Sneak preview of Mueller Report! (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Melanie Phillips, in my humble opinion, is one of the brighter minds and one of the more courageous British writers.
In the article below, she discusses "Cultural Marxism" and how it has become a useful tool "... to bring about radical change...to seed revolutionary ideas within the core institutions of [Western] society. "
She then discusses what happened in New Zealand and how she and another British Conservative MP were vilified for their discussion of the weaponization of Islamophobia"...This sanitization of Islamic radicalism..." and the threat this has to key underlying tenets of Western Culture, ie free speech and thought.
It is a complex article and her leap from "Cultural Marxism" to what happened in New Zealand and the commentary associated with same from the Jewish community is somewhat disjointed/convoluted, in my opinion, but I still commend the article. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Peter Berkowitz, RealClearPolitics
Other interesting op eds:
Cary Huang, SCMP
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The election of Bibi and, in 2020,Trump, parallel. The key is will voters overlook the person and their foibles and do what is best for the nation. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our grandson, Kevin, is coming in Thursday, for The Savannah Music Festival. His wife, Andy, was coming as well and then received a job offer, she could not refuse, to open a boutique store and had to cancel. Andy has a decorator's flair and will be supervising the store's decor and then being an assistant manager/buyer.
I mention this because while Kevin in here he will be my focus and not posting memos.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden bites his lip and may eventually have to bite the dust: CBS News: Joe Biden denies acting “inappropriately” with women, but vows to “listen”
And:
While I am on my soap box I find it incongruous FOX would fire Judge Jeanine and hire Donna Brazile - a known liar and fraud.
Are the son's of the owner slowly transforming FOX into a conservative version of MSNBC and CNN?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)The Trump-Russia collusion hall of shame
Biden bites his lip and may eventually have to bite the dust: CBS News: Joe Biden denies acting “inappropriately” with women, but vows to “listen”
And:
While I am on my soap box I find it incongruous FOX would fire Judge Jeanine and hire Donna Brazile - a known liar and fraud.
Are the son's of the owner slowly transforming FOX into a conservative version of MSNBC and CNN?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)The Trump-Russia collusion hall of shame
Democrats made numerous inaccurate predictions over the past two years about the trajectory of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
The news that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” has left a lot of people in Washington with a lot of explaining to do.
Put aside the rogues’ gallery of reporters and pundits who assured us that Donald Trump had conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the presidency. What is most insidious are those who did have access to classified intelligence and led Americans to believe that they had seen what we could not: actual evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Recall that in 2016, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) released a letter to FBI Director James B. Comey claiming the FBI had proof of Trump-Russia collusion. “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government,” Reid declared. When asked what information Reid was referring to, a spokesman said, “There have been classified briefings on this topic. That is all I can say.”
Trump has called for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) to resign. He is absolutely correct. Schiff repeatedly said that his committee had dug up “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy.” In March 2017, he said on “Meet the Press,” “I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now” and last May he told ABC that Trump’s Russia conspiracy is of “a size and scope probably beyond Watergate.”
Schiff is a disgrace. But he is not alone. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said, “In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion” and declared Trump an agent “working on behalf of the Russians.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) claimed, “It’s clear that the campaign colluded, and there’s a lot of evidence of that.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, assured us last year that “the evidence is pretty clear that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said, “There is no longer a question of whether this campaign sought to collude with a hostile foreign power to subvert America’s democracy.” And recently, the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), declared that “enormous amounts of evidence” exist of collusion between Trump and Russia and that “there’s no one that could factually say there’s not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians.” Except for Mueller, of course.
These comments by people with access to intelligence were shameful. But the most sinister of all is John Brennan, who used his authority as former CIA director to suggest that Trump was a traitor and a compromised Russian asset. After Trump’s Helsinki summit, Brennan declared “he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.” When challenged by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” Brennan stood by his assessment. “I called [Trump’s] behavior treasonous, which is to betray one’s trust and aid and abet the enemy, and I stand very much by that claim.”
This month, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell told Brennan this investigation was “developing while you were still on the job” and asked, “Did you see enough at that stage to believe . . . that that would result in indictments?” Brennan replied, “I thought at the time there was going to be individuals who were going to have issues with the Department of Justice. Yes.” In a New York Times op-ed, hewrote that “Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.” Now, Brennan feigns contrition. “I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” he said, adding, “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”
Hogwash. He wanted it to be true, and he relied on his CIA credentials to convince Americans that it was. That is a violation of the public trust. Trump was right to revoke Brennan’s security clearance. He is among the worst of the worst, the Trump-Russia collusion hall of shame. We have long since passed the point where Americans expect objectivity from the press. But we should hold our elected and appointed officials handling sensitive national security issues to a higher standard.
Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Jews on the wrong side of the West’s lethal culture wars
By MELANIE PHILLIPS
Why are so many Jews getting our vicious culture wars so very wrong?
“Cultural Marxism” is a term that refers to the strategy propounded by left-wing theorists in the last century to use the institutions of a society’s culture to bring about a revolution in society.
In a speech this week, a British Conservative MP, Suella Braverman, said that conservatives were engaged in “a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur; where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo; where our universities, quintessential institutions of liberalism, are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.”
Cue instant uproar, led by the British Jewish community. The Board of Deputies objected on the grounds that “the term ‘cultural Marxist’ has a history as an antisemitic trope.”
Others went further, accusing Braverman of using a phrase that was not only “a conspiracy laden with antisemitic undertones” championed by the “extreme Right” but had been cited by the white supremacist accused of murdering 50 Muslim worshipers at two New Zealand mosques earlier this month.
On the Left, “cultural Marxism” has long been labeled a demented conspiracy theory. Certainly, it has indeed been appropriated by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites and other conspiracy-theory fruitcakes.
But such people also routinely accuse the Jews of being the puppet-masters of global capitalism or globalism. Yet few claim that “anti-capitalism” or “anti-globalism” is a “conspiracy laden with antisemitic undertones” – even though it is – not least because it’s also a common trope on the Left.
Yes, “cultural Marxism” surfaced in Nazi discourse as “cultural Bolshevism.” But it also has roots in an actual political philosophy propounded by far-left thinkers known as the “Frankfurt School,” along with other Marxist theorists such as Antonin Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky.
All of these believed that, rather than expect the workers to seize control of the levers of political and economic life, the way to bring about radical change was to seed revolutionary ideas within the core institutions of society.
This was not “conspiracy theory” but an actual plan, dubbed by the 1960s German student leader Rudi Dutschke as “the long march through the institutions,” to describe the strategy for subverting the professions from within.
This has been achieved to the letter particularly in the universities, the principal incubators of cultural orthodoxies, and where teaching of the humanities is almost universally suffused by the Marxist assumption that life consists of a series of battles for power.
This is what lies behind identity politics and victim culture, the progressive destruction of the traditional family, and moral and cultural relativism – which have taken an ax to the legitimacy of the Western nation and its bedrock values.
“Cultural Marxism” is used accordingly as a shorthand phrase to describe the Left’s onslaught on core Western precepts. As Braverman said, “We have culture evolving from the far Left which has allowed the snuffing out of freedom of speech [and] freedom of thought.”
Yet for stating the obvious about something that should concern all decent people committed to liberal values, she found herself disgustingly smeared by association with antisemitism and mass murder.
This followed hard on the heels of similar treatment meted out after the New Zealand mosques massacre to opponents of Islamist extremism. Including me.
After I wrote a blog post expressing horror at the attacks, I was engulfed by a Twitter storm because I have repeatedly written against Islamic extremism and the attempt to Islamize the West by forcing it to subscribe to Islamic tenets.
The care I’ve always taken to emphasize that we mustn’t tar all Muslims with the extremist brush was ignored. I was actually accused of inspiring the massacre by promoting “Islamophobia.”
Yet an extremely courageous Muslim, Yahya Cholil Staquf, general secretary of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organization, wrote after the New Zealand atrocity that it was impossible to divorce the actions of the New Zealand terrorist from the fact that, in the minds of many non-Muslims, Islam had become synonymous with terror.
Jihadist doctrine, he wrote, was traceable to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam which were a “summons to perpetual conflict.” Left unaddressed, this could encourage anyone to “defy what they claim to be illegitimate laws and butcher their fellow citizens, whether they live in the Islamic world or the West.”
These are truths that need urgently to be said. Yet Jewish leaders don’t say them. In New Zealand, the instantaneous Jewish reaction to the massacre was to express its solidarity with the Muslim community.
That was a very humane gesture. It was rewarded by a New Zealand Muslim leader, Ahmed Bhamji, telling last weekend’s “anti-racist” rally marking the atrocity that he had a “very, very strong suspicion” that “Mossad is behind this.” To which a person in the crowd shouted out: “It’s the truth. Israel is behind this. That’s right!”
Of course it’s only decent to express sympathy with any victims of terror attacks. And of course, it’s important to be careful not to inflame attacks against ordinary Muslims. But it’s perverse and dangerous to behave in the way radical Islamists demand of the West by presenting the Islamic world in general as wholly blameless, and only ever the victims of deranged extremists or of the West itself.
This sanitization of Islamic radicalism does the jihadists’ work for them. As Staquf went on:
“This is why it worries me to see Western political and intellectual elites weaponize the term ‘Islamophobia,’ to short-circuit analysis of a complex phenomenon that threatens all humanity. For example, it is factually incorrect and counter-productive to define Islamophobia as ‘rooted in racism,’ as proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. In reality, it is the spread of Islamist extremism and terror that primarily contributes to the rise of Islamophobia throughout the non-Muslim world.”
What courage it takes for a Muslim to say this. Yet many Diaspora Jewish leaders do not stand in solidarity with such bravery. Instead, they take the cowardly, dishonest and dangerous approach of endorsing Islamist double-think.
In Britain and elsewhere, Jewish community leaders are not only in the forefront of the attempt to suppress “Islamophobia” as rooted in racism, but they also equate it with antisemitism.
This equation is horribly wrong. It’s not just that criticism of the Islamic world is about how people choose to behave while antisemitism attacks people for what they inescapably are. The key difference between them is the distinction between truth and lies.
For while antisemitism is based entirely on falsehoods, distortions and deranged fantasies about the Jewish people, “Islamophobia” labels as bigotry all adverse comment about Muslims, including truths about Islamic extremism and jihadi terrorism.
Some people are indeed irrationally prejudiced against Muslims, just as there is irrational prejudice against any group. But “Islamophobia” was invented as a term by Islamists determined to suppress rational, legitimate and necessary acknowledgment of the dangers within the Islamic world.
It was invented specifically as a cynical appropriation of the characteristic that antisemites of all stripes believe about antisemitism: that it is a term which allows Jews to escape accountability for their misdeeds.
Islamists, who deeply believe antisemitic tropes such as demonic Jewish global power, wanted to invent a term that would afford them cultural immunity for their own misdeeds.
The difference is that the Jews are innocent of the crimes of which they are thus accused; the Islamists are not.
So it’s not surprising that the campaign to outlaw “Islamophobia” is also intent upon suppressing any acknowledgment of the institutionalized antisemitism which courses through the Islamic world.
Which is why Chelsea Clinton found herself accused by Muslim students in New York of having helped cause the New Zealand mosques massacre – just because she had criticized the antisemitism of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
Our culture has indeed developed the characteristics of the former Soviet Union, a disorienting hall of mirrors in which everything seems to be the reverse of reality.
Jews were themselves historic victims of that system (although some were also among its perpetrators). It is beyond disturbing to see that, in its modern manifestation, so many Jews have put themselves on the wrong side of the looking glass.
The writer is a columnist for The Times (UK)
2a)
Even in high school, I found myself offended by my fellow students who were card-carrying communists in their beliefs and sympathies. In fact, a sizeable number of students clung to Marxism as dogma. The high school was Central High School for Boys, a school for gifted boys located in Philadelphia, Pa.
What irony, then, that when I came to teach history at a public high school in New York City, and the teachers, most of whom were atheists, heard I am conservative and, even worse, a born-again believer. I was quietly approached by one of the veterans, who said, "You know Jeff, communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, but it is alive and well in this high school." I realized that by saying this to me, he was challenging not, as he thought, only me, but also Almighty God through His Son Jesus Christ — and that it was a challenge he would sooner or later have reason to regret, for he would surely lose (see Deuteronomy 32:37–39). I did not rail against him, but kept my peace, knowing he had identified himself as a mocker of the Lord.
2a)
Communism in Our Schools and in Our Politics
Even in high school, I found myself offended by my fellow students who were card-carrying communists in their beliefs and sympathies. In fact, a sizeable number of students clung to Marxism as dogma. The high school was Central High School for Boys, a school for gifted boys located in Philadelphia, Pa.
Later, as I continued my studies in the Ivy League, I saw that there was a consistently strong element of intellectuals who were not in the least embarrassed to express their interest in communism.
Once, as I stood with a crowd of students who were watching to see the outcome of events when a cadre of students locked themselves into the Harvard administration building and chained the doors, I was standing next to H.G., a fellow graduate student who had gone to the same high school and college as I had. He was rooting for the locked in students and for "the revolution," which he hoped was near. I asked him, "Herb, how can you be for communism or for 'revolution'? You are the same as I am — Jewish, son of working people or middle-class people — we went to the same high school, the same college! How can revolution or communism be good for anyone? He said nothing but looked at me with eyes filled with contempt. Later, he would become a professor of economics at Harvard University.
Years after these early contacts with communists, I was converted to Christ. Although I had been anti-communist for years, only when I was welcomed into the Kingdom of God by my Lord and Savior did I begin to fully realize the enormity of the error that lay in Marxist-Engels-communist thought. Communism was not a doctrine merely to be disputed by men; rather, the communists had picked a (losing) fight with Almighty God. It was unworthy as a human doctrine not only by the lights and understandings of non-communist thinkers and actors on the political and economic stage, but, as a repudiation of Almighty God, and particularly Jesus Christ, it was a doctrine opposed to God Himself.
It was not only the "part" of communism that announced its atheism that was wrong. Marx had said that "religion is the opiate of the people." But all the principles and historical concepts as well as the methodology of dialectical materialism were wrong and attempts to deceive people and turn them away from godly ways. "Bourgeois morality," attacked by Marxists, was a way of saying Judeo-Christian, biblical values are wrong. The doctrine of dialectical necessity, whereby history moves forward by a series of steps in a historical thesis, which gives rise to its antithesis, which in turn gives rise to a new cultural-economic paradigm — the synthesis — was itself a denial of the biblical view of history as governed by Divine Providence, and leading to the triumph of Christ over all creation by our redemption, His return and rule, and the final judgment on all the living and the dead. History is not moving dialectically, as Marx, building on the work of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, believed. Rather, history is moving forward providentially.
On another occasion, another group of leftists were sitting in the cafeteria, laughing uproariously. When I came in, one called out to me, "Jeff, are we all going to hell?" I smiled but did not take the bait. However, two weeks later, I was having lunch and sitting across from one of the communists. (I didn't just pin this label on these individuals; rather, they self-labeled as communists.) Another one sat next to me, along with a third gentleman who was not a communist, but, to be kind, let's say he was susceptible to leftwing interpretations of current events.
The one across from me asked me if I thought that people really go to hell. I replied that if someone committed a crime at 3:00 pm, and for some reason died at 11:00 pm and had not repented of his crime and received Christ as His Lord and Savior, he would find himself in hell. It was obvious to my colleague that I was referring to any unrepentant individual, not only to a criminal. My colleague stared at me. He said, "I find that statement to be very offensive." The man sitting to my left was making faces at me all the while, which I saw out of the corner of my eye. He grimaced and contorted his features in mockery of me. "I'm sorry you feel that way, R.L.," I replied, "But I surely believe that that is exactly what would be the outcome." He gave me a stare of stern, silent rejection. I stared back, peaceful, resolute, and content.
Now let's fast-forward: The Democratic Party has been sliding more and more to the Left for decades. Now there is no doubt in my mind that they have embraced communism. The Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) supported Barack Obama in 2012 and its leadership said it would vote for Hillary Clinton but did not officially endorse her in 2016. "God" was booed at the 2012 Democratic Party convention. The communist drift that has gone on in that party for decades seems fulfilled in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders and the ascendancy and election of a list of presidential candidates who have embraced the so-called Green New Deal, which is nothing less than a full-fledged plan for the government takeover of the entire economy, suggests the growing ascendancy of communism within our beloved USA.
As ominous as this development is, we cannot think the battle being waged is between the Dems (communism) and the Republicans, or even the Libertarians. No. Republican support alone or "conservatism" (the meaning of this term has been debated for a long time) will also draw us into error. Opposition to the Democrats must then be couched in a biblical, pro-Christ agenda to be valid. Republican conservatism without justification in Christ is just another man-made, fallible doctrine destined to collapse, or to lead to sin and hopelessness. Political aspirations will fail the country if not built on the foundation of Jesus Christ.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Considering the National Interest in the Forthcoming Elections
By Isi Leibler
Despite the high-pitched abuse being exchanged between the principal contenders, Likud and Blue and White, paradoxically this election highlights the unity of the nation. There is barely a sentence in the political manifesto of Blue and White that differs materially from the policies of the current government. In fact, this election reflects the unprecedented consensus where the vast majority are in favor of separation from the Palestinians – providing this could be achieved while retaining security – an option that is currently virtually impossible. In addition, most Israelis oppose the creation of an adjoining terror state, which could be a springboard for Iran to threaten Israel’s existence.
So, what is this election about? The bottom line: Are we willing to accept Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for another term?
Netanyahu’s principal asset is that his opponents, Blue and White co-heads Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid, aside from their inexperience, are largely perceived as “nice” guys but political lightweights lacking the ability to step into his shoes. Many Israelis who currently support Gantz are not enamored at the prospect of a rotating leadership that would provide Lapid the driver’s seat.
The small parties upon which Netanyahu will be relying to form a majority are also problematic. The biggest obstacle to Netanyahu’s re-election appears to be mandates lost by right-wing parties not passing the electoral threshold (3.25% of valid votes). Netanyahu’s role in convincing Habayit Hayehudi to merge with the extremist Otzma Yehudit, headed by followers of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, in order to avoid both parties falling below the minimum threshold, disgusted most Israelis, including many traditional voters of Habayit Hayehudi. That Netanyahu was forced to promote such an unholy union is the result of a dysfunctional political system. The solution would be to adopt a second party preference system whereby voters could elect a second party in the event that their first choice did not pass the threshold, but also raise the threshold to 5% or even 10%, thus limiting the power of small sectarian parties to hold the balance of power and exert undue influence on government policies.
It is noteworthy that the High Court overturned the decision of the Central Elections Committee to disqualify the Arab parties that openly justified Palestinian terror and opposed a Jewish state, but at the same time, intervened and barred Otzma Yehudit head Michael Ben-Ari from running for the Knesset even though his candidacy was approved by the committee. Although the High Court endorsed the position adopted by Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, the clear bias of this ruling only serves to provide greater ammunition to those seeking to undermine the High Court’s standing. Amazingly, Gantz and Lapid foolishly praised the High Court decision, seemingly oblivious to the obvious double standards applied in the rulings.
Netanyahu sparked an upheaval when he warned that if the right bloc does not obtain a clear majority, a Blue and White government could only be formed with the tacit support of the Arab parties. He described such a scenario as a catastrophe.
He was accused of racism, which, under the current circumstances, is absurd. All the Arab parties support the elimination of Zionism. Some wish for the transformation of Israel into a state of all its citizens – a binational state that is a repudiation of Israel as a Jewish state. Others are even more radical, excusing terrorism and identifying with our adversaries in what could be considered treason.
It is therefore totally legitimate for Netanyahu to highlight the fact that voters face the alternative of a Netanyahu government or a Gantz government that necessitates the tacit support of at least one of these extremist Arab parties. It is the proliferation of small parties that may well be disenfranchised by not reaching the electoral threshold that may lead to this outcome.
There is also the phenomenon of Moshe Feiglin’s insane Zehut party which, in addition to promoting the legalization of marijuana, calls for a myriad of nutty policies. It is difficult to envision how he will join any coalition.
Blue and White’s initial surge in the polls, subsequent to its highly publicized launch and the announcement of the state attorney’s intention to indict Netanyahu, came as no surprise. Over the last week, after the initial euphoria, Likud and its right-wing allies seemed to be ascendant.
So long as there are confused messages, Blue and White will likely continue to slip in the polls. And given the contradictory and irreconcilable positions of many of its personalities, it is difficult to see how the party will be able to retain any coherent policy. The hysterical response to the embarrassing exposure of Iran’s hacking of Gantz’s phone certainly did not improve his party’s public standing.
The latest effort to cast aspersions on Netanyahu in relation to the submarine issue may have found favorable short-term coverage in the media desperately seeking to demonize him at any cost, but it is doubtful this can be sustained. If anything, it points to the lack of any real substance in the Blue and White campaign. Despite facing a very confrontational interviewer, Netanyahu’s performance at a surprise visit to the Channel 2 TV studio on Saturday night was calm and measured and he successfully presented his strong case. His mistake, however, was his failure to realize that that no matter how effective he was, the subsequent media reports would grossly distort the interview.
Many are demanding that if Netanyahu is indicted, he should step down. Yet, no matter how unpalatable the prime minister’s hedonistic private behavior may be, noted civil liberties lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who could not be regarded as a right-winger, insists there is every likelihood that none of the charges will be upheld in court. Surely our legal system recognizes that a person charged with offences is deemed innocent until he has been tried and found guilty; there is no suggestion that a prime minister be denied this right.
That these indictments were released on the eve of the election, following years of endless leaks from the investigations scandalizing him and his family, may have the reverse effect of rallying his base. Whether substantiated or not, it is hard to refute the strong perception of bias.
Ultimately, the election will be a referendum on whether the public will support Netanyahu despite the massive “just not Bibi” campaign.
There are many reasons to reject him. There is a widespread feeling that, after 10 years, it is time for change. And how can a prime minister with the responsibilities of a state under siege apply himself to his task when his focus is constantly diverted to defend himself from accusations of criminal corruption?
I have never written a column suggesting how my readers should vote. Today is an exception. While there appears to be a consensus on the basic direction for this country, the selection of our leader today is nevertheless crucial. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in stating that as of now, not one of the candidates for leadership can even remotely match the qualifications of Netanyahu.
In a country not facing existential threats, voters should display their disdain of a candidate if they are offended by his behavior. And yes, nobody is irreplaceable and there is a time to retire.
But when one reviews Israel’s amazing position on the world stage today, this is clearly the achievement of a diplomatically skilled leader of international standing and tremendous intellect. Just as Netanyahu adeptly confronted the pressures of U.S. President Barack Obama, so he has interfaced effectively and successfully with President Donald Trump. Nothing highlights this more than Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan. In addition, Netanyahu has created an unprecedented diplomatic relationship with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and has succeeded in initiating and developing Israel’s strategic ties with India, China, Latin America, Africa and even Gulf Arab states.
It would thus be an awesome gamble at this time to replace Netanyahu with an inexperienced political leader.
Israelis should set aside their personal feelings about Netanyahu and even those who despise him should recognize that his re-election at this time is in the national interest.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
