President Biden has earned praise in Israel and among both Democrats and Republicans for his handling of the massacre of Jews in Israel. In round-the-clock diplomacy, public speeches and calls with the families of people believed to have been kidnapped by Hamas, he has demonstrated experienced and empathetic leadership. In the midst of a war, he traveled to Israel as a further sign of support for our ally. There, he delivered a gut-wrenching speech recognizing the pain of the Israeli people, setting the record straight on the culprit in a Gaza hospital bombing, cautioning Israel about repeating some of the mistakes the United States made after 9/11 (acting out of anger and vengeance) and announcing new humanitarian aid to Gazans and a military assistance package to Israel. It was arguably his finest speech in defense of Israel and civilized values, and certainly one of the most supportive of the Jewish state ever uttered by an American president.
For all the nonsensical calls for a different Democratic nominee for president, there is no Democrat with the experience and ability to connect emotionally with Americans and Israelis than Biden. Perhaps it is time, once and for all, to bury the notion he lacks the stamina or sharpness needed; he has both in abundance.
In a “60 Minutes” interview with Scott Pelley, Biden provided morally and intellectually sophisticated answers at a time there are too few thoughtful distinctions between just and unjust actions in war:
(PELLEY) Certainly, about 1,200 Israeli civilians were killed in the initial attack, but now Hamas fighters and Palestinian civilians are being killed in the counterattack. Is it time for a ceasefire?
(BIDEN) Look, there’s a fundamental difference. Israel is going after a group of people who have engaged in barbarism that is as consequential as the Holocaust. And so I think Israel has to respond. They have to go after Hamas. Hamas is a bunch of cowards. They’re hiding behind the civilians. They put … their headquarters where civilians are and buildings and the like. … [T]he Israelis are gonna do everything in their power to avoid the killing of innocent civilians.
And, perhaps most important, he drew a clear line from Ukraine and Israel to Americans’ security: “We want to make sure those democracies are sustained. And Ukraine is critical in making sure that happens.” He rejected the notion that we cannot support both allies. “We can take care of both of these and still maintain our overall international defense,” he emphasized.
Other Biden officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield have demonstrated the dedication, experience and even-keeled temperament needed in a crisis. One shudders to think how the previous administration would have performed.
The rise in antisemitic events in Europe and the United States strongly suggests that anti-Israel sentiment might be indistinguishable from virulent antisemitism. Too many university presidents, journalists and activists have failed to denounce terrorism unconditionally or, worse, enabled sickening moral relativism. Columbia University has refused to admonish a professor who celebrated the Hamas pogrom as “awesome.” . Harvard University took multiple tries before condemning the atrocities against Israeli civilians. (When Hollywood celebrities demonstrate more moral clarity than elite universities, something is truly amiss with the latter.)
The media’s performance has been mixed, at best. When uninformed journalists and pundits prattle on about “proportionality” — as if the test is simply which side caused more deaths — they diminish the atrocities and misinform the public. Experts at Just Security explain:
The rule is straightforward: Combatants must refrain from a military attack if the expected loss of civilian life or injury to civilians incidental to the attack would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. …
Proportionate to what? In public discourse, commentators often compare the number of civilians lost on one side of a conflict versus the other. That is not what is meant by proportionality under the laws of war applicable during armed conflict. Those comparisons may be best discussed in terms of morality or in terms of a separate body of international law governing the necessary and proportionate use of force in self-defense. In LOAC [the Law of Armed Conflict], a proportionality assessment takes into account the expected civilian harm as compared to the concrete and direct military advantage that is expected to be gained as of the time of the attack.
Rather than toss around phrases such as “law of war” with little understanding of the concepts of “proportionality” and the obligations on a country when civilians cannot be protected, media outlets should consult experts on the topic. (How many media figures explained that the calls to clear the area of civilians in Gaza represent an effort to comply with a fundamental obligation when confronting civilians living among armed combatants? Not enough.) And the media surely has an obligation to share the evidence of Hamas’s rampage, with appropriate warnings, while being wary that accusations solely from Hamas are not reliable without independent confirmation. The fog of war demands journalists not hop on every allegation and accusation.
Likewise, in interviewing activists demanding “Free Palestine,” it is incumbent on reporters to explain that since coming to power in Gaza (from which Israel withdrew), Hamas has used civilians as human shields and stolen humanitarian aid to wage war on Israeli civilians. Americans need to be reminded that Israel has repeatedly offered to trade land for peace; Palestinian leaders have refused to end the conflict. It’s not too much to ask that journalists provide context, clarity and confirmation.
Distinguished person of the week
Four-time-indicted former president Donald Trump for years has verbally abused, threatened and attempted to intimidate judges, prosecutors, court personnel and witnesses. He openly exhorted cronies to stick with him (i.e., refuse cooperation) during the Russian investigation, defamed New York Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and suggested former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley face execution. His rhetoric put the targets of his verbal attacks at risk and reinforced the notion that there is one set of rules for him and another for everyone else.
That, however, has begun to change.
Beginning with Judge Arthur Engoron’s order in the massive civil case in New York barring Trump from threatening court personnel, the double standard is coming to an end. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued an order preventing him from verbally attacking prosecutors, witnesses and their families. She explained, “No other defendant would be allowed to do so, and I’m not going to allow it in this case.”
She didn’t prohibit him from claiming the prosecution was political, generally criticizing the Justice Department or demeaning D.C. residents who will make up his jury. In that regard, she balanced legitimate First Amendment rights with the demands of our criminal justice system. As the New York Times reported, “She repeatedly said that Mr. Trump should not enjoy any special privileges as a presidential candidate. She added that she was simply seeking to protect people involved in the election interference case from being threatened, and to keep Mr. Trump’s bullying remarks from spiraling into violence.”
Chutkan’s written opinion specified: “The court finds that [Trump’s] statements pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2) attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and harassment.” Since the “risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet” she entered a narrowly tailored protective order.
Chutkan’s comment at the hearing that Trump “does not have a right to say and do exactly as he pleases” might come as a rude awakening to Trump and his cultists — but it’s a relief to the rest of us. Enough is enough.
If you are lucky, you’ll witness a few times in your lifetime a soul-elevating artistic performance of such elegance and technical expertise it will stay with you for years to come. I recently experienced such a moment watching the Royal Ballet’s “Don Quixote.” From the glorious costumes to the perfectly synchronized corps de ballet to the soaring (literally and figuratively) principal dancers, I found myself literally gasping in awe. It was as joyful and exuberant a ballet performance as I’ve seen in decades of ballet-going.
It was also a lesson in Britain’s “keep calm, carry on” attitude. Close to the end of Act I, the male lead, Steven McRae, went down in a heap. (He has a history of Achilles’ tendon tears, so one prays this did not happen again.) A moment of confusion in the audience followed. (The ballet has many comic elements, but this certainly wasn’t one of them.) He walked off with the principal ballerina. Within seconds, the curtain came down.
The ballet director came out, explained there was a “problem” and asked the audience to give the company 10 minutes. He later returned to inform us that yes, the dancer was injured, but they would go to intermission since the first act was nearly over. Needless to say, the audience was left buzzing and dazed. We had no idea if the performance could continue.
To our relief at the start of Act II, out came another principal dancer, Marcelino Sambé, who picked up without a hitch. He danced magnificently in the second and third acts. I’ve never seen such a masterful “substitution” in a ballet. Amid a world of horror, arts can still uplift, inspire and fill us with joy.
Every Wednesday at noon, I host a live Q&A with readers. Read a transcript of this week’s Q&A, or submit a question for the next one.
Guest: Why do knowledgeable people keep expecting moderate Republicans to step up? Honestly, I can’t help but wonder what the point of this fantasy is. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is seriously being considered for House speaker. Former president Donald Trump is the GOP front leader even after the impeachments, indictments and court decisions against him. There are no “moderate” Republicans. There are only venal cowards and voters who don’t seem to care.
Jennifer Rubin: You’ll get no argument from me on that front. If there really are such moderates, they would be seeking a coalition majority with Democrats. Don’t hold your breath.
Credit: Source link
