RSS
New Leaders Must Have Continuity With the Past, But Vision and Courage for a Brighter Tomorrow
US President Joe Biden holds a press conference during NATO’s 75th anniversary summit, in Washington, DC, July 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Nathan Howard
In his 2015 book, Lessons in Leadership, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote: “Leaders must have the strength to know what they cannot be if they are to have the courage to be themselves.”
One must wonder if at any point over the past few weeks, this thought crossed President Joe Biden’s mind, as his ability to be the leader of the free world was put into doubt in the full glare of the public spotlight.
In a stunning turn of events, Biden announced this week that he will not seek re-election. The US political landscape, already tumultuous and chaotic, has been thrown into total disarray as Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris, has been ushered in, totally unopposed, as the presumptive Democratic candidate.
The news of Biden’s sudden departure and Harris’s meteoric emergence as his replacement has sparked intense debate and speculation, leaving the American public and political pundits alike grappling with the implications of this unexpected shift.
For many, Biden’s decision to step aside marks a pivotal moment in American politics. Questions abound: What does this mean for Biden’s presidency over the next few months? If he feels himself incapable of running for election, how is he capable of running the country? And how will Harris fare against Donald Trump? Will this bombshell change of candidates energize or divide the Democratic base? Will the idea of a Harris presidency win over swing voters?
Amid the uncertainty, one thing is clear: the process of choosing a new leader is fraught with challenges and opportunities.
Throughout history, there have been leadership changes that not only shocked those they had led, but also left an indelible mark on the political landscape. One example much cited over the past few days is the resignation of President Lyndon B. Johnson in late March 1968, a decision he framed as an act of selflessness: “With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office—the Presidency of your country. Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.”
Johnson’s decision not to seek re-election amidst the Vietnam War was a turning point in American politics. The next president might have been Robert F. Kennedy, who was expected by many to win the election against former vice president Richard Nixon. But his assassination in early June left the Democratic Party in turmoil, and opened the door for Nixon’s stunning victory. Nixon’s win marked a significant shift in American political dynamics, influencing the course of the nation’s history for years to come.
Elsewhere, the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936 was a monumental event for Great Britain. Edward’s decision to abdicate in order to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American socialite, resulted in his brother, George VI, ascending to the throne.
George VI’s leadership during World War II was crucial, as his resolve and moral integrity in the face of the Nazi threat to Britain contrasted sharply with Edward’s known sympathies for Nazi Germany. This shift in leadership undoubtedly influenced Britain’s posture and resilience when war with Germany broke out in 1939, and in the demanding years that followed.
Another notable, far more recent example of a dramatic leadership change is the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013. Benedict — who cited his advanced age and declining strength as reasons for stepping down — became the first pope to resign in nearly 600 years; the last pope who resigned was Pope Gregory XII, who stepped down in 1415.
Benedict’s surprising resignation paved the way for the election of Pope Francis, a leader who has brought significant changes to the Vatican’s approach and policies. Pope Francis is known for his focus on social justice and his efforts to modernize the Catholic Church, an institution not known for its inclination to change.
Francis has initiated numerous reforms aimed at addressing issues like financial corruption, sexual abuse, and the role of women in the Church. His leadership style and priorities have marked a distinct departure from the far more conservative approach of his predecessor, bringing new optimism and direction to the Catholic community worldwide.
This small selection of historical examples illustrates how leadership changes can have profound and lasting effects on the trajectory of those being led. And as we watch the current unfolding political drama in the United States, these lessons from history remind us of the significance of this moment, and the potential impact of the choices that will be made in the coming months.
There is a powerful narrative about leadership transition in Parshat Pinchas that offers timeless insights. The Torah recounts the appointment of Joshua as Moses’ successor, a moment of great significance for the Israelite community. Moses indicated that he wanted God to gift the leadership to one of his sons, but it was not to be.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch highlights the qualities that made Joshua the ideal candidate to lead the people into the Promised Land, emphasizing that Joshua was chosen not for his charisma or political savvy, nor because he had been the assumed leader should Moses step down. Even Moses had believed one of his own sons would replace him.
Joshua was neither the expected choice nor a flashy choice — the Midrash records that he was the one who prepared the study hall for sessions with Moses, a seemingly menial role. What made Joshua suitable was that he represented both continuity from the past, as the devoted disciple of Moses, and also, a change from the past and the hope for a better tomorrow. Moses was a great leader, but his time was up. The break from his era had to be palpable and real.
As we navigate this pivotal moment in American politics, the story of Joshua’s appointment is a powerful reminder that what hasn’t worked in the lead-up to this moment won’t change if we get more of the same. Effective leadership is not about maintaining the status quo but about ensuring continuity while also inspiring progress and hope for the future. In seeking new leaders, it is essential to find those who honor the values and lessons of the past while also having the vision and courage to lead toward a brighter tomorrow.
As the well-known American author and leadership expert John C. Maxwell so aptly stated, “A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.” Let us strive to find such leaders, who can guide us with wisdom, integrity, and the vision for a brighter future.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post New Leaders Must Have Continuity With the Past, But Vision and Courage for a Brighter Tomorrow first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Obituary: Elexis Schloss, 78, an Edmonton entrepreneur and philanthropist who also performed quiet acts of kindness
Elexis (Conn) Schloss, a vibrant entrepreneur and philanthropist who supported a wide array of causes, both in and beyond Edmonton, died in Victoria on Oct. 31. She was 78. Her […]
The post Obituary: Elexis Schloss, 78, an Edmonton entrepreneur and philanthropist who also performed quiet acts of kindness appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Saudi Arabia Ups Anti-Israel Rhetoric Amid Iran Rapprochement, Raising Questions About Abraham Accords Expansion
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends a virtual cabinet meeting from his office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, May 28, 2024. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler accused the Israeli military of committing “collective genocide” in Gaza while also pressing Israel to respect Iranian sovereignty, amid reports that Tehran has postponed its planned attack on the Jewish state.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s remarks, made in Riyadh on Monday during a summit of leaders of Islamic nations, underscored the evolving rapprochement between the erstwhile archenemies Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The crown prince, also known by his initials MBS, urged the international community to demand that Israel “respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not to violate its lands.”
The two regional heavyweights restored relations last year after decades of animosity.
MBS’s anti-Israel rhetoric came days after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. For Israel, the statement from Riyadh may signal a setback to the normalization process with Saudi Arabia, a long-sought goal within the framework of the Abraham Accords, brokered by Trump during his first term in the White House, that has seen Israel establish formal ties with several Arab states in recent years.
According to a Sky News Arabia report published two days later and citing Iranian officials, Tehran has shelved a planned third direct strike on Israel, with the delay attributed to possible forthcoming diplomatic talks with Trump. Israel Hayom published a similar report the following day, citing officials in Jerusalem familiar with the matter.
Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref expressed his hope that the incoming Trump administration would put a stop to Israel’s campaigns against its terrorist proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
“The American government is the main supporter of the actions of the Zionist regime [Israel], and the world is waiting for the promise of the new government of this country to immediately stop the war against the innocent people of Gaza and Lebanon,” Aref said at Monday’s gathering.
Observers noted that Saudi Arabia’s shift could stem from both domestic and regional considerations. For the kingdom, improving relations with Iran is a strategic move to de-escalate conflicts in Yemen, where both countries have backed opposing sides. By opening diplomatic channels with Iran, Saudi Arabia also aims to reduce its dependence on Western security guarantees amid growing regional autonomy. According to Dr. Eyal Pinko, a Middle East expert who served in Israeli intelligence for more than three decades, Saudi Arabia is also under pressure from France, a major arms supplier, to maintain a moderate stance and promote regional peace.
“Saudi Arabia understands [it] cannot rely on the Americans” for arms, Pinko told The Algemeiner.
For its part, Iran may be seeking closer ties with the Gulf kingdom as a result of recent Israeli operations that have decimated the senior leadership of Hezbollah, Iran’s most influential proxy in the Arab world that has long served as a strategic partner.
“Iran is spreading its bets all around, not to be on one side or another,” Pinko said.
Hezbollah, along with Hamas in Gaza, had in the past been blacklisted as terrorist groups by Riyadh.
The New York Times last month cited a Saudi tycoon with ties to the monarchy as saying that the war in Gaza has “set back any Israeli integration into the region.”
“Saudi Arabia sees that any association with Israel has become more toxic since Gaza,” Ali Shihabi told the newspaper.
In another blow for Saudi-Israel relations, Riyadh announced it would revoke the license of the Saudi news broadcaster, MBC, after it labeled the late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar a terrorist.
But according to Pinko, the chance of Saudi-Israel normalization is not entirely lost, pending a ceasefire.
“If nothing extreme happens with Iran until Jan. 20 [when Trump takes office], I believe that the Abraham Accords will come back to the table,” he said.
The post Saudi Arabia Ups Anti-Israel Rhetoric Amid Iran Rapprochement, Raising Questions About Abraham Accords Expansion first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Germany Opposes EU Foreign Policy Chief’s Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock speaks during a session of the lower house of parliament Bundestag, in Berlin, Germany, Oct. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisi Niesner
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Thursday publicly rejected a proposal by the European Union’s foreign policy chief to suspend regular political dialogue with Israel in response to the Jewish state’s ongoing military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
“We are always in favor of keeping channels of dialogue open. Of course, this also applies to Israel,” the German Foreign Office said of top EU official Josep Borrell’s plans, according to the German news agency dpa.
The Foreign Office added that, while the political conversations under the EU-Israel Association Council provide a regular opportunity to strengthen relations and, in recent months, discuss the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza, severing that mechanism would be counterproductive.
“Breaking off dialogue, however, will not help anyone, neither the suffering people in Gaza, nor the hostages who are still being held by Hamas, nor all those in Israel who are committed to dialogue,” the statement continued.
Borrell on Wednesday proposed the suspension of dialogue in a letter to EU foreign ministers ahead of their meeting this coming Monday in Brussels, citing “serious concerns about possible breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza.” He also wrote, “Thus far, these concerns have not been sufficiently addressed by Israel.”
The regular dialogues that Borrell is seeking to break off were enshrined in a broader agreement on relations between the EU and Israel, including extensive trade ties, that was implemented in 2000.
“In light of the above considerations, I will be tabling a proposal that the EU should invoke the human rights clause to suspend the political dialogue with Israel,” Borrell wrote.
A suspension would need the approval of all 27 EU countries, an unlikely outcome. According to Reuters, multiple countries objected when a senior EU official briefed ambassadors in Brussels on the proposal on Wednesday.
While some EU countries, such as Spain and Ireland, have been fiercely critical of Israel since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, others such as the Czech Republic and Hungary have been more supportive.
Hamas, which rules Gaza, launched the ongoing conflict with its invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped over 250 hostages while perpetrating mass sexual violence and other atrocities.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication. However, Hamas has in many cases prevented people from leaving, according to the Israeli military.
Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations, direct attacks, and store weapons.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said last month that Israel has delivered over 1 million tons of aid, including 700,000 tons of food, to Gaza since it launched its military operation a year ago. He also noted that Hamas terrorists often hijack and steal aid shipments while fellow Palestinians suffer.
The Israeli government has ramped up the supply of humanitarian aid into Gaza in recent weeks under pressure from the United States, which has expressed concern about the plight of civilians in the war-torn enclave.
Meanwhile, Borrell has been one of the EU’s most outspoken critics of Israel over the past year. Just six weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, he drew a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas while speaking to the European Parliament, accusing both of having carried out “massacres” while insisting that it is possible to criticize Israeli actions “without being accused of not liking the Jews.”
Borrell’s speech followed a visit to the Middle East the prior week. While in Israel, he delivered what the Spanish daily El Pais described as the “most critical message heard so far from a representative of the European Union regarding Israel’s response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7.”
“Not far from here is Gaza. One horror does not justify another,” Borrell said at a joint press conference alongside then-Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen. “I understand your rage. But let me ask you not to let yourself be consumed by rage. I think that is what the best friends of Israel can tell you, because what makes the difference between a civilized society and a terrorist group is the respect for human life. All human lives have the same value.”
Months later, in March of this year, Borrell claimed that Israel was imposing a famine on Palestinian civilians in Gaza and using starvation as a weapon of war. His comments came a few months before the United Nations Famine Review Committee (FRC), a panel of experts in international food security and nutrition, rejected the assertion that northern Gaza was experiencing famine, citing a lack of evidence. Borrell’s comments prompted outrage from Israel.
In August, Borrell pushed EU member states to impose sanctions on some Israeli ministers.
Monday’s meeting in Brussels will be the last that Borrell will chair before ending his five-year term as the EU’s foreign policy chief.
The post Germany Opposes EU Foreign Policy Chief’s Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.