How American Isolationists View the Ukraine War

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Saint John, N.B.] Telegraph-Journal

With the Ukraine war now one year old, have opinions regarding it changed in the United States? The answer: not much.

Most left-of-centre print and other media remain steadfast supporters of the war. On the right, there is more division. The neoconservatives, including establishment Republicans and “NeverTrumpers,” echo the Democratic Party’s view of the war.

But those who are more isolationist – they are sometimes called paleo-conservative -- and who were glad that Donald Trump kept the United States from getting embroiled in eastern Europe, remain opposed. These dissenters write for periodicals such as the American Conservative, American Greatness, American Thinker, Chronicles, and Taki’s Magazine.

Their thinking goes like this: With Trump in the White House, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a sympathetic ear to his geopolitical concerns. But President Joe Biden’s win in 2020, allowed the return of the neoconservatives as policy makers, which allowed Ukraine to take advantage of the new administration.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky saw a chance to regain the separatist Russian areas in Donetsk and Luhansk, so Putin, they maintain, concluded he had to nip NATO expansion into Ukraine in the bud.

The isolationists don’t understand why Washington is involved in this war. Russia matters little to the U.S. economically and is a distant geopolitical actor. They argue that this is an eastern European dispute and none of America’s business. 

 

They also take Ukraine’s insistence that Kyiv is on a mission to protect democracy with a grain of salt, asserting that Ukraine’s most distinguishing features are thefts of economic aid and natural resources. They also suggest that Zelensky provoked the conflict to open up the cash spigot -- and it worked. Total American aid has now passed more than $100 billion.

 

People understand that the sanctions against Russia are just as much sanctions against them. They see runaway inflation and think, “Why should I be paying for this?” When, the critics ask, did the internal political arrangements of foreign nations become a primary concern of the country?

 

After all, this is a war on Russia’s borders, thousands of kilometres away, and against a state that has been greatly diminished since the 1990s, having lost its own east European empire (and even large parts of its own territory, including Ukraine).

The war’s opponents maintain that Kyiv failed to realize that peace is the product of mutual security. Ukraine’s drive to join NATO ignored thirty years of warnings that NATO’s eastward expansion posed an existential threat to Russia.

So, for the war’s opponents, this intervention only makes sense if America wants to become an unchallenged super-power. Many of the isolationists are also bothered by those who are using the war in order to pursue regime change: they wish to overthrow the present Russian government and install one that is more congenial to “woke” Western values.

 

Also, some maintain, should the U.S. dismantle what’s left of the old Soviet Union into smaller units, it might also scare China into thinking twice before it challenges Washington over Taiwan and elsewhere in Asia.

 

In any case, they feel Crimea will certainly be a red line for Russia -- and this is doubtless true. Already in the 1990s, Russian president Boris Yeltsin was demanding its return from Ukraine to the Russian republic. (The USSR transferred it to Ukraine in 1954.) It’s easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. 

Some isolationists suggest it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to rejoin Russia long before Russia invaded Ukraine. An official 1994 referendum had found that nearly 80 per cent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy.

That same year, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea, at the time an autonomous region of Ukraine, with 72 per cent of the vote. His campaign had one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kyiv responded to the referendum by scrapping Crimea’s constitution. Ukraine abolished the office of president of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

As for Luhansk and Donetsk, in 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five per cent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region, while over 60 per cent wanted to join the Russian Federation.

 

Really, this isn’t at all surprising. These people are ethnically Russian, speak Russian, and are Russian Orthodox Christians. They would rather be part of Russia again. Is that so remarkable? Why should Washington support Ukraine’s claim?

 

A Russia flat on its back in the 1990s could not prevent the United States and its allies from doggedly enlarging the West’s voluntary sphere of influence to former Warsaw Pact countries and some Soviet republics that requested inclusion, but Putin openly and methodically rebuilt the wherewithal to push back.

 

So the isolationists are now concerned that NATO might soon face an unpleasant choice: risk a war with Russia by sending in troops to reinforce Ukraine’s ranks, or let Russia prevail, with consequences that are likely to impact how Americans live for years to come.

More mainstream Republican Party politicians have also become more critical of Washington’s support for the war. President Biden’s surprise trip to Ukraine on Monday drew a variety of attacks from congressional Republicans who criticized his support for the war-torn country and accused him of neglecting issues back at home.

 

Israel’s New Judicial Proposals Garner Critiques

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Moncton, NB]  Times & Transcript

Many people in Israel and abroad have expressed their concern over various aspects of the new Israeli government’s policies, especially changes to the system of judicial appointments, which would allow a majority in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to overrule Supreme Court decisions.

Israel’s legal establishment claims that these reforms will result in the death of Israeli democracy. Many, including leaders of the political opposition that lost last November’s election, have been calling for civil disobedience.

Former attorney general Avichai Mandelblit has described the government’s proposed sweeping and drastic overhaul as “regime change” that would “eliminate the independence of Israel’s legal system from end to end.”

An estimated 200,000 protestors demonstrated across Israel Feb. 11 in a push to stop Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from overhauling the country’s judicial system.

The proposals have also stirred broad concern outside Israel, including with the country’s main ally. Some American administration officials made it clear that any erosion of judicial independence, violation of minority rights, or undermining of Israeli democracy would ruffle ties with Washington.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides met Jan. 26 with over a dozen leading Israeli business and tech executives, most of whom warned him that this will harm Israel’s economy and raise the risk of investing.

These new laws would put Israel on a direct collision course with the mainstream businesses of America and Europe. It would be difficult or impossible for reputable international businesses to invest in, partner with or trade with Israeli businesses that comply with laws that permit racial segregation, discriminate against women, or seek to harm minority communities.

Over 50 leading economists at American universities, including 11 Nobel laureates, penned an open letter to Netanyahu on Feb. 8 warning that his government’s plan would be “detrimental” to economic growth by weakening the rule of law and “thereby moving Israel in the direction of Hungary and Poland.”

The new government is also widening a schism with liberal-minded American and Canadian Jews. A leading Israeli think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies, fears that the country's “special relationship” with the U.S. is in danger due to a progressive shift among American Jews.

Last December, more than 330 American rabbis, including some who occupy prominent roles in major cities, signed an open letter pledging to block members of Netanyahu’s government from speaking at their synagogues. Their policies, they maintained,  “will cause irreparable harm to the Israel-Jewish Diaspora relationship, as they are an affront to the vast majority of American Jews and our values.”

On Feb. 1, a slate of 169 prominent American Jews, called on U.S. politicians not to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, a signal of worsening relations between the new Israeli government and the American Jewish community.

Three prominent Israeli intellectuals, Matti Friedman, Daniel Gordis, and Yossi Klein Halevi, penned an open letter “To Israel’s friends in North America” in the Times of Israel Feb. 2.

“The changes afoot will have dire consequences for the solidarity of Israel’s society and for its economic miracle, as our leading economists are warning. It will also threaten Israeli-American relations, and it will do grave damage to our relations with you, our sisters and brothers in the Diaspora.”

Former Canadian justice minister and attorney general Irwin Cotler, one of this country’s most distinguished human rights advocates, argued that the proposals would all but annul Israel’s system of checks and balances and turn the country into a “flawed or diminished democracy.”

He also rejected Netanyahu’s view that the override mechanism sought by the government was comparable to Canada’s notwithstanding clause, which was created within the framework of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something Israel lacks. “In Israel, nothing would be protected” under the proposed law, noted Cotler.

A Vigil for Israeli Democracy held in Toronto Jan. 21, organized by JSpace Canada and co-sponsored by a number of progressive Jewish groups, including Canadian Friends of Peace Now, brought 250 people to the Israeli consulate and 150 people to the online event.

 

“Netanyahu and his cabal of fascist-minded zealots are propelling Israel down a path of intolerance, injustice, violation of democratic norms and narrow, trenchant Jewish supremacy,” asserted Peace Now.

 

What’s all the fuss about? Right now, there are no formal limitations on judicial review. Thus, even laws that were approved by overwhelming majority in the Knesset can be annulled by a court decision.

 

The Supreme Court self-selects and self-ousts its own justices and the Knesset has no power to impeach justices. They can only be removed by the same “judicial selection committee,” controlled by the Israeli Supreme Court, that selects them, or by a disciplinary court appointed by the Court.

 

There is a danger to democracy when voters feel that no matter how they vote, policies will not change because an unelected branch of government prevents them from changing.

 It makes the whole system in danger of being seen as illegitimate. Though there are many reasons to worry about overreach in the other direction by the new Netanyahu coalition, some type of reform seems reasonable. It will bring Israel’s judicial system more in line with Western norms.

On the sidelines of the political battlefield sit North America’s Jews, watching carefully and deciding whether they will be able to identify with the outcome.

 

Israel in Turmoil over Judicial Reform

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Following a string of inconclusive elections in Israel which resulted in unstable minority governments, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party finally managed to cobble together a working coalition in the wake of last November’s general election, the fifth in less than four years.

But to achieve this, he brought politicians from parties once considered beyond the pale in Israeli politics into leading roles, creating the most far-right coalition in Israeli history.

Many people in Israel have expressed their concern over various aspects of the new government’s policies regarding an array of issues. But the one that seems to be most prominent is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s desire to limit the powers of the Supreme Court, as the issue of judicial reform has become a key coalition demand.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Among the proposed reforms are changes to the system of judicial appointments, clear delineation of the conditions under which the Supreme

Court can void laws, and an override clause. The latter would allow the Knesset to pass a law overruling a Supreme Court decision striking the law down.

Israel’s legal establishment and their allies, largely on the political left, claim that these reforms will result in the death of Israeli democracy and the end of minority rights. Many, including leaders of the political opposition that lost the last election, are demanding civil disobedience, including a strike by the civil service.

Israel’s Attorney General Gali Baharav-miara has slammed the plans, which would allow a Knesset majority to overrule High Court decisions, as a sign Israel could become a “democracy in name only.”

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides met Jan. 26 with over a dozen leading Israeli business and tech executives, most of whom warned him that this would likely harm Israel’s economy.

Visiting Israel a few days later on Jan. 30, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken added a reprimand over the reforms.

“Building consensus for new proposals is the most effective way to ensure they’re embraced, and that they endure.”

In Washington, Democratic lawmakers like Brad Sherman, one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress, warned that the current policies could erode support for Israel.

NO LEGAL BASIS

At the heart of the new reform lies the judiciary’s ability to annul laws enacted by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. Right now, there are no formal limitations on such judicial review. It remains to the discretion of the court to decide whether to discuss a petition from any citizen.

There is no quorum for judicial review of the Knesset’s laws, and a simple majority can annul laws. Thus, even laws that were approved by overwhelming majority in the Knesset can be annulled by a court decision. The Israeli Supreme Court has given itself this authority, without ever having an explicit legal basis for it.

Until the 1980s, the Supreme Court restrained itself from involvement in certain issues, relying on the doctrine of “justiciability.” This doctrine meant that there were certain issues in which the court had no expertise, in which no legal parameters existed and in which judicial involvement would be inappropriate.

But in the 1990s, Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of Israel’s Supreme Court, pronounced a “constitutional revolution” and arrogated to his institution more power, including the right to overturn any piece of legislation.

So to what extent should this institutional imbalance be amended? How difficult should it be for the courts to review laws passed by the Knesset? In many cases, the laws that have been invalidated in Israel were not going to infringe basic human rights. They were simply contrary to the judges’ worldview and set of values.

WESTERN NORMS

As for the proposal to put judicial appointments in the hands of the Knesset, this will merely put the country in line with places like Canada and the United States.

There is a very serious danger to democracy when voters feel that no matter how they vote, policies will not change because an unelected branch of government prevents them from changing. Taking away this ability, or harming it in a major way, is contrary to the very basic principle of liberal democracies.

Champions of the current configuration of the Israeli judiciary believe that its famous independence is a necessary check on the legislature, and that it exercises proper authority in checking and repealing illegitimate laws.

Critics, on the other hand, assert that Israel’s supreme court has no right to undo laws that were passed by democratically elected members of the Knesset. Since Israel has no constitution, they ask, on what basis can an Israeli court assert that a law is illegitimate?

This makes the whole system in danger of being seen as illegitimate. Though there are many reasons to worry about overreach in the other direction by the new Netanyahu coalition, some type of reform that will readjust the relationship between the branches of government seems reasonable.