PM Netanyahu: No street in the State of Israel will be named after Arafat

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced yesterday (Saturday) that he will work to remove a street sign in the northern Israeli-Arab village of Jatt that is named after Yasser Arafat, former Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and President of the Palestinian Authority.

The street name attracted public attention following the complaints of a group of wounded IDF veterans.

Liran Baruch, a paratrooper who was wounded in action during an operation in Kalandiya, told Channel 10: “A friend of mine who went to serve in reserve duty near the village of Jatt noticed on Waze a street named after Yasser Arafat. He pointed this out to me right away, and I wrote a post on Facebook about it and notified the CEO of the Im Tirtzu organization, Matan Peleg.”

Im Tirtzu subsequently helped the wounded veterans pen a letter to Interior Minister Aryeh Deri and bring the matter to the public agenda.

The Interior Ministry released a statement in response, stating that they were unaware of the street’s existence: “The Interior Ministry did not approve naming the street in Jatt after Yasser Arafat and such a request was never submitted to the Ministry.”


In a post on Netanyahu’s Facebook page, he wrote: “I heard about the wounded IDF veterans’ battle against calling a street after Yasser Arafat in the Jatt regional council that is in the northern Sharon. I spoke with Interior Minister Aryeh Deri about the matter, and he clarified that the Interior Ministry had not given any authorization.”

Netanyahu added, “No street in the State of Israel will be named after Arafat – and we will work to remove the street sign.”

Muhammad Tahar Wattad, head of the Jatt regional council, denied prior knowledge of the street’s existence, but added that he is not opposed to the street name: “From our perspective [Arafat] represents the official leader of the Palestinian people, with Israel recognizing him as a partner for negotiations. Therefore there is no legal, social or moral prohibition to name a street after him.”

Wattad also added that “whoever calls him a mass murder should take responsibility for his words.”

Israel Protesting France’s Support For Terrorism

In response to a recent terror attack in a French church, Prime Minister Netanyahu sent his condolences to France during today’s Cabinet meeting. He then pointed out that evidence shows France is one of several European nations providing monetary support to organizations and NGO’s that incite terror and boycotts against Israel.

Meanwhile, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said last week that there is a need for a “thorough review to form a new relationship with French Islam” and that France will take up measures to stop foreign aid to mosques as a new step in the fight against Islamic terror. This is hypocrisy at its best when we find that France is interested in curbing Islamic terror locally but is not hesitant to support Islamic terror in Israel.

“Terror is terror in all places, and incitement is incitement all over the world,” Netanyahu said. “I heard about a discussion that took place last week in the French government about preventing foreign money from organizations that harm French citizens. That sounds familiar to us. We are also concerned about these types of contribution to organizations that reject Israel’s existence.”

This is even more absurd when we find that France need Israel’s help in stopping terror attacks.

Last week, the Israeli Ambassador to France condemned the French initiative to grant honorary citizenship to Marwan Barghouti, a known terrorist responsible for hundreds of deaths.

The questions stands: What does France stand for? Why are they openly supporting terrorism in their own country and abroad?

Israel Defeating BDS Movement One Country At a Time

During a debate at the State Control Committee on Monday, a number of MK’s argued that Israel’s foreign policy and public diplomacy (Hasbara) require a more unified voice. This includes appointing a new minister to take over the Foreign Ministry position, which the Prime Minister currently holds.

MK Elharrar remarked, “During this time, when the State of Israel is dealing on a daily basis with an intensifying delegitimizaiton campaign, attacks by UNESCO on the historic link between the Jewish people and Jerusalem, one-sided resolutions against Israel in the UN`s Human Rights Council and even attacks on us in the World Health Organization, don`t you think we need to appoint a foreign minister who will act to improve Israel`s standing in the international community?

Netanyahu countered by saying that the success of Israel’s public diplomacy is measured by its diplomatic ties, foreign trade and public opinion. “Today Israel is perceived more and more as an asset and an influencing element in the world because of our war on terror and our technological achievements… We have achieved free trade with China, a 30 percent increase in trade with India, an agreement with Japan on protecting rigs, military coordination with Russia, initial ties with a host of African countries, heads of state visiting Israel for the first time, the normalization of ties with Turkey, and every week I meet with four heads of state. Israel`s foreign policy is a great success. Despite some specific successes [of the delegitimization campaign against Israel], we have defeated the boycott movement in many arenas.

It is true that the scope of Israel`s connections with countries around the world has never been broader, especially after Netanyahu’s recent visit to Africa after which several African countries strengthened their diplomatic and economic ties with Israel.

Netanyahu then went on to state that the obstacles to peace between Israel and Palestinians is the incitement of Abbas and the PA to murder Jews and the refusal of the PA to recognize the Jewish state.

The constant hostile resolutions against Israel during times of conflict and continuous movements to boycott Israeli products are a clear sign that Israel needs improvement in its public diplomacy. Netanyahu says Israel is “working to annul the automatic majority against us in international forums” by improving relations with African, Latin and Asian countries.

Others such as MK Zehava Galon of Meretz argue that “Israel will have to choose between its democratic values and international legitimacy.”

Headlines June 28: Temple Mount Attacks, Rivlin & Ban Ki-Moon, Bibi & Kerry

On Tuesday morning, Arab rioters on the Temple Mount who presumably found no more Jews or police to attack up there, began throwing stones down at the Jews who were engaged in their morning prayer before the Western Wall. One woman, age 73, was injured lightly and was rushed to Hadassah Ein Karem hospital.
[The Jewish Press]


Likud MK Yehuda Glick criticizes barring of Temple Mount to Jews, calls on Islamic leaders to reign in violence.
[Arutz Sheva]
President Rivlin meets with UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon and they discuss regional issues including captive Israeli soldiers, terrorism, peace initiatives and normalization with Turkey.
[Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry discuss defense issues and the peace process with the Palestinians • Netanyahu also meets with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.
[Israel Hayom]

Shin Bet reveals five members of terrorist cell, three of them dentists, arrested over May 10 pipe bomb attack • Leader cites “desecration of Al-Aqsa mosque and harming Palestinian children” as motives • Suspects show interrogators 56 more explosives.
[Israel Hayom]

Headlines June 8: Israel Strikes Syrian Weapons, Bibi & Putin, NASA & Israel to Mars

Israeli Air Force jets attacked a missile storage facility in Syria over the weekend, targeting a number of military sites said to be housing advanced weaponry.
[The Jerusalem Post]


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the Kremlin, held a lengthy working meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. They discussed a large number of issues including Syria and other regional issues pertaining to the national security of both countries. The two leaders discussed the continuation of regional coordination between their respective militaries, which has worked very well up until now. They also discussed agricultural issues (milk production with the assistance of Israeli technologies), the pensions agreement that was signed between the two countries, tourism, health, the manufacture of medicines and other issues.
[Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs]


NASA chief expresses interest in Israel helping with manned mission to Mars‏
[Arutz Sheva]


Israel and Ukraine sign agreement for employment of Ukrainian construction workers
[Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs]


Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Tuesday that in just one or two meetings a rapprochement deal with Israel will be reached, indicating that the normalization talks started last December are reaching a close.
[Arutz Sheva]


Headlines June 6: Netanyahu Visits Moscow, NY Governor Attacks BDS, Hamas Rejects Peace

Arab Terrorists Shoot at School Bus, Stone Second Bus
[The Jewish Press]


In a joint ISA, IDF and Israel Police operation, a 17-year-old resident of the Gaza Strip, who is active in the Hamas military wing, was arrested after crossing the perimeter fence from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
[Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs]


Hamas official criticizes Egyptian President’s call for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

PM Netanyahu heads to Moscow for an official visit marking 25 years of restored diplomatic relations with Russia.
[The Jewish Press]


NY Governor turns tables on BDS Boycott Israel movement with executive order. Anyone boycotting Israel will find themselves boycotted by the great state of New York.
[Times of Israel]

Peace: A Deceptive, Dictatorial Word

After a long absence, “peace” is back in the headlines, due in large measure to this week’s visit to Israel by French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who came to try to promote a new French initiative that somehow, by as yet unspecified means, would resuscitate the moribund “peace process.”

Perversely planned to take place without either Israel or the Palestinians, the principal protagonists, the conference has now fortuitously been delayed to accommodate the schedule of U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, who apparently had better things to do than take part in yet another doomed charade to forge “peace” in the Middle East.

However, despite its ill-conceived rationale and dauntingly dim prospects, the planned summit can and should serve one constructive purpose: to focus attention not only on what the quest for the elusive condition of “peace” really entails, but on the even more fundamental question of what is actually meant, and what can realistically be expected, when we talk of “peace” as a desired goal, particularly in the context of the Middle East and particularly from an Israeli perspective.

Indeed, the need for such clarification becomes even more vital and pressing because of recent reports of possible Egyptian involvement in attempts to initiate “peace” negotiations with Arab regimes teetering on the brink of extinction and involving a perilous Israeli withdrawal to indefensible borders. All this in exchange for grudging recognition as a non-Jewish state by a partially no longer existent, partially disintegrating, Arab world.

A dictatorial word

It takes little reflection to discover that, in fact, “peace” is a word that is both dictatorial and deceptive.

It is dictatorial because it brooks no opposition. Just as no one can openly pronounce opposition to a dictator without risking severe repercussions, so too no one can be openly branded as opposing peace without suffering grave consequences to personal and professional stature.

Life can be harsh for anyone with the temerity to challenge the tyrannical dictates of the politically correct liberal perspectives. As British columnist Melanie Phillips remarked several years ago in an interview on Israel’s Channel 1: “Believe me, it [failing to abide by political correctness] has a very chilling effect on people, because you can lose your professional livelihood, your chances of promotion, you lose your friends.”

In a surprisingly candid admission, The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote that “universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological. … We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.”

This peer-imposed doctrinaire uniformity has had a debilitating impact on the quality of intellectual discourse in general, and on the question of “peace” in the Middle East in particular.

A New York Times opinion piece by Arthur C. Brooks cautioned: “Excessive homogeneity can lead to stagnation and poor problem solving.” Citing studies that found a “shocking level of political groupthink in academia, he warned that “expecting trustworthy results on politically charged topics from an ideologically incestuous community [is] downright delusional.”

A deceptive word

The considerable potential for defective analysis in the intellectual discourse on such a politically charged topic as “peace” also accounts for another detrimental attribute of the word.

Not only is it rigidly dictatorial, but, perhaps even more significantly, “peace” is a grossly deceptive word. It can be, and indeed is, used to denote two disparate even antithetical political situations. On the one hand, “peace” can be used to describe a state of mutual harmony between parties, but on the other hand it can just as aptly be used to characterize an absence of violence maintained by deterrence.

In the first meaning, “peace” entails a situation in which the parties eschew violence because they share a mutual perception of a common interest in preserving a tranquil status quo. In the second meaning, “peace” entails a situation in which violence is avoided only by the threat of incurring exorbitant costs.

The significance of this goes far beyond semantics. On the contrary. If it is not clearly understood, it is likely to precipitate calamitous consequences.

The perilous pitfalls of ‘peace’

It is crucial for practical policy prescriptions not to blur the sharp substantive differences between these two political realities. Each requires different policies both to achieve and, even more importantly, to sustain them.

The misguided pursuit of one kind of peace may well render the achievement — and certainly the preservation — of the other kind of peace impossible.

Countries with the mutual harmony variety of “peace” typically have relationships characterized by openness and the free movement of people and goods across borders. As in the relationship between Canada and the U.S., there is little or no effort needed to prevent hostile actions by one state against the other. Differences that arise are not only settled without violence, but the very idea of using force against each other is virtually inconceivable.

By contrast, in the second, deterrence-based variety of peace, such as those between the U.S. and USSR during the Cold War or between Iran and Iraq up to the 1980s, the protagonists feel compelled to invest huge efforts in deterrence to maintain the absence of war.

Indeed, whenever the deterrent capacity of one state is perceived to wane, the danger of war becomes very real, as was seen in the Iraqi offensive against an apparently weakened and disorderly Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

In this type of “peace,” there is no harmonious interaction between the peoples of the states. Movements across borders are usually highly restricted and regulated, and often prohibited.

It is not surprising to find that peace of the “mutual harmony” variety prevails almost exclusively between democracies, since its characteristic openness runs counter to the nature of dictatorial regimes.

The perils of pursuing one type of peace (mutual harmony) when only the other type (deterrence) is feasible were summed up over two decades ago by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his acclaimed book “A Place Among the Nations: Israel and the World.” In it, he calls for making a clear distinction between the “peace of democracies” and the “peace of deterrence.”

“As long as you are faced with a dictatorial adversary, you must maintain sufficient strength to deter him from going to war. By doing so, you can at least obtain the peace of deterrence. But if you let down your defenses … you invite war, not peace,” he wrote.

Much earlier, in 1936, Winston Churchill underscored the dangers: “The French Army is the strongest in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Everyone knows that France wants to be let alone, and that with her it is only a case of self-preservation. … They are a liberal nation with free parliamentary institutions. Germany, on the other hand, under its Nazi regime … [in which] two or three men have the whole of that mighty country in their grip [and] there is no public opinion except what is manufactured by those new and terrible engines — broadcasting and a controlled press fills unmistakably that part [of] … the would-be dominator or potential aggressor.”

Compromise counterproductive

To grasp the potential for disaster when a policy designed to attain a harmonious outcome is pursued in a political context in which none is possible, it is first necessary to recognize that, in principle, there are two archetypal configurations. In one, a policy of compromise and concession may well be appropriate; in the other, such a policy will be devastatingly inappropriate.

In the first configuration, an adversary interprets concessions as conciliatory, and feels obliged to respond with a counter-concession. Thus, by a series of concessions and counter-concessions, the process converges toward some amicably harmonious resolution of conflict.

However, in the second configuration, the adversary sees any concession as a sign of vulnerability and weakness, made under duress. Accordingly, such initiatives do not elicit any reciprocal gesture, only demands for further concessions.

But further concessions still do not prompt reciprocal moves toward a peaceable resolution. This process ill necessarily culminate either in total capitulation or in large-scale violence, either because one side finally realizes that its adversary is acting in bad faith and can only be restrained by force, or because the other side realizes it has extracted all the concessions possible by non-coercive means, and will only win further gains by force.

In such a scenario, compromise is counterproductive and concessions will compound casualties.

Whetting, not satiating, Arab appetites

Of course, little effort is required to see that the conditions confronting Israel today resemble the latter situation far more than the former. No matter how many far-reaching compromises and gut-wrenching concessions Israel has made, they have never been enough to elicit any commensurate counter-concessions from the Arabs. Indeed, rather than satiate the Arab appetite, they have merely whetted it, with each Israeli gesture only leading to further demands for more “gestures.”

If in any “peace” negotiations such compromises undermine Israeli deterrence by increasing its perceived vulnerability, they will make war, not peace, more imminent.

Indeed, it was none other than Shimon Peres, in recent years one of the most avid advocates of the land-for-peace doctrine (or dogma), who, in his book “Tomorrow is Now,” warned vigorously of the perils of the policy he later embraced.

After detailing how surrendering the Sudetenland made Czechoslovakia vulnerable to attack, Peres writes of the concessions Israel is being pressured to make today to attain “peace” : “Without a border which affords security, a country is doomed to destruction in war. … It is of course doubtful whether territorial expanse can provide absolute deterrence. However, the lack of minimal territorial expanse places a country in a position of an absolute lack of deterrence. This in itself constitutes almost compulsive temptation to attack Israel from all directions.”

e also warns: “The major issue is not [attaining] an agreement, but ensuring the actual implementation of the agreement in practice. The number of agreements which the Arabs have violated is no less than number which they have kept.” Since then, of course, their record has hardly improved.

Will Netanyahu 2016 heed Netanyahu 1993?

In 1996, shortly after Netanyahu was elected prime minister for the first time, Ari Shavit of Haaretz interviewed him on positions he had articulated in “A Place Among the Nations.”Shavit: “In your book, you make a distinction between … a harmonious kind of peace that can exist only between democratic countries, and peace through deterrence, which could also be maintained in the Middle East as it currently is. Do you think we need to lower our expectations and adopt a much more modest concept of peace?”

Netanyahu: “One of our problems is that we tend to nurse unrealistic expectations. … When people detach themselves from reality, floating around in the clouds and losing contact with the ground, they will eventually crash on the rocky realities of the true Middle East.”

Let us all hope that Netanyahu of today will heed the advice of Netanyahu of then. It is the only way Israel will be able to avoid the ruinous ravages of the deceptive and dictatorial word “peace.”

(Originally published on Israel Hayom)

Headlines: ISIS Children App, Naqba Day Sirens, Bill Clinton on Peace Process

Bill Clinton went on the defensive over his record on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as his wife’s, after a spectator at a Friday afternoon campaign event repeatedly pressed the former president on the issue. “I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza,” Clinton said.

ISIS and Hezbollah have both released apps to teach young children to be terrorists.
[The Jewish Press]


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked heads of diplomatic missions and religious communities on Thursday to encourage Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to accept his offer to talk peace.
[The Jerusalem Post]


In Palestinian Authority mosques throughout Judea and Samaria, the Arabs will be replacing their calls to prayer, incitement speeches and Islamic messages with the Naqba siren, at noon on Sunday.
[The Jewish Press]


An Islamic State operative snuck into the Gaza Strip through Hamas’ system of underground tunnels connecting the Palestinian-ruled area with the Sinai Peninsula, Israel said on Friday.
[The Jerusalem Post]

Is Merkel Feeling the Heat?

One should not think too deeply on Angela Merkel’s words in press conference with Bibi Netanyahu in Berlin today.  According to i24 News, the German Chancellor said:

“Now is not the time for a significant step forward [in the two-state solution].”

Angela Merkel has been known in the past as a major backer of the two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The fact that she seems to be pushing the pause button should catch more than a few glances.  However, one should not take her pronouncement too far. In the intra-Europe sparring over the refugee crisis, Angela Merkel has been painted (mostly due to her own policies) as responsible for the catastrophic situation that Europe now finds itself.

With the Eastern European countries taking a far tougher approach than herself, she has been struggling to stave of not only a revolt in the EU, but one in her own country. Keep in mind, many Eastern European countries have sided with Israel over the labeling crisis and by doing so they have revealed how fractured the continent is.  Merkel achieves a lot with her statement.  By backing off of Israel, she can show her interlocutors that she isn’t as clueless about the sweeping hordes of Islamic migrants engulfing her continent.  After all Israel has been taking the brunt of radical Islamic violence for years.  Letting it drown in the region’s current typhoon of geopolitical chaos would prove how clueless European leaders really are. So Merkel gains the mantel of “principled leader” without forfeiting too much of her open borders policy.

Keeping Israel in Europe’s Orbit

As Israel continues to build on its economic growth with trade deals and energy agreements with a variety of new partners, Europe understands that Israel is in fact poised to surpass it as a global leader and influencer.  China and India don’t care about the to state solution, backing it only with lip service.  Russia does only what’s best for it and a strong Israel could very well be part of Putin’s plans for the region.  Europe is being cut out of everything and losing influence over Israel would not bode well for it.

Backing Israel on the two state solution is ultimately an attempt to lure Israel away from shifting alliances, especially ones that stand diametrically opposed to the EU’s policy in the Middle East.

The Quiet Revolution

Darkness feels like it’s everywhere these days.  From ISIS, Iran, and Hezbollah on our borders and the slow motion Palestinian Intifada within, our enemies are literally surrounding us.  Old friends are in disarray and our new partners are untrustworthy. The government in Israel seems almost wishful in its outlook on our geopolitical situation and far too fixated on political gain by locking up young settler activists without trial.

The government has gone seemingly mad.  One day they are building an alliance with Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt and the next they are entertaining the idea of rapprochement with Turkey.

So why the confusion?

The State of Israel was born out of two conflicting historical movements. One was the 19h century nationalist movement that had swept the European continent and inspired European Jews to build for themselves a National Homeland in their historic home located in the Land of Israel.

The second movement popped up after the Holocaust and before National Independence in 1948. It what an international movement by the world to give the Jews a State a sort of amelioration for the slaughter that was purpotrated by the Nazis and their supporters during WW2. This movement came at the tailend of the Revolt in which the three competing Jewish paramilitary units in the Holy Land were attempting to push out the British. It is no accident that the British would have have saved millions of Jews if not for their whitepaper and yet despite the loss to the Jewish Nation, the Jews of the Palestinian Mandate pushed on against the one of the World’s strongest Nations.

Before the British could be embarrassed the amelioration movement, which had nothing to do with Zionism came in and saved the British. On the 29th of November 1947 Resolution 181 was passed by the UN and despite its never being implemented the Resolution cemented in the World’s mind that the State of Israel, (which would have been born with or without the UN) was birthed exclusively by the United Nations as a reaction to the Holocaust.

The sad irony that it was in fact Britain whose policies kept Jewish immigration to the mandate at near standstill while Jews were being slaughtered by the Nazis by the millions standing behind the fledgling Jewish State is not accidental. The young state would not last against the British trained Arab forces and in due time would have to invite the British back in. Of course the opposite happened and yet the colonial mentality persists and pervades the ruling elite in Israel.

The idea that Israel is a creation of the UN buries the gains the Zionist Revolution made within the hearts of the masses before the partition plan was drafted.  After all it was not us with the Almighty at our backs that pushed the British out, it was they they British who gave us our State. This causes a yearning to be loved by the Nations and creates an incoherent geopolitical strategy.

Noting the historical amnesia of the Jewish Nation, Rabbi Yehuda HaKohen, founder of Lavi Olami notes in a 2008 op-ed the following:

“Like the American Revolution, the Zionist Revolution succeeded in liberating a country from the mighty British Empire. And this was no small achievement for Jewish people who, only three years earlier, were being systematically butchered by the millions in Europe. Freedom was won in blood and fire by heroic young fighters willing to give their lives so that future generations would see a Hebrew flag over Jerusalem. But aside from this near-impossible feat, the Zionist Revolution also had – and still has – several more seemingly unattainable tasks to accomplish.”

Despite the setbacks and void in leadership at the national level, a quiet revolution is afoot. More and more people are recognizing that the path forward is to once again cultivate our roots. Silently and nearly methodically there has been an organic growth in young activists looking out at the regional landscape and seeing their own indigenous experience and wanting to hook back into it. It is this connection to the Land and Nation that young zionists within Israel are beginning to lay as the foundation for going forward.

More than this though, the Zionist Revolution calls on the people of Israel to elect and support leaders that partner with like minded indigenous nations in the region as well as economic and military policies that are independent from the needs of the interests of the global elites and neo-conservative elements entrenched in American foreign policy institutions.

A successful revolution means foreign organizations and global corporations who do not have the Jewish Nation’s best interests are to be kept out of decision making. Sadly our current leaders, from Naftali Bennett to Bibi Netanyahu at the very least believe the State of Israel has achieved its revolution and perhaps they have succumbed to the spirit that we were in fact born out of the ovens and gas chambers of the Holocaust rather than as a result of the immovable destiny of our ancient Nation.  

Thankfully, there are those who see things differently, who place the revolution still ahead of us. From the throngs of Temple Mount activists, to the young guard in the Likud as well Moshe Feiglin’s new party Zehut, Israel’s future is bright as the body politic across the country has begin to shed to darkness of the exile in order to embrace a far more expansive future.  

The challenges ahead are immense and in many ways the Nation of Israel has survived far more dire circumstances, but at the end of the day the leaders of our past were guided by the fears of the Holocaust without concern to the future. If Israel can embrace a complete faith in its cause and tap into the strength of its forefathers it will acquire the ability to deal with its enemies, while properly deciphering wrong from right. Only then will the Zionist Revolution have the ability to fulfill its true potential.

The world finds itself in a moment of chaos. Our leaders have been swept up by foreign ideals and goals.  Ultimately only a clear sighted vision based on truth and faith will lead us out of the darkness we are in.