Kahane Was Right

Rabbi Meir Kahane, the bane of the Left and the Arabs, the man whose very name evokes revulsion among liberals everywhere, was right.

He was also wrong, very much so, about some things. He was a racist, a Jewish supremacist. He favored a halachic state, and legislation to prevent marriage between Jews and Arabs.

I don’t believe Jews are superior to Arabs, and it doesn’t bother me when a Jew marries an Arab. They should be happy. I don’t want to live in a halachic state. But Kahane was absolutely right about one thing, and it is a big thing:

Jews and Arabs cannot coexist as equals in Eretz Yisrael (by which I mean the land between the river and the sea). The Land of Israel must be the exclusive property of the Jewish people.

Why do I think this? Not because I think there is anything inherent in the Arab brain, soul, or DNA that makes it necessary. There is no a priori reason that coexistence is impossible. It is just that the empirical evidence of the past hundred years or so shows that unless prevented, Arabs will try to expel or subjugate Jews, and will use any means, especially murder, to do so.

Last week a Jewish family including five children accidentally drove into an Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem. Their car was cut off from behind and in front, and bombarded with rocks. Somehow they managed to communicate to the police where they were located – which wasn’t easy, because they were trapped in their car and could barely see anything – and they were rescued by heavily armed Border Police before they were dragged out and stoned to death or torn to pieces by the mob.

Almost every day, Jews are attacked by Arabs – stabbed, run down by cars, shot, or even blown up by explosive devices. Some of it is planned and executed by political groups like Fatah or Hamas, and some “just happens” when some Arab’s threshold of rage is crossed by a perceived insult, and he “acts out” murderously.

There is a clear message that they are sending by their actions: we will make your lives impossible here, so leave. We can respond by leaving, by making them leave, or by trying to keep a lid on terrorism without changing anything fundamental. The last alternative, doing essentially nothing as we have done for the 70 years that the Jewish state has existed, is the easiest, but it guarantees that the situation will continue. And as the Arab population grows, both within the state and in those parts of Eretz Yisrael that have not been incorporated into it, it gets worse.

In the areas that we, in our naïveté, permitted Arab sovereignty to arise, they created educational systems designed to turn their children into soldiers, even suicide soldiers, against the Jewish people. Among the Arab citizens of Israel, this has not happened. But the ideological commitment to the Palestinian Cause, the belief that the Arabs who have self-identified as “Palestinians” were unfairly dispossessed from their land and deserve to get it back – and that at some point they will inevitably succeed – is almost universal among Arabs in Eretz Yisrael. Especially in the better-educated classes, their political activity is aimed in this direction, even if it doesn’t (usually) take the form of terrorism.

For psychological reasons (see Kenneth Levin’s book “The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege”), Israeli Jews have ignored the clear statements, both from Arabs associated with the PLO and Hamas in the territories and from Arab citizens of the state of Israel, that make it clear that they are interested only in victory, not coexistence. Jews continue to try, over and over, by embracing appeasement, to show that they do not deserve the hatred and contempt of the Arabs. Of course, it only increases those feelings, and encourages the Arabs to believe that the success of their cause is closer than ever.

There is a solution to the problem. But it is not to try to bring about coexistence, which is impossible, or to partition the state yet again, which would make Israel impossible to defend.  It is not to move in the direction of a binational state, which would create a hell like Lebanon or Syria. It is the opposite: to emphasize the exclusive right of the Jewish nation to all of Eretz Yisrael and to encourage Arab emigration from the land.

That does not mean that a limited number of Arabs cannot live in the Jewish state, as guests, honored guests even, with full civil rights (unlike the “State of Palestine” planned by the PLO, in which there are intended to be no Jews). It does mean that those Arabs must understand and agree that all of Eretz Yisrael west of the Jordan river belongs to the Jewish nation, and that they will not be permitted to change it into the twenty-third Arab state. Not tomorrow and not ever.

If the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael can’t accept this – if they can’t accept the definition of the Jewish state provided by the Nation-State Law – then they should move to Jordan, a state which already has a majority of citizens identifying as Palestinians, and which is ruled by an undemocratic hereditary monarchy established by European colonialists after WWI. Let them remove the illegitimate monarchy and establish a “democratic state of all its citizens” there, as they say they would like to do here.

It’s not impossible. Thousands of Arabs have fled Hamas-controlled Gaza for Europe, and the government of Israel is even helping them. Jordan is unstable, and its minority rule will not last forever. An influx of Arabs from Judea/Samaria might be a bulwark against its becoming an Iranian satellite. In any event, at least the Israel-Jordan border is defensible, which the border with a “Palestine” created under a two-state solution would not be.

Israel could begin today, by taking immediate steps to signal that it did not intend to make further concessions to its enemies, such as annexing the Jordan Valley. It could actually enforce its Basic Law: The Knesset and disqualify Arab candidates who do not accept that Israel is a “Jewish and democratic state,” who incite racism against Jews, or who support armed struggle against the state. It could proudly press its claim on the land, and oppose the unjust claim of the Arabs. And of course it ought not to weaken the Nation-State Law in the slightest.

The central objective of Zionism is the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the historical homeland of the Jewish people. That has only been partially accomplished. There are parts of Eretz Yisrael, including the Temple Mount at the center of it where Jewish sovereignty is only partial, and Jews are not secure in many parts of their homeland – as is tragically proven by repeated acts of Arab terrorism.

Meir Kahane died a violent death for his beliefs, and his name was forever blackened among Jews in Israel and elsewhere. But he saw clearly what today’s Right seems to shrink from accepting.


Q: But the Palestinians are a people, too. Why don’t they have a claim on Eretz Yisrael?
A: The Palestinians have identified as a people only since the 1960s, and many of their families can’t be traced back farther than the 20th or mid-19th centuries. The Jewish people are the oldest indigenous people in the land, with a documented history  of thousands of years. Having said that, I honestly don’t care about the Palestinian Arabs, whose embrace of murder, pogroms, and terrorism in the past century and continuing today has put them beyond the pale. I suppose that many people expect Jews to absorb a certain amount of antisemitic murder from their neighbors as a regular thing, but I do not agree. Not in a Jewish state! There is a limit, and the Palestinians passed it long ago.

Q: Wouldn’t a large migration of Palestinian Arabs to Jordan destabilize the country, and wouldn’t that be dangerous to Israel?
A: Yes and yes. But annexing the territories along with their Arab residents would be destabilizing to Israel, and the alternative of granting sovereignty or even just autonomy to the Arabs of the territories (the “two-state solution”) would create an indefensible border with a hostile entity next to the heart of our country. From a geographic/strategic point of view, Israel’s eastern border must be the Jordan river.

Q: How do we get them to leave?
A: Carrots and sticks. Mostly carrots. Martin Sherman has discussed such a plan for some time.

Q: What about Arab citizens of Israel?
A: Many of them accept the idea that they are living in a Jewish state, and prefer the stability and economic benefits of it to the political and religious satisfaction of living in an Arab state. If a Palestinian state is declared in Jordan, then those who are uncomfortable here may consider moving there.

Posted in 'Peace' Process, Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Israeli Arabs, Jew Hatred, Middle East politics, Terrorism | 4 Comments

Young Woman is the Latest Jewish Hostage

Zion, will you not ask after the welfare of your prisoners,
Who seek your welfare, and are the remnant of your flock? – Rabbi Yehuda Halevi

Israel still doesn’t have a government, and Turkish planes and artillery are striking civilian targets in Kurdish towns in northeast Syria, while Syrian Sunni militias fighting on behalf of Turkey clash with Kurdish fighters. My newspaper this morning mentioned these things, but pages and pages were devoted to another subject: Na’ama Issachar.

Na’ama, 26, was returning to Israel from India in April of this year, but when she changed planes in Moscow, a dog detected a small amount (less than 10 grams) of marijuana in her luggage. She was arrested, and at first charged with possession, a crime that normally draws a sentence of about a month in jail and a fine, if it is prosecuted at all. But at some point, the Russians decided to change the charge to drug smuggling, and last Friday she was sentenced to 7-1/2 years in prison.

The charge is ridiculous. Na’ama did not even have access to her luggage as she waited in the airport’s transit zone. She did not pass the border control. Can you convict someone of “smuggling” when they have not entered your country? Apparently the Russians can.

In a cute touch, the Russians scheduled court hearings for her case on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.

Na’ama was born in the US and moved to Israel when she was 16. She served in the army, and like many – virtually all – young Jewish Israelis, she wanted to travel the world and have adventures before settling down. She did not plan on this kind of adventure.

Some say that she was stupid to travel with any marijuana at all. In retrospect it was a bad idea, although as far as she knew, she and her luggage were going to Israel, where possession of less than 15 grams is not generally enforced, and possession of small amounts for “personal use” is punishable only by a smallish fine. And she certainly didn’t expect that her freedom would become a bargaining chip in a larger international drama.

The rub is that Israel is poised to extradite to the US a real Russian criminal, a hacker named Alexey Burkov, who is accused of stealing millions of dollars from Americans in a credit card scheme. He was arrested while visiting Israel in 2015 – he says he was “hijacked” although innocent – and held for extradition. The Israeli Supreme Court has approved the request, and he is expected to be shipped off to the US, whose federal justice system is known to be severe (ask Jonathan Pollard or Bernie Madoff). The Americans want Burkov badly and there are no further legal obstacles to his extradition.

Russia is more like a combination of a medieval kingdom and the Cosa Nostra than an actual country, and Burkov apparently has powerful friends who do not want to see him spend the next 20 or 30 years in an American federal penitentiary. They would like Israel to “extradite” him to Russia instead of the US, and they have let it be known that if that happens, maybe Na’ama will have her sentence reduced. Since she is both Israeli and American, she is the perfect hostage.

PM Netanyahu will raise the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin. That will put Putin in an interesting position. The government of Israel doesn’t want to irritate the Americans, so maybe they will find something else that Israel can give Russia in return for Na’ama. Or maybe not, in which case a way will be found to send Burkov to Russia.

Israel has a relationship to its children like no other nation. No culture that I am acquainted with dotes on them to the same extent, from the time they are born until well into adulthood. The national feeling about Na’ama is a complicated story, involving the commandment to redeem captives (pidyon shvuim) and the echoes of history, including the Holocaust. It’s often said that our soldiers are “everybody’s children” and she falls into that category. Like Gilad Shalit, who was held captive by Hamas for five years before Israel fought a war and ultimately traded more than 1000 convicted terrorists for him, including mass murderers, the Jewish nation will not let her sit in a Russian prison.

Posted in Israeli Society, Jew Hatred | Leave a comment

Batya Ungar-Sargon Meets Amon Göth

Batya Ungar-Sargon, Opinion Editor of the Forward, is shocked, hurt, and very angry after coming face to face with antisemitism at Bard College.

Invited to participate in several panels, she was informed that one of them – on  “Racism and Zionism: Black-Jewish relations” – would be disrupted by the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). For those who might say “so what?” this means that there would be no such panel. Thanks to a combination of cowardice, laziness, and ideological stupidity, administrators in numerous universities have granted radical groups like SJP the right to veto of any activity that they don’t like. It is a “heckler’s veto” that needs no rationale and permits no appeal. Security personnel may prevent physical injury, but they won’t remove the disruptive students.

Ungar-Sargon tried to reason with them. In a cringe-inducing example of liberal not-getting-it, she begged:

As the protesters started to gather in the lobby, I approached them. I told them that I respected their passion and commitment to what they thought was right, but asked why they had picked this panel.

“Come to my panel tomorrow,” I said. “Come protest my comments on Zionism. I’ll be talking about the occupation. Bring your signs.”

I told them I’d reserve the first and second audience-questions for members of their group, but that protesting the all-Jewish anti-Semitism panel was undercutting their work.

“Don’t you see that?” I asked. Didn’t they see that protesting Jews over Israel when they are not even talking about Israel is racist? Didn’t they understand that saying we were responsible for the behavior of the Israeli Jews just because we shared their ethnicity was racist? That making every conversation with Jews about Israel is racist?”

The students weren’t buying it. “The conversation about anti-Semitism is already inherently about Israel,” one said, whatever that is supposed to mean in their world. And some of the other speakers and faculty members came to their defense.

When I read this, scene 14 from Schindler’s List  (video) came to mind. That’s the one in which a young Jewish woman engineer attempts to reason with the Nazi Amon Göth, and gets a bullet for her trouble. It’s not what she says or her competence that is important. There is only one relevant fact, and that is her Jewishness. And so it was for Ungar-Sargon, and she is rightly angered.

Ungar-Sargon does not understand that the student was correct. The conversation about antisemitism is about Israel. Had the state of Israel been in existence in 1940, perhaps the young woman engineer would not have been a slave of Amon Göth in the Kraków-Płaszów labor camp. If there were no Jewish state today, perhaps Ungar-Sargon would have gotten a bullet instead of an antisemitic insult. Who knows?

Ungar-Sargon’s opinion section in the Forward reflects her respect for the “passion and commitment” of those that want to see the Jewish state disappear in a puff of blood, like Peter Beinart who called for a Palestinian intifada on her pages.

Her commitment to the Jewish community, at least in America, is strong. She stood up to Ilhan Omar and other leftist antisemites, and didn’t just pick the low-hanging fruit of white nationalism. But she’s a diasporist, not a Zionist. In her opinion, Israel is “an increasingly illiberal ethnostate with a serious civil and human rights problem.” So when she gave the other academics at Bard a well-deserved piece of her mind, she made a point of disassociating herself from Israel:

The next time someone says, ‘What have you done to help Jews as anti-Semitism has spiked across the nation, as Jews have been murdered at their place of worship and Orthodox Jews get beaten to a pulp day after day in Brooklyn,’ you can say, ‘I sat idly by as Jews were protested for trying to talk about anti-Semitism. I allowed a Jewish woman to be held accountable — because of her ethnicity — for the actions of a country halfway around the world where she can’t even vote. I egged the protest on, in fact. And then I went to a party. [my emphasis]

American Jews helped Israel greatly in her early years, with financial contributions and political support. Now the financial contributions are not needed, and the political support is ebbing. Some of the distance between the two Jewish communities is caused by the very real differences in their experience. It is hard for an Israeli to appreciate the “passion and commitment” of SJP for the folks who are stabbing their friends and family members in the streets, or to agree with Peter Beinart’s call for another Intifada, when the last one cost more than a thousand Jewish lives (and no, it will not be “nonviolent” even by the Palestinian understanding of that term, which permits the use of  knives and automobiles as weapons).

But there is also the feeling by Americans that they are the senior partner in the Jewish enterprise, and that Israelis ought to be more grateful and take their advice more. They are hurt and resentful. That is unrealistic in today’s world, when the center of Jewish life has moved to Israel.

What I want to say to Batya Ungar-Sargon is that the diasporism she endorses is dying. It is being crushed by academic fascism in the universities and colleges like Bard, it is being nibbled away at by politicians like Ilhan Omar, shot down by homicidal white nationalists, and beaten to death by black and Hispanic thugs in Brooklyn. In a different way, the Reform Movement is also weakening the community by replacing traditional Judaism with a kind of liberal Unitarianism such that Jews will soon be indistinguishable from most other Americans. I suspect that some see this as a good thing, which is a symptom of the problem. The rest of the world is in even worse shape, from a Jewish point of view.

The central insight of Zionism is more and more being proven correct: much of the world is not a friendly place for Jews, and a flourishing and powerful Jewish state is the key to our survival as a people. Batya Ungar-Sargon learned the first part of this painful lesson at Bard College. The second part still eludes her.

Posted in Academia, American Jews, Media, Zionism | 1 Comment

Have we Learned to Learn Lessons?

Israel’s Security Cabinet met on Sunday, according to reports, to discuss the Iranian threat and in particular the dangers exposed by the September 14 attack on a Saudi Arabian oil facility by Iranian cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft (UAVs or drones).

The Iranian attack was very successful in hitting key targets precisely, and in avoiding Saudi missile defense systems. It demonstrated advanced capabilities in coordinating the attack using multiple weapons systems. Although Israeli defensive capabilities are probably much better than those of the Saudis, the small number of critical power stations, industrial installations, communications facilities, airports, fuel depots, roads and more, means that a great deal of damage to Israel’s ability to fight, her economy, and daily life could be done even if a relatively small number of Iranian weapons were to find their targets. There are very important military targets, some of which I know about but won’t mention, as well as others that I don’t know about but the Iranians might. And then of course there is the Dimona nuclear reactor. Such an attack could be launched against Israel from Iranian bases in Iraq, which bring us within the range of the missiles used in the attack on Saudi Arabia.

PM Netanyahu reportedly asked that the defense budget be boosted by billions of shekels, in part to develop a better defense against cruise missiles. Although some might be tempted to attribute political motives to his statements, the comments by independent analysts Uzi Rubin and Uzi Even, as well as expressions of concern (albeit guarded) by defense officials, indicate that the danger of attacks by “low and slow” weapons like cruise missiles and drones should not be minimized.

If we needed to add billions to our budget, why wasn’t this known beforehand? I’m not reassured by those like Moshe Ya’alon, the shadow Defense Minister of the Blue and White party, who said that the attack on Saudi Arabia revealed “nothing surprising.” Let me remind readers of the way that warnings about the threat of tunnels under the Gaza border given by Naftali Bennett in 2014 were ignored by Ya’alon, who was Minister of Defense at the time.

Questions immediately arise: what would we do if a drone/cruise missile attack were aimed at our key infrastructure tomorrow? Do we know how many of Hezbollah’s missiles have already been modified to give them precision guidance capability? Do we have countermeasures in place?

It seems that there were significant things we didn’t know about Iranian capabilities before the attack on Saudi Arabia. How is it that the people who stole the nuclear archive out from under Iranian noses didn’t know about conventional weapons?

I understand that our strategic doctrine is not to preempt an attack unless it is truly imminent, because of expected international reactions. Is it possible that we will wait until precision-guided missiles are striking our airbases and critical infrastructure, or will we be able to realize the very great advantage of striking first?

Iran is preparing for the conflict by trying to improve the quantity and quality of Hezbollah’s rocket inventory, by positioning its proxy militias in Iraq and Syria, and by trying to set up missile launchers there. We are trying to stop them, but although we can slow them down, we can’t stop their progress entirely. The American withdrawal from Syria will probably result in gains for the Assad regime and Iran, in particular by allowing Iran to complete its “land bridge” through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

At this time of year, it’s impossible to forget the way Israel’s defense establishment was unprepared for the Yom Kippur war, the failures in intelligence gathering and – perhaps worse – the failure to translate intelligence into practical recommendations and to transmit it to the commanders in the field. For example, a new study by a former tank commander, Oded Meggido, explains how Israeli tank forces suffered great losses on the Egyptian front because they were not prepared to deal with infantry armed with effective anti-tank weapons. The IDF had already encountered “Sagger” shoulder-fired antitank missiles in the early 1970s, but “the information was not assimilated … practice drills were not carried out,” he said. “There was a shortage of machine guns,” necessary to protect tanks against infantry armed with antitank weapons.  “Overconfidence,” “hubris,” “arrogance,” “negligence,” and “lack of professionalism,” are all expressions used by Meggido to describe the higher echelons of the tank corps in 1973.

I think these words could fairly be applied to our leadership today. The home front must be reinforced, as much against earthquakes as against enemy rockets, and it is barely being done. The security situation is often used as an excuse to put aside worries about social problems, the transportation infrastructure, and more. And yet, what percentage of their day do our politicians spend working on these questions as opposed to intriguing against their political opponents and defending themselves against such intrigues? How many buildings could be made more secure for the cost of one national election?

We would like to believe that today the lesson to learn lessons has finally been learned. We recall the war against Hezbollah in 2006, in which the IDF ground forces were seriously hurt by poor intelligence, logistical and communications failures, and incompetence at the highest levels, especially including the political echelon. As we draw nearer to the next war, which will be fought against an inventive and relatively sophisticated enemy, I wonder what, if anything, we have learned.

Posted in Iran, Israeli Politics, War | 2 Comments

Nobody Can Be Prime Minister Forever

Binyamin Netanyahu, whether you like him or not, has been one of Israel’s great Prime Ministers. There is no doubt that in many respects he is simply the most competent person that has ever held that position, in foreign affairs, economics, and strategic matters. He, more than anyone else in the government, recognized the strategic threat from Iran and is taking action against it.

And Binyamin Netanyahu has been treated abominably by the press and the legal establishment in Israel. The way bits of the “confidential” contents of his police interrogations were gleefully reported every night on the hostile TV news programs was unforgivable, and the leakers should have been prosecuted. His enemies threw mud at him from the beginning of his term and never stopped. Now it seems that some of it is sticking, but who remembers that they even accused his wife of redeeming deposit bottles paid for by the government, and keeping the money? Has there ever been a more ludicrous and picayune complaint?

The legal, academic, cultural, and media establishments, are all against Netanyahu, sometimes in the most vile ways possible. For a year or more there have been regular demonstrations in front of the home of the Attorney General, calling for his indictment (which that official has been diligently developing for months).

Netanyahu has been accused of “destroying democracy” because he wanted to limit the power of foreign-funded NGOs and of the nepotically appointed Supreme Court, two of the most anti-democratic forces in the political arena. He has been accused of being a “racist” because he supported the Nation-State Law affirming that Israel is a Jewish state. His “racist” government also passed a historic $4 billion program to provide funds for development of Arab communities.

Israeli voters have time and again returned majorities for the Likud and its partners in the right-wing bloc. The Israeli Left, which once dominated Israeli politics, now flirts with the cutoff percentage for entering the Knesset at all.

But Netanyahu is in trouble today. Avigdor Lieberman leads a secular right-wing party, and he has decided that he will no longer support a narrow right-wing coalition with the religious parties. Blue and White, Bibi’s “centrist” electoral competition, is an artificial amalgamation of former generals and a journalist, Yair Lapid, led by a mediocrity, Benny Gantz. They have no consistent ideology except hating Bibi, and they distrust each other so much that Gantz hired a private investigator to keep tabs on his partners. They can’t create a coalition themselves, even with help from the Arab parties. But after Lieberman’s defection and with Bibi’s legal issues draining support, they have enough seats in the Knesset to prevent Netanyahu from forming a government.

Neither side wants to give in. Both sides threaten a third election, which would cost another billion shekels, take a few months, and probably be no more definitive than the last one.

The precise details of how this happened are unimportant. What is important is that if you consider the right-left spectrum on issues like the Nation-State Law, whether or not to annex the Jordan Valley, the posture toward Iran and Hamas, and similar issues, the nation voted strongly for a right-wing platform. If somehow Blue and White manages to form a narrow government, it would lean Left, and be dependent on Arab support. That would be as anti-democratic – and dangerous – a result as you can imagine.

There is only one practical solution, which is a unity government that would include the more centrist elements of both sides. Such a government would be right-wing on the important security issues, and it would not be dependent on support either from the Arab parties or the Haredi ones. The nucleus of the coalition would be the Likud plus Blue and White. It could be beefed up by the addition of Lieberman or with the parties to the immediate right and left: the New Right (Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett) and Labor/Gesher (Amir Peretz and Orly Levy).

Today this can’t happen, and the reasons center around Netanyahu. He has insisted on a “broad unity government” by which he means a government that includes the Haredi parties, probably so he can have a majority for some kind of legislative solution to his legal problems. But that is impossible given the differences between the Haredim and Lieberman, and the anti-Haredi Yair Lapid. At the same time, Gantz insists that he won’t agree to a Prime Ministerial rotation that includes Bibi, if he should be indicted. And it will probably be months before there is a definite decision on the indictment.

We need to move ahead with a unity government, and the way to do that is for Bibi to turn over the reins of the Likud to someone else. There are several possibilities: Gideon Sa’ar and Yuli Edelstein are often mentioned as possible successors. Possibly the Attorney General could offer Bibi a deal in which he would not be indicted in return for giving up his role as head of the party.

Is this unfair and ungrateful to Bibi? Possibly. The legal cases are complicated, but even if he is not indictable, there is certainly an appearance of impropriety in some of his affairs. And he has become progressively less able to deal with the affairs of state as his own situation has become more uncomfortable. For what it’s worth, the leaders of the Haredi parties are more corrupt and more deserving of prosecution, but that doesn’t change Bibi’s situation.

Bibi Netanyahu has been a great Prime Minister and he has been treated badly (David Ben Gurion would have said the same about himself, and both would have been right). But like Ben Gurion, nobody can (or should) be PM forever. As I wrote recently, we don’t have the luxury of time. Our enemies are not sitting quietly and waiting for our political turmoil to end.

I know that nobody cares about the State of Israel and the Jewish people as much as Bibi. But now he has to make the decision that is the hardest one of all for any great leader: even though he believes that nobody can do the job as well as he can, it’s time to let go and become an elder statesman.

Posted in Israeli Politics | 4 Comments