s attention for comment, because it’s rarely said:
Lest we forget, under the international law Uti Possidetis the borders of Israel were set by the 1947 partition, and the 1948 armistice lines reflected an Arab invasion and occupation, which was lifted in 1967 and has no legal effect, so Israel’s legal borders now are those of 1947 (pending peace treaties)—plus Golan*. Whomever Israel chooses to settle anywhere within them—and how it chooses to govern them: whether to allow some autonomy, and how much—is legally strictly an internal matter and nobody else’s business.
I applaud your article on the virtues of Israel's govt. This article is an indispensible antidote to the toxic, hateful delusional and defamatory nonsense disseminated by the brain dead bigots.
I applaud your article on the virtues of Israel's govt. This article is an indispensible antidote to the toxic, hateful delusional and defamatory nonsense disseminated by the brain dead bigots.
Great compilation. Thank you for this.
"RULE OF LAW: Israel’s government is subject to rule of law. Ex-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went to prison for 16 months for bribery and obstruction of justice. President Moshe Katsav served five years in prison for sexual crimes."
Point taken. Conspicuously missing is any mention of Netanyahu's legal problems. Let's be honest, shall we?
He has been accused, as anybody can be, but is (like all accused) legally innocent unless and until indicted, tried, and convicted of a crime.
In the opinion of people I trust, the charges against him look flimsy, and may well be entirely political. But we won’t know for (fairly) sure until they are dropped or tried.
Perhaps Mr. Mattison can enlighten us as to which Arab/Muslim nations exceed or even approach Israel's dedication to rule of law.
Well, arguably Jordan and Oman.
But that's not the point.
It's to Israel's credit to do the right thing, regardless of what others do or don't do.
Jordan and Oman?? Are you kidding? They're not the worst, but they certainly aren't up to Israel's standards. Netanyahu may well be corrupt--but I'm not inclined to accept that as fact just because all the cool kids on the schoolyard agree that he is. My perceptions are similar to those stated above by Mr. Alazar.
Israel has a rule of law. "Palestine" most certainly does not. Let's be honest shall we?
We are, and you're deflecting.
If you're touting the adherence to the rule of law, and you fail to even mention the most current example where that applies, it doesn't reflect well on your argument.
I'm not deflecting at all. If you are an honest person you would acknowledge that the independent Israeli legal system will deal with any charges against Netanyahu as they do against every other accused Israeli including a former prime minister and president (as noted). You obviously have a preconceived and false view of Netanyahu as do so many Israel haters, that he is a dictator or above the law or that he decides who gets punished or anything else like that. Cut the crap.
A curious feature. The Arab World is awash in cronyism, nepotism and bribery--stage-managed by the "wasta"--the middleman. But I never hear the press, social media denizens, politicians demanding investigations, resignations, etc. But with Israel--and Netanyahu in particular--there is an endless thud of people dropping to their fainting couches ad whoosh of fists waving in the air. As said above, Netanyahu may very well have done some illegal things, but thus far, he was not been accused by legal authorities--even though a great number of them hate his guts. But among some Westerners, the logic is straight out of Alice in Wonderland: "SENTENCE FIRST, VERDICT AFTERWARDS!"
People often critize that to which their opponents are most sensitive, almost regardless of whether it is true or relevant, because the point is to shove him off balance. Even more true today when the Zeitgeist is deeply cynical about any such thing as objective truth, and it's much more acceptable to nakedly reduce everything to a tribal power struggle.
In this case, people know that Israel (and Jews generally) actually care very much if they are a just, wise, enlightened and compassionate people. So if you yell at Israel "You are injust! You are corrupt! You are cruel!" the one thing of which you can be 100% sure, even if you are the most uncouth bear to lumber out of a cave recently, is that Israel will take your criticism seriously, will dwell and even stew over it, asking itself: is this true?
On the other hand, for most Arab countries, and many other peoples of the world, if you say "You are unjust! You are corrupt! You are cruel!" the response will be a laugh or a curse. Who cares what you think? Fuck off. Or even: And so? We are in service to God, and that matters more than any of these small other matters.
Brilliant comment, as usual, Carl. Thanks.
So what? Netanyahu (and spouse) is currently accused of various things. As far as I am aware none of these have been tried so he/they may or may not be guilty*. Yes he's doing everything he can to delay/evade trial but so what? The judicial process is still running. There are similar issues with major politicians in the US, Spain, the UK (Scotland at least) and Japan that I can think of off the top of my head. For some weird reason there aren't such issues in Jordan, Saudia Arabia or Qatar or really any other Middle East state
* Personally I think the two of them are likely guilty of some, but others are rather like the specious OrangeManBad trials in the US
There’s a phrase I picked up somewhere along the way… “the only vertebrate choice.” I think it applies here.
I love that phrase! I will steal it.
Thank you for a clear and concise answer.
I'm no apologist for Hamas, and no "river-to-the-sea" sympathizer. I want to understand this horrible war and the associated issues. But I wonder about the statement that "the ratio of civilian-to-combatant casualties in Gaza are lower than in most urban conflicts—including America’s conduct of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and territories controlled by ISIS." Using stats from the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University pertaining to those wars (available at https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_Direct%20War%20Deaths_9.1.21.pdf) about 56% of casualties were civilian (approx 375k civilians vs approx 300K combatants). It seems very likely that the ratio of civilians killed in Gaza is much higher than that. Even the IDF says two thirds of Gaza casualties are civilian, but other reputable sources say it is a good bit higher and that up to 70% may be women and children. Some sources say the norm is 90% civilian casualties, so high civilian casualties do not necessarily = war crimes. But it does seem that Israel is being indiscriminate in its military response. Terrorists always hide among civilians. That's who they are. A civilized nation can decide to do its best to avoid civilian casualties, understanding that a lot of innocents will die anyway. Or it can rationalize civilian deaths and pay little attention to avoiding them because the terrorists hide among civilians and some of those civilians support the terrorists. When the history of this conflict is written, what will it say about Israel's choice?
"But it does seem that Israel is being indiscriminate in its military response." It does SEEM that way, if one buys Hamas's bullshit statistics--and unfortunately, a large portion of the stenographers with press badges are more than happy to buy those bullshit statistics and disseminate them without question. Here's a good article from an extremely reliable source (HonestReporting) to help you understand why the stats are, in fact, BS. The article links to some X/Twitter links by Salo Aizenberg--and I highly recommend going through his threads of tweets. The implausibility of and inconsistencies in the Hamas data are almost comically inept.
I do not know the Brown University project that you cite, but it was co-founded by Professors Neta Crawford and Catherine Lutz. Judging from quick Google searches, Crawford appears to use the Gaza Ministry of Health (i.e., Hamas) as her go-to source for data. Ten years ago, Crawford wrote that retaliation by Israel does not work and then gave the usual cycle-of-violence arguments. Lutz signed a letter demanding a ceasefire in Gaza almost as soon as Israel began its operations. Her petition contains the usual caterwauling about being "silenced" in criticizing Israel. Perhaps I'm judging too quickly, but the link you provide seems like the usual pap from the anti-Israel crowd.
If Israel wanted to kill civilians indiscriminately there is literally nothing Hamass and friends could do to stop them. Hamass knows that and so has built its entire campaign around using Gazans as human shields. The fact that Israel has not caused hundreds of thousands of Gazan deaths yet is a sign of just how cautious and discriminating they have been.
Plus there is considerable evidence that a significant fraction of Gazans (significant being of the order of 25%) actively supports Hamass and willingly provides assistance to them thereby removing them from the civilian category. Needless to say there is almost no way to independently confirm whether a "civilian" is actually an innocent human shield or not.
Thank you. I’m a lover of Israel but haven’t been visiting your stack that often. This will have to change.
Welcome to Bastiat's Window. We're glad to have you here. Tell your friends, too. :)
Yours is the most level-headed, factual, yet spirited defense of Israel I have read recently. Thank you, for this much-needed hagiography.
Thanks! Pass it around.
thank you for this clear outline of why Israel needs to be supported, even if you dont support the current prime minister. It's clear you are not advocating supporting anyone who is avoiding legal action. Ironically the US is in a similar situation with it's current candidate. Those who are burning the American flag on campuses have no idea what the alternattive looks like. Just ask the women in Iran. see Washington Post's current ariticle on how Iran is using the opportunity to violently strip women of their basic rights.
PS have shared this article widely. Hopefully others will as well.
Wonderful! Toda raba!
I am agnostic on whether Netanyahu is or is not “avoiding legal action.” I am also agnostic on whether he has, in fact committed any crimes; if he has not, then avoiding legal action is a perfectly honorable strategy. You may contend that he has committed crimes, and I of course have high respect for you; but others for whom I have high respect have argued that the accusations lie somewhere between overblown and baseless. I don’t have the knowledge or the bandwidth to make an informed assessment and don’t plan to until and unless prosecutors actually charge him with something and hold a trial.
As for “Ironically the US is in a similar situation with its current candidate,” one could argue that such is true, but only if you are referring to Biden—whose family dealings and personal involvement in said dealings are legitimate targets for investigation; his slippery finances have been well-known for decades. The other current candidate is quite clearly NOT avoiding legal action, as he is spending every day immersed in legal action.
I think it fair to say that the chief executive of a country must defer private legal action—whether to escape just punishment or to clear his name from an unjust accusation—in order to do his job, which is of overwhelming importance. Every country accepts this. I think it fair to say, therefore, that both Biden and Netanyahu are deferring legal action without any prejudice to either.
As to Trump, it can truly be said that he is trying to delay legal action, preferably until after the election, by all legal means—and that, too, is perfectly proper, whether he’s innocent or guilty.
Agree on all counts.
Candidates, plural.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
They're peaceful and stable nevertheless.
And you don't need the cool kids to tell you what you already know.
His position on the settlements, his undermining of our president by coming to speak to Congress at the invitation of the opposition, and his indictments speak for themselves.
Our president has and claims no right not to have opposing speeches made about him; and Congress is entitled to invite whomever Congress pleases. Are you new here?
Jordan entered several wars of aggression against Israel. That is not what I’d call peaceful. It also was almost overthrown by the predecessors of Hamas in the 1970 Civil War, before (wisely) expelling the (so-called) Palestinians. That isn’t what I’d call stable.
About Oman’s history I don’t know enough.
Israel is a model of stability: it has never had any threat of a turnover of government by force, and has often had turnovers to the opposition peacefully. (Can Jordan or Oman boast that?)
It has often been the target of wars of aggression but has never launched one. Even when it “preempted” in 1967 it was after acts of war by the other side.
Lest we forget, under the international law Uti Possidetis the borders of Israel were set by the 1947 partition, and the 1948 armistice lines reflected an Arab invasion and occupation, which was lifted in 1967 and has no legal effect, so Israel’s legal borders now are those of 1947 (pending peace treaties). Whomever Israel chooses to settle within them is strictly an internal matter and nobody else’s business.
Well, when you put it like that... ("duh" alert for the skeptics). I have to repeat an observation made before and in other contexts - there are two kinds of people in this world: those who recognize evidence, and those who don't. There is very little movement between the two - fortunately in one direction, unfortunately in the other. How to steepen the curves is the challenge.
This article clarifies the issue better than anything I've read.
Sadly, it also establishes that the two cultures will be locked in conflict. A discussion of that issue is well beyond a simple comment.
Buried in a reply but worth calling to people’s attention for comment, because it’s rarely said:
Lest we forget, under the international law Uti Possidetis the borders of Israel were set by the 1947 partition, and the 1948 armistice lines reflected an Arab invasion and occupation, which was lifted in 1967 and has no legal effect, so Israel’s legal borders now are those of 1947 (pending peace treaties)—plus Golan*. Whomever Israel chooses to settle anywhere within them—and how it chooses to govern them: whether to allow some autonomy, and how much—is legally strictly an internal matter and nobody else’s business.
* About Golan: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20180717/108563/HHRG-115-GO06-Wstate-KontorovichE-20180717.pdf
I applaud your article on the virtues of Israel's govt. This article is an indispensible antidote to the toxic, hateful delusional and defamatory nonsense disseminated by the brain dead bigots.
I applaud your article on the virtues of Israel's govt. This article is an indispensible antidote to the toxic, hateful delusional and defamatory nonsense disseminated by the brain dead bigots.