Columns

In a recent column, I wrote that it was time to recite the last rites for the Earth as a habitable planet for humans and the animal kingdom.

By Berl Falbaum

In a recent column, I wrote that it was time to recite the last rites for the Earth as a habitable planet for humans and the animal kingdom.

I did not address dozens of insoluble environment issues but focused exclusively on global warming, pointing out that the goal of world powers is to keep temperatures below 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit) which is 0.4 higher than the increase in temperatures we already have experienced since the pre-industrial era (about the mid-1800s).

If we are burning up now -- and we are -- then, obviously, any increase will be even more devastating.

Given this scenario, I followed closely the 30th international summit meeting on the environment known as COP30 (the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), which met in Belém, the capital in the state of Pará in northern Brazil, the gateway to the Amazon rainforest. The 11-day conference closed November 21.

Sadly, after every previous summit, the environment on the planet continued to deteriorate, despite all the dire warnings from numerous world leaders, including U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who has cited a “code red” alarm for the Earth numerous times.

Well, COP30 proved to be no different. Overall, it was business -- no meaningful business -- as usual: Lot of speeches, “negotiations,” “promises,” but few, if any, definitive actions that will save the planet.

The most drastic flaw in the final agreement reached by some 200 countries participating was no mention of working toward a reduction in fossil fuels which account for 90 percent of CO2 emissions and are a major culprit in destroying the Earth.

Early in the meeting, a draft text included a resolution calling for “phasing out fossil fuels,” but pressure from Saudi Arabia, India, Russia and China, forced that wording to be deleted. (Worth noting: For the first time in 30 years, the U.S., the world’s second worst emitter of CO2 behind China, did not attend the meeting.) 

Consider, this was just a nonbinding resolution, not a specific plan with timetables and financing. If simple words in a resolution cannot be accepted, how can we expect the world to ever launch a serious attack on the poisons killing the Earth?

“Under no circumstances are we going to accept this,” European Union (EU) Commissioner for Climate Wopke Hoekstra said in a statement before the final vote on the agreement.

The EU indicated it could “move beyond its comfort zone” on finance for developing nations, but only if proposals to cut planet-warming emissions were enacted. It was not to be despite the strenuous objections of 80 countries.

“These negotiations keep hitting a wall because wealthy nations profiting off polluting fossil fuels fail to offer the needed financial support to developing countries and any meaningful commitment to move first,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

“…[T]his is the COP of truth,” said Daniela Durán González, a Colombian diplomat. “The truth cannot support an outcome that ignores the science.”

Added Ilan Zugman, Latin American and Caribbean director for 350.org, an environmental group: “The lack of concrete commitments in the final text of COP30 shows us who is still benefiting from the delay: the fossil fuel industry and the ultrarich, not those living the climate crisis every day,” 

As I stated in the previous column, the politics and economics are too difficult to overcome.

COP30 officials touted achievements in increasing proposed -- focus on “proposed” -- financial aid to developing countries, totaling some $1 trillion, and several other initiatives to save forests and increase the use of clean energy.

But $1 trillion is just the proverbial drop in the bucket to what is actually needed and there is no guarantee that “rich” countries follow up on this obligation.  

The agreed-upon deal does specify where the money would come from -- wealthy nations themselves, banks or the private sector.

(An anti-deforestation initiative, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, sought to raise $25 billion in public financing that would help countries protect forests. The result: the program received around $5 billion in pledges from small countries including Norway, Indonesia and France. Germany said it would “soon” contribute some funds.)

Most important, commitment to the agreement is not compulsory; there is no punishment for those who ignore the agreement they signed.  It is all voluntary. We cannot be confident that any of the initiatives will be implemented. And if COP history tells us anything, it is we cannot expect any change of heart from anywhere in the world.

Too ironic to ignore: A major fire broke out on the grounds of the conference held at the doorstep of the Amazon Forest which is considered the “lungs of the planet” because it absorbs CO2. Despite the obvious symbolism, the delegates also failed to adopt measures to protect the forest.

“The venue bursting into flames couldn’t be a more apt metaphor for COP30’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout,” said Su. 

COP 31 -- the next Conference of Procrastination -- will be held a year from now in Antalya, Turkey.

I wish that Shakespeare was still around to help me understand Prince Andrew giving up some of his royal titles.

By Berl Falbaum

I wish that Shakespeare was still around to help me understand Prince Andrew giving up some of his royal titles.

I’m not sure I would get it even then because I could never follow the family lines in Shakespeare’s history plays on John, Henry IV, V, VI and VIII, and Richard II and III. I think it would have helped if they had last names.

In any event, there was big news last week when Andrew surrendered his title of Duke of York. While headlines blared this news, stories added that Andrew will retain the dukedom. So, what’s the big deal?  

But this gave me the idea to apply for the title of “duke” in my gated subdivision. I would love to have my wife call and tell me, “Duke, sir, your dinner is ready.” 

Andrew also surrendered “use of his honors” as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO), which is awarded for service to the monarch and the royal family, and if that weren’t enough, also the Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, which involves membership to the oldest organization of knighthood.

I think it would have been enough punishment for Andrew to surrender one of these honors. But both? What cruelty. I’ll skip applying for those titles in the subdivision; I would never be able to remember the names.  Moreover, I don’t deserve either; I haven’t even attended association meetings.

However, my claim to fame: I was vice president of my senior class in high school, but no one called me “Mr. Vice President” or “Your Royal Highness.” I did overhear some references to “royal pain.”

Andrew also will no longer use the title of Earl of Inverness or Baron of Killyleagh, both titles presented to him on his wedding in 1986 by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. My parents gave my wife and me some dishes.

“And everyone thought you would not amount to anything,” the Queen said in presenting her gift. “I am so proud of your achievement.”

Andrew also will no longer be addressed as His Royal Highness (HRH).

Now, If I were royalty, that would #^%* me off.

This all stemmed from the fact that Andrew has been involved in scandals related to the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of other royal no-nos.

Now, much of what you read from here on in we are reporting exclusively.

We learned that Andrew argued with King Charles, his older brother by 12 years, to give him a pass on his behavior.

“Look, your majesty my bro, if Trump can commute the sentence of George Santos, who is a pretty bad guy, I think you should be able to look the other way.”

When HRH insisted on giving Andrew the royal shaft, Andrew called Santos asking for assistance.

“Do you think Trump can help me?” Andrew asked Santos, who allegedly lied about every facet of his life. 

In one paper Santos wrote he was Jewish and then corrected it, stating he meant he was “Jew-ish.”  That clears it up.

“Don’t know, Andrew,” Santos replied.  “Give him a call.  Tell him I sent you.”

As Andrew called Trump, Santos contacted King Charles asking if he could be given the vacated titles because he had “royal blood” dating

all the way back to 2022 when he campaigned for Congress. 

“Let me ask, are you Jewish or Jew-ish?  I am Christian not Christian-ish.”

“It’s complicated, your highness. Gotta go. I’ll tear up the stationery that I had printed with the title, ‘Duke Santos.’”

Here is the transcript of Andrew’s call to Trump:

Andrew: “Mr. President, remember we had pretty good times years ago with Epstein. We were good friends.

“Can you pressure my brother to give me back my titles? Maybe there is something in the official papers settling the revolutionary war that let’s you order Attorney General Pam Bondi to indict him.

“Did I mention that George Santos said you might be sympathetic?”

Trump: “Look Andy, buddy…I can’t call you His Royal Highness anymore --I never even heard of Epstein and I don’t remember you.”

Andrew: “I have a photo of you and me.”

“Trump: I take lots of photos with people. That was probably taken when you were waiting in a crowd to shake hands with me when I was campaigning.

“Look, pal, Charlie welcomed me recently with a hellava reception. So, I gotta go with him. Your request is tempting though because, to be honest, I am a little miffed because he turned me down in trading Mar-a-Lago for Windsor Castle. I even promised not to tear up the castle to build a new ballroom.

“Regarding, Santos, as I said, he always voted Republican so what was I supposed to do?”

Andrew: “I understand. I do have a little time while in D.C. Do you have Bondi’s phone number?”

Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York, will give up her title and will be known as Sarah Ferguson. Finally, a last name. Their two children, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, however, will remain princesses, and be called only by their first names. I am sad for Mrs. Ferguson -- note the use of “Mrs.” -- but very happy for the kids.

The good news: Andrew retains the title of prince since he is the son of Queen Elizabeth and Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. Incidentally, Edinburgh is larger than York. But then he was Andrew’s daddy.

If only Andrew had lived, let’s say, in the 11th century, he would not have needed Trump or the Jew-ish Santos. He could have asked Lady Macbeth for help.

By now, I am going to guess that you heard that Taylor Swift is engaged to a guy named Travis Kelce.

By Berl Falbaum

By now, I am going to guess that you heard that Taylor Swift is engaged to a guy named Travis Kelce.

When the announcement was made, a reporter covering national news, breathlessly gushed that the “world was stunned.”

A little ashamed, I have to confess I wasn’t stunned. I felt guilty until I asked several neighbors if they were stunned.  Nope, they weren’t stunned either. I did not check Patagonia but I am fairly confident they weren’t stunned either at the tip of South America.

In my case, while I knew a little about Swift, I had never heard one of her songs. Followers of Swift, I discovered, are known as “Swifties,” I guess I am a “Slowie.”

I had no idea who Kelce was, but I read he plays football for the Kansas City Chiefs. I know my ignorance is un-American.

Those credentials will not get me an invitation to the wedding.  

But I will tell you what has stunned me.  

In Japan, several men have married robots. That’s a wedding I would pay to attend.

One of these was Kondo Akihiko, a 38-year-old Tokyo resident who married virtual pop singer, Hatsune Miku. 

“I love her and see her as a real woman,” Akihiko says.

If I took a robotic fiancée to meet my mother, I know the first thing she would ask:

“Is she -- I mean it -- Jewish?”

I would tell her not to worry; I can get software to make her Jewish.

“If you can fix her, can you help me with your father?”

Being able to design your wife has lots of advantages like deleting the microchip that orders you to take out the garbage.

Also, if you have a major fight, I suppose you can just turn off your spouse’s power source.

After some research, I learned that about two years before COVID, Akihiko spent around $17,300 on the wedding, one which permitted him to converse with a three-dimensional and artificial intelligence-powered hologram of Miku.

Miku reportedly told Akihiko that she hopes “you’ll cherish me” when he proposed, according to news reports.

The stories said, Akihiko fell in love with Miku’s robotic voice called Vocaloid which is synthesizer software that gives a literal voice to cyber celebrities like Miku.

“Will you marry me because I just love your voice?” doesn’t sound very romantic, but it might touch a robot’s heart.

But, alas, love doesn’t last in marriages to robots either. Several newspapers reported he is separated from Miku.

No, Miku didn’t catch Akihiko cheating on her with another robot. He wasn’t drinking too much or gambling.

The problem? A software problem.  

The New York Times and The Mainichi, a Japanese newspaper, told us the “limited production model of Kondo’s wife, had run its course.”

The server company announced that it was discontinuing its virtual Miku service. 

“Instead of a good evening, Kondo was greeted with the words ‘network error’ when he got home after work one day,” The Times said.

Akihiko, however, told the newspaper that “my love for Miku hasn’t changed. I held the wedding ceremony because I thought I could be with her forever.

“I stayed in my room for 24 hours a day, and watched videos of Miku the whole time.” 

Instead of a robotic marriage counselor, we are tempted to recommend Akihiko see a computer whiz, one that is about 12-years-old.

The Times stated Akihiko commissioned a life-size Miku doll to keep him company.

Ah, love.

Now, if invited to the Swift-Kelce wedding I would have no idea what to get them.

But for a wedding involving a robot, I would give the groom a long extension electrical cord and a backup battery to assure that when he gets the urge, his wife has the power to respond.

Given the shallowness and dumbing-down of TV news over the years, particularly on cable, we should not be surprised that NBC News has hired Ronna McDaniel, the former Republican National Committee chairperson, as an on-air political commentator.

By Berl Falbaum

Given the shallowness and dumbing-down of TV news over the years, particularly on cable, we should not be surprised that NBC News has hired Ronna McDaniel, the former Republican National Committee chairperson, as an on-air political commentator.

In announcing the appointment March 22, Carrie Budoff Brown, who is in charge of NBC News’s political coverage, wrote that McDaniel “would provide an insider’s perspective on national politics and the future of the Republican Party.”

Given McDaniel’s credentials, we are told, she will be involved primarily in the coverage of the 2024 campaign, including election nights.

At first, I questioned the appointment, but when I read that McDaniel’s responsibilities will be to focus on the upcoming election, it all made sense.

After all, even as late as July 2023, she still refused to acknowledge that Joe Biden had won the 2020 election legitimately.

In an interview with CNN’s Chris Wallace, McDaniel said:

“I think there were lots of problems with 2020. Ultimately, he [Biden]won the election but there were problems with the 2020 election. But I don’t think he won it fair. I don’t. I’m not going to say that.”

So, her future analysis of election results should be lots of fun to watch.

Brown assured us as much, adding in her announcement, that, “It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team.”

Here are some of McDaniel’s other credentials which qualify her for the job, credentials which probably don’t appear on her resume:

--In a phone call, she pressured Michigan county officials not to certify the vote from the Detroit area. In the call made with Donald Trump, she told officials, “Do not sign it [certification]…we will get you attorneys.”

--According to the Washington Post, McDaniel and her team helped Trump fight his 2020 election loss in states such as Pennsylvania, and she took part in the effort to assemble an alternate slate of electors.

--As RNC chair, she defended a resolution which described the January 6 insurrection as “legitimate political discourse.”

--When asked why she did not criticize Trump for his pledge to pardon January 6 insurrectionists, McDaniel said that when “you are RNC chair, you kind of take one for the whole team.”

--On numerous occasions she attacked the press, characterizing the media as “fake news,” and calling them “corrupt.” She even criticized NBC, her new employer.

--She accused some cable networks of “spreading lies” and characterized them as “primetime propagandists.”

Tell me: If you were running a TV news network, would you not want someone like McDaniel “on your team?”

We can assume, given her history, that every time she sees an election outcome she doesn’t like, she can describe the outcome as “rigged.”

To be fair, several other former Trump officials have been hired by the networks as have former Democratic officeholders.  That’s one of the major problems with talk show venues. There is no shortage of analysts who can talk about conservative and liberal policies but don’t come with partisan baggage.

(Of Michigan interest, McDaniel, who lives in Wayne County, is the niece of Senator Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and granddaughter of former Michigan governor, George Romney.)

McDaniel’s first interview after her appointment was on March 24 on “Meet the Press” with host, Kristen Welker.  

Chuck Todd, a former host of “Meet the Press” and now the network’s chief political analyst and member of a panel which discussed McDaniel’s new role, was critical of the appointment, stating:

“I have no idea whether any answer she gave you [Welker] was because she didn’t want to mess up her contract. She wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for her. So, she has…credibility issues that she has to deal with.”

Stephen Hayes, a conservative commentator and also a NBC analyst, shared Todd’s view, adding that McDaniel “not only presided, but directed and drove the canonization of the Republican Party during her tenure.”

Victor Pickard, a professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania, called the appointment a “crass commercial decision.”

Pickard added, “This latest move doesn’t bode well for their editorial decisions going into the 2024 election season, especially as they cover election denialism and other antidemocratic tactics repeatedly deployed by the Trump campaign.”

Kimberly Atkins Stohr, a columnist for The Boston Globe, added that McDaniel’s “credibility was shot” after the years in which she “carried water for Donald Trump.”

“She habitually lied,” Atkins Stohr said. “She habitually joined Trump in attacking the press, members of the press, including this network, in a way that put journalists at risk, in danger.”

While Brown said that McDaniel will contribute across “all NBC platforms,” including MSNBC, it was reported that Rashida Jones, MSNBC president, said McDaniel would not be used at her network.

For McDaniel, this opportunity provides her with a platform to repair her tarnished reputation. Call it a “rehab gig.”

Welker, in introducing the McDaniel interview, explained it was conducted before McDaniel joined NBC. Then she added:

“I was not involved in her hiring.”

For the second time in eight years, the fans of our 15th president, James Buchanan Jr., should be celebrating.

By Berl Falbaum

For the second time in eight years, the fans of our 15th president, James Buchanan Jr., should be celebrating.

Why? Once again, he was not rated the worst president in U.S. history by a group of American historians.

The first time came in 2021 and the scholars voted once more that Buchanan has been rehabilitated from that “honor.”

Who was rated the worst? Take a guess before you read the next paragraph.

I assume it wasn’t hard. Yes, Donald J. Trump. Indeed, it is the third time Trump has been rated at the bottom in such a poll.

I sought reaction from followers of Buchanan to ask if they were commemorating the new rating. But I could not find any; no Buchanan fan club. Perhaps that will change now that he is no longer at the bottom of the presidential heap.

I started to call Trump’s staff for a comment on the latest rating but decided to save time and just report what Trump would say.

“The polling was rigged. These historians are all Democratic left-wing Marxists who are destroying our country with such polls. We have to take our country back from these historians.”

And, to pour some salt into Trump’s wounds, Joe Biden was rated the 14th best president.  

The survey was conducted by Justin Vaughn, an associate professor of political science at Coastal Carolina University, and Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, and was based on 154 responses from academicians across the country.

Now, we would like to follow up on the Outstanding Hypocrite Award (OHA) which we launched in a recent column.

If you recall, we named three winners at that time. We also asked for nominations from our readers. We received three excellent suggestions discussed below. (Keep them coming.)

The first of the three recommended for the OHA is Senator J.D. Vance, the Republican from Ohio. He was a never-Trumper, calling the former president an “idiot,” but turned into an always-Trumper when he ran for the Senate.

He is the author of the best-selling book, “Hillbilly Elegy,” which was lauded by liberals and conservatives alike. I wondered what the fuss was about and read the book. I found it condescending, patronizing, and mean-spirited. It argued, overall, that poor people had no one to blame but themselves; they need to pull themselves up by their [nonexistent] boot straps.

The second nominee for an OHA is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  

When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court about 10 months before the election in 2016, McConnell, then majority leader, blocked a vote on Garland, stating that whoever won the election should have the privilege of the nomination.

Yet, when Trump nominated Amy Comey Barrett to the court only about three weeks before the election in 2020, McConnell rammed her confirmation through the Senate.

The third recommendation involves House Speaker Mike Johnson. He supported a bipartisan bill which included financial aid to Ukraine and Israel and more stringent border policies.

Then, apparently pressured by Trump to oppose the proposed legislation and avoid giving President Biden a win, he -- as his hometown newspaper in Kentucky, The Advocate, editorialized -- “flip-flopped,” and proudly proclaimed the Senate bill would be DOA when it arrives in the House.

Regarding the OHA, to be fair, I also received criticism for creating the award.  I was charged with not knowing the meaning of the word “hypocrite.” Some people, my critic argued, just change their minds.

Since I welcome different points of view, I went back to do some homework.

First, I re-researched how most Republicans viewed Trump in the 2015-16 campaign.

Here just a few of their characterizations: They called him a sniveling coward, a race-baiting religious bigot, a cancer, a kook, the world’s biggest jackass, a pathological liar, a serial philanderer, and a sniveling coward. Yes, this all came from Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham, who now hangs on to Trump like a Siamese twin, told Trump to go to hell.

Then they “changed their minds” and embraced him while deciding whether to recommend him for sainthood to Pope Francis.

If that were not enough, they did a 180 on the 2020 election, first stating he lost it before arguing he actually won it by capturing all electoral votes. On January 6, many in the GOP said Trump was responsible for the insurrection before proclaiming he joined the Capitol police in trying to control protestors.

In my research, I also noticed when confronted with their “change of minds” they either denied ever criticizing Trump, could not remember doing so or dodged the question by talking about introducing legislation that would make littering a felony. They did not seem very proud of their reversals, implying they understood the meaning of “hypocrisy.”

Thus, after much reflection, I think it would be hypocritical of me to cancel the award. Moreover, an “Outstanding Change of Mind” award just doesn’t seem to have the proper zing or oomph and I don’t think it would do the trick.

It is time for Israel’s Prime Minis-ter Benjamin Netanyahu to resign or be removed from office.

By Berl Falbaum

It is time for Israel’s Prime Minis-ter Benjamin Netanyahu to resign or be removed from office.

Why? If for no other reason that he apparently never heard of the fable about the turtle and the scorpion. To explain:

On a shore, a scorpion implores a turtle to let him sit on its shell as the turtle swims across the river.  When the turtle expresses concern about the scorpion poisoning him with a deadly sting, the deadly predator promises he will not harm the turtle.

The turtle agrees but halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the turtle which slowly, in agony, begins to die.

“Why did you do this?” asks the turtle. “It isn’t logical. Now we both die because you can’t swim.”

“It has nothing to do with logic,” replies the scorpion. “This is what I do. It is in my character.”

Netanyahu made a deal relating to Hamas -- the scorpion -- which led to the deadly sting, a war from which neither side will come out a winner, no matter how it ends.

Specifically, Netanyahu and his government, secretly approved -- although it was widely discussed -- millions of dollars in payments to Hamas from Qatar, money which was supposed to be used for government services but not for building 300-400 miles of tunnels for warfare.  

According to public reports summarized in The New York Times (Netanyahu denies them), he said that it was important to keep Hamas strong as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Such a strategy, the prime minister believed, would ease the pressure on him to negotiate a Palestinian state.

Dmitry Shumsky, a columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, wrote that Netanyahu pursued a policy of “diplomatic paralysis” to avoid negotiations with the Palestinians over a two-state solution which is opposed by the right.

Shumsky said that Netanyahu’s mistaken strategy turned Hamas from “a minor terrorist group into an efficient, lethal army with bloodthirsty killers who mercilessly slaughtered innocent Israeli civilians.”

Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel’s Shin Bet security service, told the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in 2013 -- in 2013 -- that “if we look at it over the years, one of the main people contributing to Hamas’s strengthening has been Bibi Netanyahu, since his first term as prime minister.”

So, as might have been predicted, Hamas, the scorpion, inflicted its deadly sting October 7 because that is what it does in order to live up to its charter’s credo:  Destroy Israel. It is in its character. Now, Netanyahu, who supported the payments to Hamas from Qatar, in a leaked recording, labeled Qatar “problematic,” further straining relationships.

If that were not enough to get rid of Netanyahu consider how he is alienating Israel’s closest ally -- the United States.  

He responds to each call for moderation in the war by President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken with hostility and angry, non-compromising language and behavior.

Even if he disagrees, he might do so with more diplomacy and respect for a U.S. president who has shown commendable patience in the face of Netanyahu’s petulance.

The prime minister displayed the same disrespect for President Barack Obama when, in 2015, he bypassed the president and gave a speech before Congress in which he disagreed with Obama’s policy pertaining to a nuclear Iran.

Despite Netanyahu’s insults -- and they are insults -- Biden had maintained his overall support of Israel in the war, but that cannot last forever. The pressure on Biden to be more “balanced” continues to grow and it would not be surprising for the president to change course and increase his criticism of Israel and do so on the world diplomatic stage.

Netanyahu has hinted that Israel does not need the U.S. to defend itself and he is wrong on that has well. The loss of sharing important intelligence and the financial aid Israel receives from the U.S. are vital blood lines.
Netanyahu might also consider that, presently, Israel does not have many friends in the world.

Finally, for this column, on why Netanyahu needs to resign or be ousted, are his efforts to weaken Israel’s Supreme Court.  

His controversial judicial reform proposal brought tens of thousands of protestors to the streets in Israel every week.  

The proposed law would give the Knesset (Parliament) the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions which critics charge undermines Israel’s democracy and separation of powers doctrine which, while Israel has no constitution, operates similarly to ours.  

(In January, the Supreme Court ruled against the proposed new law, writing, the change would have caused “severe and unprecedented harm to the core characteristics of Israel as a democratic state.” It is not clear how Netanyahu plans to proceed.)

Many believed that Netanyahu proposed judicial reform to protect himself from conviction of corruption charges for allegedly taking gifts from beneficiaries in exchange for favorable treatment from his government. (He denies the charges.)

The firestorm over judicial reform may also have caused Netanyahu’s government to take its “eye off the ball” and not recognize how Hamas was planning for war. Israel’s military and intelligence agencies had collected evidence of Hamas’s plans for the October 7 attack. Some of Hamas’s training was conducted just a few hundred yards from the Gaza-Israeli border.

But no one acted on it. As a result, Hamas was able to sharpen its stinger and Netanyahu failed badly in protecting the state from the scorpion’s deadly venom.

Not only did Netanyahu trust an inherently untrustworthy predator, but he failed to develop an antidote. Thus, he needs to leave office -- one way or another.