++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stable government by rotation? Or has Bibi outmaneuvered Gantz?(See 1 , 1a and 1b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The party of Insanity. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Inaction can breeds worse problems and Bolton speaks out behind closed doors. (See 3 and 3a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Is Israel’s Netanyahu Era Over?
It may very well be — but the new era's leaders will be hard-pressed to escape his influence.
The Israeli electoral system provides for confusing results in even the most clear-cut election outcomes. The system of electing a parliament — each citizen casts a single vote for one party of his choice, with the 120 seats in the Knesset allocated on a proportional basis among only those parties that get at least 3.25 percent of the total vote — makes it virtually impossible for any single party to win a majority on its own. This has created is a system in which blocs of parties whose components compete separately for seats in the Knesset but are widely understood to back a single candidate for prime minister.
In the past few elections, that meant the bloc of right-wing and religious parties consistently scored a majority in the Knesset, electing Benjamin Netanyahu to consecutive terms and helping him come to serve as the country’s longest serving prime minister. So long as Israelis were primarily focused on the conflict with the Palestinians and the threat from Iran, a consensus on these issues made the Right’s victory over what is left of the left-wing parties (which Israelis still identify with the failed Oslo peace process) a foregone conclusion.
That seemed to be still the case in April, when Netanyahu sought his fourth consecutive term. Parties that had pledged to back him won a clear majority: 65 seats went to the Likud and its partners, 45 to his center-left opponents, and ten to Arab parties.
Many assumed this would mean another Netanyahu government. But one of his coalition partners — Avigdor Lieberman, a onetime aide to Netanyahu who broke with him more than 20 years ago and founded the Yisrael Beitenu Party — had other ideas. Lieberman has long relied on the votes of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who are right-wing on security issues but hostile to the influence of the religious parties aligned with Netanyahu, and the electoral math in April gave him a unique opportunity to sabotage the prime minister.
Without the five seats his party won in April, Netanyahu fell one short of the majority needed to govern. Armed with that leverage, Lieberman then made symbolic but noteworthy demands, calling to curtail exemptions from the country’s conscription policies for many ultra-Orthodox men. The religious parties could not comply, and neither could Netanyahu, reliant as he was on their support. The subsequent stalemate forced the prime minister to seek another vote.
Now the results are in, and Netanyahu’s choice backfired. Likud lost ground; Lieberman gained a few seats. And while the Blue and White Party — the leading centrist opposition party led by Benny Gantz, a former general, and Yair Lapid, a TV host–turned–politician — fell short of a majority, so too did Netanyahu’s bloc, and Blue and White heads into negotiations with one more seat than Likud.
Since a third election within a year to resolve the deadlock seems unthinkable, that leaves party leaders with a few unpalatable choices. A unity government of the two largest parties — Likud and Blue and White — would seem the logical outcome. It’s also the outcome for which Lieberman has publicly hoped. But Blue and White has pledged never to sit with Netanyahu because of the ethical cloud hanging over him (Netanyahu faces pending corruption charges) and the Likud members of the Knesset have pledged to stick with Netanyahu. Unity thus seems unlikely.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s attacks on the political influence of the country’s Arab minority have resulted in the various Arab parties — a group that includes Islamists, secular Arab nationalists, and Communists — uniting their own block of twelve seats. This faction has the power, should it choose to use it, to help Blue and White leader Benny Gantz get the first crack at forming a new government — even if they can’t ultimately join it. Netanyahu getting another term in office is still possible, but this appears unlikely.
Israel, therefore, may be entering a new political era. But it is an era over which Netanyahu’s shadow will loom. Over the last 20 years, Bibi has taken several major steps that have reshaped Israeli politics — steps that a new administration would be hard-pressed to reverse.
Take diplomacy. Netanyahu was responsible for breaking down Israel’s diplomatic isolation in ways that would have been unimaginable a generation ago, building an international coalition against Iran that has made allies out of formerly hostile Arab nations and is making steady diplomatic inroads in both the Persian Gulf and Africa. The relationships he forged with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi created a singular moment in which it could be asserted that it was Israel’s foes that were marginalized on the international scene rather than the perennially isolated Jewish state.
Yet on these and other issues, Netanyahu is a victim of his own success. It wasn’t possible for him to castigate his main opponent as a creature of the left, as he had traditionally been able to do. A chorus line of ex-chiefs of staff of the Israel Defense Forces lead the Blue and White party. Indeed, Gantz spent both election campaigns portraying himself as tougher than Netanyahu on security issues and just as willing to assert Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the West Bank settlement blocs. Rather than challenging the consensus on the peace process that Netanyahu had forged, Blue and White is an expression of it.
Israelis were once split fairly evenly between the left and the right on the subject of peace. But Netanyahu’s run of political dominance was made possible by the disastrous Second Intifada and subsequent withdrawal from Gaza, which led to the emergence of a Hamas terrorist regime. While the rhetoric between Netanyahu and Gantz’s factions was heated in both of this year’s election campaigns, there was little talk of peace. Instead, the primary issue was whether Netanyahu, now tainted by corruption investigations and burdened by the baggage that any democratic leader acquires after a decade in office, needed to go.
It is from this consensus that Blue and White emerged. And it is because of this consensus that Lieberman, no slouch on security issues, felt free to execute a maneuver whose only real goal was deposing Netanyahu.
As always, those who underestimate Netanyahu’s political skills do so at their own peril. But his second consecutive failure to win a majority means that the post-Netanyahu era may be about to arrive — an era that will continue to be dominated by his signature policies.
1a)
Netanyahu is outmaneuvering Gantz
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has successfully nixed any chance for a unity government. In order to achieve this, he is operating a three-stage campaign.
The first stage was to ensure that the right-wing bloc was behind him. Namely, bring the members of his outgoing coalition into line. He has effectively prevented them from going to Benny Gantz – whose Blue and White party appears to have won more seats than Netanyahu's Likud - behind his back.
The second stage was to lay blame on Gantz for any parliamentary crisis they may arise when no new coalition is achieved and the need for a third round of elections within a year is raised.
Netanyahu on Thursday issued an urgent call through an online video for Gantz to meet and agree on a national unity government.
Gantz and his party saw through the ruse, but that is not to say the prime minister will not be ultimately successful in his efforts in that regard.
The third stage, which Netanyahu believes will be implemented down the road, will be announcing he has tried everything to prevent a third election in less than a year, but it was out of his hands.
The truth as it appears in recent Likud announcements is that Netanyahu does not want a unity government. He does not want to share leadership in an agreed rotation with Gantz.
Netanyahu is also not fearful of another election - because in his mind, the results of Tuesday's ballot do not reflect the will of the Israeli people. They are a mishap, an outlier, that must be corrected.
If Netanyahu had truly been in favor of a unity government, he would have turned to Gantz before signing an agreement Wednesday with the far-right and religious parties, creating an effective parliamentary bloc and foiling any chance of a coalition being formed without him.
Asking Gantz to join him and his long-time coalition partners in government would elicit the same response as asking Haredi Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman to have buses in religious neighborhoods on Shabbat.
While Netanyahu's strategy was already beginning to crystallize - with any and all conceivable options taken into account - Gantz was apparently catching up on his sleep.
What else could explain his failure to call a press conference early Wednesday morning in an effort to pressure some of Netanyahu's coalition partners into dialogue, calling on them to distance themselves from the prime minister who has three corruptions cases pending against him and was unable to muster a majority of the public's support.
While Gantz has been snoozing, Netanyahu has been setting the agenda.
1b)Weekly Commentary: Coalition To Make History Or Waste Opportunity?
Dr. Aaron Lerner
For years Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been postponing many actions
relating to Judea and Samaria as he waits for the perfect moment.
relating to Judea and Samaria as he waits for the perfect moment.
It is said that a near death experience can change a person's perspective.
I daresay that the latest elections here could have a similar effect should
Binyamin Netanyahu manage to form a ruling coalition
Binyamin Netanyahu manage to form a ruling coalition
We are at a critical juncture.
I will put is bluntly: will a coalition be formed to make history or engage
in BS?
in BS?
A new government could literally make history in the first minutes of its
first official meeting by deciding to apply Israeli law to the area
first official meeting by deciding to apply Israeli law to the area
delineated on the map of the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea that Mr. Netanyahu
revealed to the public towards the end of the election campaign.
revealed to the public towards the end of the election campaign.
In point of fact, there is a whole checklist of historic actions that a
newly formed government could complete within its first working day.
newly formed government could complete within its first working day.
Alternatively, a new government could freeze all initiatives until President
Trump decides that his deal of the century is dead and buried - a move that
would in all likelihood find us deep in the 2020 American election campaign.
Trump decides that his deal of the century is dead and buried - a move that
would in all likelihood find us deep in the 2020 American election campaign.
And I frankly have a hard time imagining our engaging in dramatic.
initiatives in the middle of such a highly contested race.
So it comes down to this: will the newly elected MK's from Moshe Ya'alon's
Telem and Avigdor Liberman set aside their bad blood with Binyamin Netanyahu
to make history?
Telem and Avigdor Liberman set aside their bad blood with Binyamin Netanyahu
to make history?
I fervently hope so.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
The Democrats’ Ritualistic Stoning of Brett Kavanaugh
If Joe Biden wins, the left will use the same tactics against his presidency.
By Daniel Henninger
For years, an enduring story line of American politics was that “the far right” was taking over the Grand Old Party of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and the Bush family. Then Donald Trump, a political idiosyncrasy running as a Republican, blew up the right-wing takeover.
Today we have a more relevant story line: The Democratic Party of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton—even Barack Obama —is being taken over by the far left.
Unlike the presumed capture of the Republicans by a mishmash of disorganized groups and intellectuals, the Democrats today are making the public’s perception of their party easier by defining themselves from now until Election Day with their treatment of one person— Brett Kavanaugh.
Within hours of publication of the New York Times’s tissue-thin piece on Justice Kavanaugh’s years at Yale, a succession of Democratic presidential candidates posted denunciations on social media.
Elizabeth Warren: “Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.”
Kamala Harris: “He must be impeached.”
Beto O’Rourke: “He should be impeached.”
Julián Castro: “He should be impeached.”
Bernie Sanders: “I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable.”
Impeachment, until now, has been a grave step in the American political process. But impeachment has become like popcorn for Democrats. They can’t get enough of it.
This extraordinary exercise in instantaneous groupthink by so many of the party’s presidential candidates is disturbing. There are several ways to interpret it, and the first requires diving to untouched depths of cynicism.
By midevening Sunday, the Times had issued a clarification of the original piece by two of the paper’s staff writers, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. In what now appears to be an editing fiasco of historic proportions (almost on a scale with the Washington Post’s epic and must-read correction of a recent piece about racism in the paper’s food section), the Times acknowledged that the woman involved in the purported Kavanuagh episode “declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.”
But Democrats seem to live in a political world now whose standard of proof for judicial confirmations or any public- policy proposal is “whatever.” On Monday morning, well after the Times’s clarification of the original piece, the Harris campaign sent out an email grinding through “Brett Kavanaugh’s illegitimate nomination.” Then it asked for money: “Can you add a contribution of any amount to Kamala’s campaign?” The short distance from moral high horse to money grovel is breathtaking.
About 3 p.m., Mr. Castro asked the people on his email distribution list to sign a self-promoting “emergency petition calling for Brett Kavanaugh’s removal.”
Still, something more serious than back-alley political cynicism is reflected in the statements from these Democratic presidential candidates. An issue raised by the entire Kavanaugh process is whether the Democratic Party as defined by its current generation of party activists is willing to conduct politics outside any conceivable definition of acceptable behavior.
Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed by a Senate vote nearly a year ago after a hearing process of unprecedented political bitterness. This New York Times article and the piling on by five Democratic presidential candidates amount to a ritualistic stoning of Brett Kavanaugh. If the established system doesn’t go their way, they’ll conduct politics outside the system. Whatever it takes.
The day after Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, left-wing activists took over streets throughout Manhattan and shut down commuter traffic. It always struck me as a telling event, insofar as most of the New York workers these activists were shafting voted for Hillary Clinton. But their point was clear: We’ll disrupt and even smash the system when we want to. This is becoming the ethos—a politics without norms or boundaries—that now defines the Democratic Party.
An argument against such a dire interpretation is that the activists’ anything-goes politics is precisely what is at stake in the struggle between the party’s left and “moderates” such as Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar. I’m not sure I believe that now, and the reason is Minnesota’s Sen. Klobuchar.
After the Times piece appeared Saturday and her fellow candidates outputted their serial impeachment demands, Ms. Klobuchar somehow felt compelled to say the Kavanaugh confirmation “process was a sham.” This from a candidate who has tried, like Mr. Biden, to present herself as the adult in the room. That Ms. Klobuchar caved says a lot about the requirements of party membership now.
It raises the question of how real the whole “moderate” Democratic phenomenon is, or whether Ms. Warren has accurately identified the party’s near-term future—progressivism without nuance or quarter.
If Mr. Biden somehow got elected, the pressure from the far left to conform his administration’s policy to its agenda would be overwhelming and relentless. That’s the lesson of the Kavanaugh stoning. Today Brett Kavanaugh, tomorrow whoever gets in the way, including a moderate Democratic president.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3
The Iran War: Danger Lurks In Inaction
By CONRAD BLACK, Special to the Sun
Last weekend’s drone raid on the Saudi oil fields, along with the Israeli elections, opens a new chapter in Middle Eastern relations. Whether the attack on Saudi oil production, which has temporarily stopped more than half of it, was launched by Iranian-sponsored Yemeni Houthis or by the Iranians themselves is beside the point, as the Houthis had no independent ability whatever to acquire and use such weapons.
The Iranians are behind the incident. There is room for legitimate debate about the merits of the conflicting sides in the Yemen war, but there can be no doubt that by any standards, the direct attack on Saudi Arabia was an act of war, and as it was entirely dependent on Iranian weapons procurement and instruction, it is an escalation of the war-by-proxy between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen with an outright act of war by Iran against Saudi Arabia.
There is no reason to believe, or even to recommend, that Saudi Arabia should turn the other cheek and engage in reactive pacifism. Because the Trump administration has ignored the efforts of American political factions, including recalcitrant Republicans, to ditch the Saudis, Washington retains great influence on the Saudi response to what is a severe provocation. This can be seen as a great opportunity, as it furnishes a justification for administering a heavy blow against the most troublesome regime in the world.
The United States would do well to take the trouble to line up allies. The Western alliance will be even more skittish than usual, given that the aggrieved party is the not entirely presentable Saudi regime. Saudi Arabia has been a joint venture between the House of Saud, an old nomadic desert family favored by Britain and France on the collapse of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire at the end of World War I, and the Wahhabi Islamic leadership. The feudal and absolute monarchy paid extensive Danegeld to the Wahhabis as they spread militant Islam throughout the Eurasian landmass and in Australasia and North Africa, in exchange for a free pass for the Saudi royal family.
The Saudi regime has gradually, under steady American influence, modernized the structure of the state, spread the petro-money around the population, and withdrawn from the Faustian bargain with fundamentalist Islam. It has followed the Arab version of the Chinese model: economic and (to some extent) social reform and general distribution of prosperity, without relaxing the authority or capacity of self-assertion of the state. The Saudis avoided the catastrophe of Russia and, briefly, Egypt, of trying to introduce democracy without elevating public standards of prosperity and education.
Saudi Arabia is, in any case, a much more reputable regime than the terrorism-promoting, bigoted theocracy of Iran — an almost friendless nation apart from a few other militant Islamic entities and as a nuisance of convenience that China and Russia and even Turkey encourage to irritate the United States and its Middle Eastern allies and protégés, especially Egypt, the Emirates, the Saudis, and Israel.
The struggle that is now escalating is among theocratic and secular Muslim countries, militant Islam, and Middle Eastern minorities — the Jewish state and Arab Christians — and the fairly arcane but often fiercely contested distinction between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, as well as a contest between petroleum-exporting countries, a field where Saudi Arabia has generally been preeminent. These waters have been muddied considerably by the effective elimination by the United States of overseas energy imports as its own production has been sharply boosted from shale-fracking and increased offshore exploration.
An incidental but useful clarification from this event has been the revelation of the absurdity and irrelevance of the extreme Green nonsense. The President was correct in announcing that he would release oil as necessary from the United States national petroleum reserves to stabilize world supply. Even 50 years from now, no part of the solution to such a problem as this will have anything to do with nostrums about windmills and solar panels.
Apart from the removal of the United States as the world’s chief petroleum importer, the Middle Eastern correlation of forces has also been altered by the disintegration of two prominent Arab countries, Iraq and Syria (formerly two of Israel’s most militant enemies), and the encroachment upon Arab affairs of the ancient foes of the Arabs, the Turks and the Persians (Iran).
The European rejection of Turkey has helped persuade that country’s strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to imagine that Turkey has a role to play in Arab affairs, and the general clerical and nationalist belligerency of the Islamic Republic in Iran has assisted the Arabs in focusing on self-protection and shelving their diversionary preoccupation with Israel.
The fixation on Israel was always just an invented distraction of the Arab masses from the misgovernment their leaders inflicted on them, but now, and with Turkey and Iran meddling in Syria and Iraq, the Palestinians, who were generally regarded in the Arab world as sharpers like the Jews and Lebanese, are redundant to the pan-Arab interest, and Israel is a vital ally.
Now is the time for the imposition of a solution: The Palestinians can have a modest state, but that’s all they get, and it must be conditioned on formal recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with internationally agreed frontiers. The Israeli election will almost certainly produce a grand coalition between the two main parties that could facilitate an agreement by producing a slightly more flexible government in Jerusalem, i.e. a somewhat more flexible Benjamin Netanyahu (though not one seriously contemplating retirement; the charges against him are nonsense and just part of hardball Israeli politics). Israel would benefit from a government independent of the Arabs, the religious parties, or the far left.
The United States must lead an effective coalition response to the Iranian aggression against Saudi Arabia. The NATO states that import oil, especially from Saudi Arabia, should be forcefully invited to join in augmented sanctions, and the United States should require those countries that trade profitably with the U.S. to join an embargo of Iran until it genuinely renounces its sponsorship of terrorist enterprises, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and, as long as the Yemeni civil war is bilaterally deescalated, the Houthi.
A serious coalition, including all the countries whose ships ply the Persian Gulf, should, under American leadership, accomplish the internationalization of the Strait of Hormuz, and discourage by force any Iranian attempt to restrict those waters. And the U.S. must (at the expense of the beneficiary countries) install serious air security over Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, and northern Iraq. Foreign drones should never have got anywhere near the Saudi oil refineries and collection points and would not be especially hard to intercept.
This attack was planned as meticulously as the 9/11 attacks and, like them, attempted to evade any particular national responsibility. The fact that there was no suicide element may be taken as slight progress for the world’s counterterrorists.
An air assault on Iranian oil facilities and nuclear military sites would be entirely justified, and this measure should be prepared as the next step, with the prior approval of a reasonable range of supportive countries, as the instant response to any further provocations. It would not be a great risk for the United States to lead a punitive air mission that would flatten Iran’s nuclear military program and crush it economically, and such a step would arouse no objections from any civilized country.
If the Saudis want to move to this more ambitious phase of retribution now, as long as the administration takes the time necessary to stiffen the backbone of the vocal but often almost invertebrate allies, and as long as it is planned carefully, there is no moral or practical reason to hesitate. Iran is an outlaw regime in chronic need of punishment, and the danger lies not in overreaction but in insufficient retaliation.
3a)
Bolton unloads on Trump’s foreign policy behind closed doors
The recently fired national security adviser made little secret of his disagreements with the president.
John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s fired national security adviser, harshly criticized Trump’s foreign policy on Wednesday at a private lunch, saying that inviting the Taliban to Camp David sent a “terrible signal” and that it was “disrespectful” to the victims of 9/11 because the Taliban had harbored al Qaeda.
Bolton also said that any negotiations with North Korea and Iran were “doomed to failure,” according to two attendees.
Story Continued Below
All the North Koreans and Iranians want to do is negotiate for relief from sanctions to support their economies, said Bolton, who was speaking before guests invited by the Gatestone Institute, a conservative think tank.
“He ripped Trump, without using his name, several times,” said one attendee. Bolton didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Bolton also said more than once that Trump’s failure to respond to the Iranian attack on an American drone earlier this summer set the stage for the Islamic Republic’s aggression in recent months.
At one point, Bolton, a previous chairman of Gatestone, suggested that had the U.S. retaliated for the drone shootdown, Iran might not have damaged the Saudi oil fields.
Bolton called the alleged attack on Saudi Arabia, which U.S. and Saudi officials have blamed on Iran, “an act of war” by anyone’s definition.
The former national security adviser’s comments come on the same day Trump named his successor, hostage negotiator Robert C. O’Brien.
Speaking on an airport tarmac in Los Angeles, Trump introduced his new top foreign policy aide as “highly respected” and hailed their “good chemistry.” The remarks indicated that in O’Brien, Trump sees a more compatible adviser than Bolton, whose disagreements with the president and clashes with other senior officials often spilled into public view.
After the attack in June, Trump was poised to launch a military response against the Iranians — strongly urged by Bolton — but pulled back after Fox News host Tucker Carlson and others warned him that it was a bad idea.
During Wednesday’s luncheon, Bolton said the planned response had gone through the full process and everybody in the White House had agreed on the retaliatory strike.
But “a high authority, at the very last minute," without telling anyone, decided not to do it, Bolton complained.
On Wednesday afternoon, Trump pushed back strongly.
“Well, I was critical of John Bolton for getting us involved with a lot of other people in the Middle East,” he told reporters during a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego. “We’ve spent $7.5 trillion in the Middle East and you ought to ask a lot of people about that.“
“John was not able to work with anybody, and a lot of people disagreed with his ideas,” Trump added. “A lot of people were very critical that I brought him on in the first place because of the fact that he was so in favor of going into the Middle East, and he got stuck in quicksand and we became policemen for the Middle East. It’s ridiculous.“
Bolton spoke to around 60 Gatestone donors at the exclusive restaurant Le Bernardin in Manhattan. Attendees included noted lawyer Alan Dershowitz and his wife Carolyn, former attorney general Michael Mukasey, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, former Fox Business Network host John Stossel, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey and New York billionaire John Catsimadis.
Billionaire Rebekah Mercer introduced Bolton as “the best national security adviser our country could have hoped for,” garnering her very loud applause. Bolton had been scheduled to speak to the group before Trump fired him.
In his talk and the Q&A session that followed, Bolton took attendees through a number of global issues.
On Afghanistan, another frequent subject of disagreement with the president, Bolton said that the U.S. should not have pursued a peace deal with the Taliban.
Instead, he said, the U.S. should keep 8,600 troops in Afghanistan with intelligence support and other support elements. He called the proposed deal that was on the table similar to the agreement the Taliban offered the U.S. after 9/11, but said “it doesn’t make any sense.”
More than once, Bolton said, Israel would “sooner or later” see a new government, even though he personally liked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
On Venezuela, a focus of his short White House tenure, Bolton claimed there were 20,000 to 25,000 Cuban troops in the South American country. The day they left, he predicted, the Nicholas Maduro regime would fall by midnight.
He also said that if British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn were to become prime minister, it would be “fatal to the special relationship” between the U.S. and Britain.
During the Q&A session, Dershowitz told the crowd that it was “a national disaster” that Bolton had been booted from the White House, to what the attendee described as “thunderous applause.”
Caitlin Oprysko contributed to this report.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment