Nor are they perturbed that their false accusations provide welcome fodder for enemy cannons. Take the United Nations General Assembly’s arsenal, for instance.

In a follow-up to its Dec. 30 resolution calling on the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of Palestinian territory,” UNGA on Friday issued a formal request to that effect. It also demanded an investigation into Israeli maneuvers “aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,” as well as of its overall “discriminatory legislation and measures.”

Never mind that the above bodies, like the Palestinians they champion, see the Jewish state as an entity born and existing in sin, regardless of the makeup of its ruling coalition. The bubble-dwelling Israeli demonstrators who claim that their goal is to rescue democracy don’t care if they trample on it to delegitimize the policies of its current leadership.

The endeavor is bolstered by radicals and liberals abroad, as well as by fellow travelers swayed by catchy slogans. The Wall Street Journal refused to join the choir.

“Every time a right-wing government wins an election these days, the immediate refrain from the dominant global media is that it’s a threat to democracy,” began its Friday editorial. “Israel’s new government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is getting this treatment now, and a brawl over that country’s Supreme Court illustrates why the issue is more complicated than the media narrative.”

The piece went on to clarify: “Israel’s Supreme Court has more power than America’s but without the democratic checks. Unbound by any constitution, and loosed from requirements of standing and justiciability, Israel’s court strikes down laws that it finds merely ‘unreasonable,’ which can cover most anything. Israel’s court even has a veto on the appointment of new justices, in contrast to the U.S. where the President and Senate share the appointment power.”

Rectifying this situation was a key campaign promise of the right. It’s what a majority of the public wanted.

As the WSJ put it, “The wisdom of the reform proposals varies, but it isn’t ‘antidemocratic’ to think Israel’s Supreme Court needs democratic checks on its power. The danger is that the court will next reject as unreasonable any reforms to the court itself.”

“Eminences in the West might cheer such a move all the way to a constitutional crisis,” the article continued. “They would do better to concede that Israeli democracy has proved to be resilient, often under the most trying circumstances.”

That Israeli naysayers haven’t been able to acknowledge this simple fact not only speaks volumes; it helps to explain their electoral loss. The rest of us know and appreciate what the WSJ concluded—that “[i]f the Netanyahu government overreaches, the voters will get their say again.”