There are few examples of statesmanship in the modern era that can compare
It is neither easy nor safe to take a position on the international stage that conflicts with the strategies of the five most powerful nations on Earth. That is essentially what the Israeli Prime Minister has done in taking his case directly to the United States congress.
While his presence here is a matter of domestic controversy, it is a necessary part of the process that has essentially excluded Israel in talks aimed at a resolution that arguably will decide the fate of the Jewish state. Netanyahu has made it clear that if Israel needs to act alone, it will.
President Obama has staked out territory no American president has occupied since World War II. Having succeeded in implementing policies unopposed by executive fiat, the president is bringing America close to a dictatorship. In an imperial presidency, bad decisions can and often do go unchecked. Although the Democrats lost in a landslide in November, Republicans in charge of congress have been flaccid in their opposition to his autocratic rule; the minority in congress has set a pick for the president on almost every issue.
The difference between statesman and dictator are brought into clear focus with the appearance of the Israeli prime minister against the wishes of Obama who is determined to seal his legacy of failed foreign policy with a deal that delays Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons for a few years. Obama is nursing his ego at the expense of our strongest ally in the region. It is not just about supporting Israel because of the history Netanyahu outlined; at the heart of this deal is a policy that could result in a nuclear arms race in the most unstable part of the world.
The bottom line for Americans concerned about the spread of Islamic terror, we need a statesman and not a naked empror. We need a leader like Israel’s. A statesman who can put his own political future at risk in the interest of protecting his own nation for future generations.