Israeli Envoy Blasts 'War Crimes,' Foreign Ministry Spokesman Covers Putin's Ass

[BeyondGeography]

Link to tweet

Israel’s ambassador to Ukraine denounced the killing of civilians in a Kyiv suburb as a “war crime” on Sunday, in a break from the more restrained rhetoric exhibited by Israeli officials since Russia invaded the former Soviet republic just over a month ago.

“Deeply shocked by the photos from #Bucha. Killing of civilians is a war crime and cannot be justified,” Ambassador Michael Brodsky tweeted on Sunday morning, using the hashtag #UkraineRussiaWar.

Brodsky’s comment came after Ukrainian forces recaptured the city, where Reuters saw bodies lying in the streets, and the hands and feet of multiple corpses poking out of a still open grave at a church ground.

Brodsky’s comments are different from those coming from higher echelon officials in Jerusalem, and it is very unusual for an official Israeli representative to actively post such a message on his Twitter account.

Link to tweet

Asked if the Foreign Ministry’s official position was that Russia had committed war crimes in Ukraine, a spokesman replied: “No. It’s a tweet by the ambassador regarding the photos. He didn’t blame Russia.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/in-rare-rebuke-israeli-envoy-blasts-war-crimes-after-russia-flees-kyiv-suburb-1.10716828?utm_source=App_Share&utm_medium=Twitter

[Tetrachloride]

1. Israel government deflection. Of course war crimes means Russia

[sprinkleeninow]

2. What thee everloving, Israel?

[dem4decades]

3. No more money for Israel. They don't deserve our tax money.

[Sogo]

6. This.

Israel can always be trusted to never be trusted.

[Mosby]

4. Nice made up headline.

What's the name of the Israeli government person who is covering Putins ass?

[Me.]

5. Surely Of All People, The Israelis Can Understand Where THe Ukrainians Stand

Putin’s invasion raises questions about whether protecting Jewish national interests eclipses democratic solidarity.

“Israel also tried to strike a middle ground when asked to mediate between the two sides. On Friday, the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, had reportedly called Bennett, asking Israel to host a meeting between Ukraine and Russia in Jerusalem. Bennett “did not say no,” Ukraine’s Ambassador to Israel, Yevgen Korniychuk, told the Times, though nothing came of the request. Israel, Korniychuk added, is “trying to figure out where they are in this chess play.” On Sunday morning, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official told Israel’s Reshet Bet radio network, cryptically, that lines to both governments remain open and that Israel continues to see itself as a broker. That night, Bennett reportedly called Putin, encouraged restraint, and said that the escalating violence was “one hour before midnight.” In the end, Zelensky’s call seems most significant in revealing, apart from his desperation, Israel’s calculated neutrality….

What Lapid doesn’t ask—at least, not publicly—is whether Israel might stand more unambivalently against Russia’s impending occupation, by taking a more democratically pragmatic position regarding its own occupation. “There is no excuse for the government’s stance,” former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told me. “There are times when you have to decide who you are, what you stand for. You can’t fool around; you can’t fool yourself. If Israel were, like America, trying to rally its allies, would we like our ‘best friend’ saying, ‘Well, there are pros and cons’?”…

Indeed, Lapid’s wobble regarding Ukraine is of a piece with his “centrism” at home, which reflects on the contradictions of the Jewish state. His government, anchored by his party, Yesh Atid, is “democratic, Zionist, and liberal,” Lapid told the yearly conference of the I.N.S.S., in early February. Most Israelis, he said, “grasp in similar ways” the subject of Palestine: they want “to separate from the Palestinians,” and abjure “messianiac canards,” but won’t accept the “right of return or the division of Jerusalem.” They want a Jewish majority, albeit with “respect for minorities.” “A state of its citizens,” Lapid added, would be “the end of Zionism.”…

In that speech, Lapid subtly shifted from democracy as an ethical system to democracy as the enactment of what is best for the Jewish majority. This is not quite the same as what he said about relations with Russia, but it has echoes: the balancing of democratic and Zionist values entails an exertion of Jewish national power for which democratic principles are sometimes grudgingly, if inescapably, eclipsed. Lapid’s coalition with Bennett, from its inception, has committed to freezing all diplomatic engagement with the Palestinian Authority, other than on security coördination and economic development, presumably in exchange for an agreement from Bennett, who is zealously pro-settlement, not to endorse outright annexation of territory. But Lapid’s commitment to the status quo likely wouldn’t expire even if his need to make concessions to Bennett ended.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/ties-with-russia-compromise-israels-stance-on-ukraine