It’s clear that their lawyer advised them not to give yes or no answers.
They should have spoken to their PR reps instead. Congress isn’t a court of law, it’s a court of politics.
This article from 2014 about the failure of the international press to grasp the situation in Israel came up in the breaking news thread. But there’s a passage from that article that I wanted to share in this thread, because it still rings true.
For more context:
When college presidents speak to a congressional committee I expect a conversation similar to one where parents talk to their children. I did expect the college presidents to take the role of the parents though. I thought it would take some effort to make Elise Stefanik look like the adult in the room but these college presidents made it easy for her.
Don’t hurt yourselves patting yourselves so hard on the back, Israelis…
“Less harm than most countries on earth[sic]”? Naah. Blatant hyperbole.
The usefulness of the statement aside, it’s a very young country and a very small country, so probably true by any objective metric you care to cook up.
By the standards of post-colonial countries (which is an awful lot of us) not so much, eh? Israel is one of the oldest.
And no, I’m quite happy to use subjective measures for “less harm”, thanks.
Although here’s an objective measure - “Doesn’t build settlements on its neighbour’s territory”.
You’ll be surprised how many other small young counties pass that relatively simple test…
I mean, do you want to get into a giant subjective whataboutism thing about which country has done more shitty stuff? Organized groups of human beings are terrible to other human beings given pretty much the slightest provocation.
But I agree that there are few young countries who have built settlements on neighbors’ territory, because that’s all but impossible in modern geopolitics. If that’s the standard you want to use to measure terribleness, then sure, Israel is the worst post-colonial country on Earth. You win!
Naah. Wrong direction. It’s how many other countries have done less shitty stuff. Surprisingly many, I think you’ll find.
Is it such a terrible standard?
We could also use “which countries have a neighbouring civilian headcount in the 10 000s”, if you like? Or “which countries have killed multiple thousands of children this year”, that would work, too?
Despite you focusing on one specific phrase from the article, you are actually making the author’s point for him. If you went by death toll, the Arab/Israeli conflict ranks far below a whole host of ongoing conflicts that none of us in the West ever hear about.
I’m not in the West, and I bet I’ve heard of them. So if Israel wants to say “well, at least we’re not Tigray”, sure. But that’s still pretty fucking far from “most countries on earth[sic]” territory.
The author said both “less harm” and “more good” and that’s just … not the case. Israel gets aid, it doesn’t send it. Well, some search and rescue teams, but nothing like the US or European aid spend.
Do Israeli troops ever contribute to UN peacekeeping forces?
The author said “most countries on Earth.”
If you want to narrow it down to “post-colonial countries that are engaged in active conflicts with their neighbors,” fine, but you haven’t just moved the goalposts so much as you’ve started a different game on a different field.
But like I said above, or at least implied, while I think it’s probably broadly accurate, I don’t think the statement is particularly useful.
No, I’m perfectly happy to keep it to “most countries on Earth”. As long as both “less harm” AND “more good” are covered.
edited: That’s on me, I just looked back and saw the “more good” bit. I can’t see how that’s true, but I think it’s an even less useful statement than “less harm.” What is “more good” even supposed to mean? Plenty of countries have done lots of good for very specific classes of people. Imperial Britain was fucking golden if you were an aristocrat.
For a modern country? I’d say aid spend, UN peacekeeping contributions, general good efforts towards global positive efforts like climate change mitigation, acceptance of immigrants, that kind of thing. For instance, I’d say taking in the Beta Israel were a big positive checkmark for Israel. But that was 30 years ago.
Sure, but is that like a carbon offset thing? America has done a shitload of great stuff and a shitload of terrible stuff, often at the exact same time. It’s just too wibbly wobbly to make any useful statements about “most” or “best” or “least” or “worst.”
I can’t find any good information about Israeli foreign spending because every search I do is flooded with “US aid to Israel” articles. Maybe Alessan or Babale will have more insight there.
No. It means things like what percentage power comes from renewables and where does Israel vote in international plebiscites on the environment, that kind of thing. Basically, is Israel making a positive contribution to addressing climate change, or not.
Israel’s official foreign aid agency spends somewhere around $290 million, but that’s not all Israeli spend, as a lot of it’s funded from elsewhere. My understanding is that a lot of Israeli foreign aid is in the form of expertise, rather than direct assistance.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic and it apparently didn’t land. I mean is a country allowed to do a bunch of shitty stuff and a slightly larger bunch of good stuff and still be “doing good” for our wibbly wobbly tests of national virtue.
Sure, and just like the author of the article said, none of this is meant to justify things like the settlements or anything else. There is plenty about the Israeli government that I am more than happy to criticize. But I also think that he is on to something when he points out the disproportionate level of focus that Israel gets from the rest of the world.
Like @Johnny_Bravo I am not particularly invested in investigating or defending the specific claim that Israel has both done less harm and done more good than 50% of the 200 or so nations currently in existence on Earth. It isn’t an important claim. What is important is the larger point, which is that the focus on Israel is very disproportionate to the scale of the situation (both in general and compared to other conflicts around the world or even in the region).
This page says that Israel spends about double that in total, mostly in the Middle East and in Asia as well as in Africa.
Sure.
Start listing the overwhelming good stuff Israel does, that compensates for the shitty stuff…
I give Israel the proportion I think it merits. It’s not top of my political efforts, but it’s not the lowest priority, either. It, or the region, ranks below many regionally African problems in my personal scale, but I spend more effort on the plight of Palestinians that I do, say, Uyghurs. That’s because there’s more local connection to both Palestine and Israel that China.
Sure. That’s nice. It’s still 1/6 of what Denmark spends in ODA. or nearly 1/12 of what Norway spends. And a blip compared to the foreign aid (mostly US) Israel gets.
Look, I can support a narrative of “Israel is in the long run a net positive”, especially in the Middle East context. You will not get too much pushback from me on that. I think Israel’s existence, even for all the bad it’s done, is better than it not having existed.
But this “more good than most” and “less harm than most” narrative? Naah, not having it. It’s approaching “American Exceptionalism”-levels of unbelievable myth-making.