The following conversation transpired at my breakfast table on July 24: "W" represents my wife; "H" represents me:
"W: Dear, take a look at The Times editorial on 'Israel's Selective Justice' at the bottom of the editorial page and let me know what you think."
H: (Pause) It seems to be unnecessarily critical of the Israel justice system.
W: More than that. To me, The Times is simply looking to criticize something pertaining to Israel. Didn't you tell me that Israel has the best judicial system in the Middle East and possibly the Third World?
H: I did, and it does. The essence of The Times criticism is that three Israeli terrorists received life terms, but a dozen others found "guilty of lesser but still major felonies were treated with relative leniency." What The Times does not seem to appreciate is the fact that in very few countries would the country's own citizens be even put on trial for such activity. Further, the judges in the sentencing procedure would take into account such personal factors as prior contributions to the welfare of the country and the community, and so forth. We do that all the time in this country and in our federal courts, for example, many judges (if not all), will sentence a first offender more leniently if that person has served honorably in the armed forces, and so forth.