From Jerusalem Back to Washington: A Response to Martin B.

I’d like to respond to my friend Martin’s post about the investigations of President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In short, my main takeaway from these investigations is that there’s a dangerous movement aimed at getting rid of these democratically-elected leaders by circumventing the ballot box. For ease of reference, I will from now on refer to both Trump and Netanyahu, collectively, as the "Leaders". Let me respond specifically to each of Martin’s points:

1. Although “witch-hunt” may not be the most accurate label, there’s currently little evidence

that the Leaders have acted improperly. In Israel, about the only evidence we’ve seen is testimony of disgruntled ex-employees and billionaires that allegedly gave the Leader some champagne and cigars. In the U.S., there’s zero evidence that Trump himself colluded with the Russians. And Trump’s dismissal of former FBI director James Comey probably doesn’t amount to obstruction of justice, because the president has the discretion to appoint and remove officials such as the FBI director. Nevertheless, both Leaders have spent countless hours focused on the investigations, responding to press reports and, in the case of Netanyahu, repeatedly questioned by the police. Martin’s post makes the assumption that both Leaders are guilty of serious crimes, but this has not been established and the Leaders deserve the presumption of innocence just like anyone else. In light of these facts, the Leaders’ frustration with the respective probes is certainly understandable.

2. While the media plays an important watchdog role, the mainstream media today in both Israel and the U.S. is hysterical in their hate for the Leader. I have a lot of respect for the mainstream media institutions in both countries, but most mainstream journalists do not like the Leader for both political and personal reasons. And the result is, for the most part, unduly harsh treatment of the Leader, his family and close circle.

3. Regarding whataboutism, Is there anything wrong with loyal aides and supports defending the Leader from unprecedented attacks by political opponents and media? What's wrong with pointing out hypocrisy? The purpose of calling out opponents' unpunished misdeeds is to illustrate the bias of the media and the political establishment, and that, to me, is largely justified.

4. What’s so objectionable about warning that if the Leader is removed from office, the Leader's agenda would be harmed? Donald Trump was elected by many middle-class Americans who fear that a successor, whether from the left or from the right, would leave them behind (let's ignore for the moment the question of whether Trump still remembers them). In Israel, nobody really knows who might replace Netanyahu, and whether the replacement would be from Netanyahu’s Likud party or from a different party. There is a legitimate fear among Likud supporters and other right-wing voters that Netanyahu’s replacement could be someone like Avi Gabai, the new leader of the Labor party, who has socialist views and brings a conciliatory approach towards the Palestinians.

5. Loyal family members generally play a positive role in the democratic process, even when they’re critical of those who (at least in the family member’s view) are acting in bad faith towards the Leaders. I feel sympathy for Yair, a young man who has grown up in the harsh spotlight of Israeli politics. Remember, this is a 25-year old kid who has endured decades of fair but also unfair criticism and humiliation involving his mother’s looks, weight and personality, not to mention at-times vicious criticism of his father. Who wouldn’t be hostile to the media and to critics when put in such a situation? I personally applaud the loyalty, although I do think the message should be delivered more elegantly. On the Trump front, Don Jr. probably should have known better than taking the meeting with the Russian lawyer, but wouldn’t any loyal son do whatever he could (within legal boundaries, of course) to elect his dad? I also take issue with the view that the behavior of Yair and Don Jr. is somehow unique in political history. A supportive family is an important asset for a leader, and we’ve seen supportive families in politics for centuries. The Leader' sons behavior may be a bit crass, but it’s largely what I would expect from a loyal son who sees their parents dragged through the mud day in and day out. Remember Bobby Kennedy, President Kennedy’s attorney general and right-hand man? How independent was the Justice Department during the Kennedy presidency? Definitely less independent than today's Justice Department.

In conclusion, a democratically elected leader should be allowed to govern and promote his agenda. The Leaders should not be above the law, and these investigations are in fact proof that they are not.