editorials
F or the past several months, the focus of most Israel
watchers has been concentrated on the Netanyahu
government’s judicial overhaul proposals. Jurists,
academics, politicians, diplomats and commentators
joined more than 100,000 Israeli demonstrators in
expressing concern about the government’s plan to
change the selection process for justices on Israel’s
Supreme Court and to empower a bare majority of the
Knesset’s 120 members to override almost any Supreme
Court ruling regarding the validity of a Knesset law.

The watchword was “democracy.” It was chanted by
protesters. It was cited by those commenting on the
plan. And while we subscribe to the guiding words of
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who pledged to
judge the new Israeli government by what it does rather
than by what some of its new members say, we remain
troubled by the government’s steady move to enact the
judicial reform plan as law.

And then, almost out of nowhere, early last week
the Israeli cabinet did something that has the potential
to be even more problematic for the Jewish state
than the vaunted judicial reform plan. The cabinet
unanimously voted to retroactively legalize nine West
Bank settlements that, up to that point, were illegal under
Israeli law. The vote also approved the planned building
of close to 10,000 housing units in existing settlements in
the West Bank, including on land owned by Palestinians.

This was the single biggest settlement announcement
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left,
and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
ever made. And it was endorsed by Israel’s cabinet
despite what were reported to be very clear and
very direct objections from senior personnel in the
Biden administration in private consultations before
last week’s vote.

Much of the international community considers Israeli
settlements in the West Bank illegal under international
law. And Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that settlements
cannot be built on private Palestinian land. The retroactive
legalization of illegal settlements and approval of plans
for further construction on Palestinian land is precisely
the kind of “let’s see what they do” development that
Blinken promised would be addressed. But the public
U.S. reaction has been mild. Rather than condemn
the decision, Blinken and the White House joined four
European countries to say they are “deeply troubled”
and “concerned” about the Israeli decision, which they
“strongly oppose.” Those diplomatic expressions were
virtually ignored by most of Israel’s leadership.

There is mounting pressure for the Biden administration
to do something substantive to drive home its profound
disappointment. Some have suggested taking steps that
refl ect a mild rebuke, like canceling a planned meeting or
slow-walking the process for Israeli participation in a U.S.

government program. But until earlier this week, the real
focus was on how President Joe Biden would instruct
his U.N. ambassador to vote when the Security Council
considered a Palestinian-led resolution against Israeli
policy in the West Bank. On Feb. 20 — the day that vote
was supposed to happen — the resolution was tabled,
following what was reported to be intense lobbying by
the U.S. with both the Palestinian Authority and Israel
over a less confrontational approach to deal with the
cabinet’s settlement vote.

For now, there is calm. But we wait to see whether
there will be any consequence to the Israeli cabinet’s
unanimous message of dismissal, disregard and
disrespect to its United States partner. ■
Autocrats Ganging Up on the US
I ran’s president, Ebrahim Raisi, made a three-day visit to
China last week. He was greeted by President Xi Jinping
in an offi cial welcoming ceremony, complete with formal
honor guards. The two leaders attended the signing of
20 bilateral cooperation agreements, including on trade
and tourism. And they issued a number of statements,
including what was widely viewed as a targeted barb at the
United States and Western allies by Xi, who pledged that
“China will unswervingly develop friendly cooperation
with Iran no matter how international and regional
situations change.”
The revitalized relations between China and Iran, and
the ongoing mutual support and trade between Russia
and Iran, are raising concern. Although there is no
indication that the three autocratic states are considering
a formalized security alliance, there is a sense that they
are working hard to fi nd common ground and support
for one another in response to each country’s concerns
about their common nemesis — the United States.

The China-Russia relationship has included signifi cant
arms sales, joint military exercises and cooperation
12 FEBRUARY 23, 2023 | JEWISH EXPONENT
on technology issues. Moscow and Beijing have
worked together to support other autocratic regimes,
to challenge human rights standards and to frustrate
technological norms promoted by the West. And they
have both sought stronger ties with Iran.

Moscow and Tehran have cooperated in Syria to
prop up Bashar al-Assad’s government and to frustrate
U.S. policy in the region. In addition to a history of arms
sales that have strengthened the Iranian military, they
are increasingly developing economic and diplomatic
ties that have helped Tehran in its eff ort to minimize the
impact of signifi cant international sanctions.

Less than two years ago, Iran and China formalized
their relationship through a 25-year strategic partnership
agreement. Reports indicate that Raisi is unhappy with
China’s eff orts under the deal and used last week’s
visit to lobby for more robust Chinese support, beyond
the record amounts of Iranian oil that China is buying.

We know that Raisi got vocal support from Xi. We don’t
yet know many of the other details. On the other hand,
Russia-Iran ties are signifi cant, and growing. Among
other things, Iran is providing drones to Russia to
assist in the Ukraine war eff ort and guidance in the
art of avoiding the limitations of Western sanctions. In
return, Russia is helping Iran with its satellite program
and preferential treatment in gaining access to needed
food supplies.

U.S. diplomats, political leaders and many
commentators have raised concern about the growing
alliances between China, Russia and Iran. In the words
of Hal Brands in a recent analysis on Bloomberg.org, “It’s
easy to understand the logic of this cooperation. All three
autocratic powers seek to preserve and protect illiberal
political systems, push the US out of their geographic
neighborhoods, and roll back a post-Cold War order
dominated by Washington.” And they fi nd strength in
their coordinated eff orts.

Political, economic and strategic alliances among
like-minded nations are nothing new. Nonetheless, it is
important to keep an eye on the growing coordination
among China, Russia and Iran and to be prepared to
respond, as appropriate. ■
State Department photo by Ron Przysucha/ Public Domain
‘Deeply Troubled’ By Settlements



opinions & letters
Godwin’s Law and its Discontents
Benjamin Kerstein
T here is a famous axiom regarding internet
discourse called “Godwin’s Law,” which holds, “As
an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Hitler approaches 1.” That is to
say, at some point, someone will call their opponent
a Nazi. When this happens, the Law asserts, the very
possibility of dialogue has been destroyed and the
argument is now pointless.

Godwin’s Law is only one expression of a wider senti-
ment, which is that to compare one’s opponents to the
Nazis is undesirable and offensive. First, as Godwin’s
Law holds, it demonizes one’s opponent to the point
that no agreement is possible. Second, it minimizes
the Nazis’ crimes by equating them to something that
may be offensive but is hardly systematic mass murder.

Third, given the immensity of the Nazis’ crimes, the
comparison is by definition inaccurate.

These are all good arguments and, generally speak-
ing, applicable. Yet no one seems to have gotten the
message. Political discourse in the West and beyond is
riddled with violations of Godwin’s Law. In the United
States, for example, the left routinely accuses the
right of Nazism or, in what is essentially a synonym,
“fascism.” Such accusations were routinely hurled at Donald
Trump, which might be put down to the divisiveness of
his presidency, except the same accusation was made
against the relatively innocuous George W. Bush, who
was sometimes referred to by the awkward expletive
“Bushitler.” While such rhetoric has long been the province of
the left, the right has begun to hurl the same insult,
claiming that since the Nazis claimed to be socialists of
a kind, the left is a Nazi movement.

Even in Israel, where sensitivities ought to be highest,
Godwin’s Law is not infrequently violated, though
usually in the form of the “fascism” accusation, as
outright references to Nazism are still mostly taboo.

Nonetheless, in the run-up to the last election, the
satirical — and often very funny — television show
“Eretz Nehederet” (“A Wonderful Country”) broadcast
a spoof of the musical “The Producers” that all but
explicitly equated current National Security Minister
Itamar Ben-Gvir to Hitler.

Clearly, violations of Godwin’s Law feed divisiveness
and often demolish the possibility of dialogue. But
is the Nazi comparison always entirely illegitimate? I
believe it is not. There is one sense in which the Nazi
comparison may be too important to entirely abandon.

Although religion remains a strong force in world
affairs, ours remains a largely secular age. Especially
in the West, we have long since given up on the
metaphysical claims of religion. The zeitgeist, despite
challenge, remains mostly materialist, without a strong
sense that “spiritual” ideas have a genuine, autono-
mous reality.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, in that things like
burning witches, the Inquisition and slaughtering Jews
for “deicide” are now long in the past. But it has one
serious drawback: We no longer have a word for evil.

Godwin’s Law is only one
expression of a wider
sentiment, which is that to
compare one’s opponents
to the Nazis is undesirable
and offensive.

This also provides the West with what may be the
only moral imperative in which it absolutely believes:
Don’t be like the Nazis. Indeed, the entire Western
discourse on issues like racism, human rights, imperi-
alism, militarism, authoritarianism, democracy, geopol-
itics, international relations and a great deal more is
almost entirely driven by this imperative.

While this can often lead to irritating and hysterical
rhetoric, and sometimes outright bad faith, it is proba-
bly a good thing. The world could do and has done
worse than attempt not to be Nazis.

Moreover, the rightful demonization of Nazism gives
the world a concept of evil that enjoys almost universal
consent. Whatever its discontents, this means that, in
a godless age, it can still be acknowledged that evil
exists and must be fought.

Godwin’s Law is well and good for the internet and
public discourse in general, but it is not a moral imper-
ative. When we violate Godwin’s Law, at least when we
have good reason to do so, we are acknowledging, all
unknowing, a certain essential truth: If we are to resist
evil, we must acknowledge that it exists. We need a
word for it. Pace Godwin, “Nazi,” however problematic,
is better than nothing. ■
Benjamin Kerstein is a writer and editor living in Tel Aviv.

That is to say, while we still see certain beliefs or
acts as “bad” or undesirable, we do not see them as
the expression of an autonomous metaphysical force.

Thus, we find it difficult to fully condemn even the most
horrendous acts. Recall, for example, the chorus of
laughter from certain circles after Bush gave his famous
“Axis of Evil” speech. No, it was said, we cannot call
terrorism “evil.” It is certainly a bad thing, but we must
“understand” it and its root causes and then deal with
it as we would any other irrational aberration.

While it is not necessarily wrong to refrain from
demonizing people, this recoiling from the concept of
evil has one very unfortunate side effect: It disarms
us in the face of evil acts. Rather than see things like
murdering 3,000 innocent people with suicide planes
as the expression of a monstrous force that must be
resisted, we regard it as a rather unfortunate misunder-
standing. This fantasy is pleasant, but it is, alas, not true.

However, the general disdain for the idea that evil exists
has one and only one exception: The Nazis. Whether due
to the horrendous scope of their crimes or the hideous-
ness of the ideology that drove them, the Nazis are right-
fully viewed as a kind of Satan — the adversary of all that
is good and sacred. Nazism is the one thing the West has
that even vaguely resembles the devil.

letters How Does the Media Depict Israel?
I thank Mitchell Bard for his op-ed “Assad Hates
Israel More Than He loves His People” (Feb. 16).

I ask those Jewish organizations that focus on the
presentation of Israel in the media to provide the
general public with a review of how much space in
the print and the electronic media was devoted to
Israel’s efforts to directly rescue people of neigh-
boring Syria and Turkey — countries whose leaders
choose to be Israel’s enemies. This review would
document the level of anti-Israel bias that exists in
the general media no matter what Israel’s humani-
tarian actions are. ■
David Romanoff, Penn Valley
SEND US LETTERS
Letters should be related to articles that have run in the print or online
editions of the JE, and may be edited for space and clarity prior to publi-
cation. Please include your first and last name, as well your town/neigh-
borhood of residence. Send letters to letters@jewishexponent.com.

JEWISHEXPONENT.COM 13