Janša, Israel and One Rule for Everyone

What would Israel have to do for Janez Janša to publicly say that it had crossed a line, and that the same standard he demands for Russia should apply to Israel? That question frames this reader’s letter by Neven Borak, which challenges what it sees as an inconsistency in Janša’s use of the principles of sovereignty, occupation and civilian protection.

The letter argues that Janša does not speak about Israel only in relation to Israel. His approach to the war in Gaza, recognition of Palestine and Israeli security policy reveals a broader way of understanding politics. For that reason, the author says, Janša’s conclusions should be taken seriously and tested against their own standards.

Borak characterizes Janša’s reading of the Middle East conflict as primarily strategic. Hamas appears as part of Iran’s geopolitical system, the Oct. 7 attack as an act within a wider confrontation, and Israel as a state acting in self-defense. In this interpretation, Palestinians appear mainly as victims of Hamas, Iran and their own political leadership.

The letter presents this as a typical feature of Janša’s thinking: he first looks for an actor, then the actor’s interest, the network behind that interest and the broader balance of power. Borak acknowledges that this approach can be analytically more effective than politics that stops at moral outrage, while using the same framework to question whether Janša applies his principles consistently.