ISRAEL NEEDS ANOTHER PRESIDENT, NOT ANOTHER PRIME MINISTER

The message that Herzog shouldn’t be conveying

The Israeli president’s official role is to represent the face of the country abroad and foster national unity at home. But his partisanship is getting in the way. 

 

By Ruthie Blum 

 

JNS

Jul 6, 2025

 

 

Israeli President Isaac Herzog

 

In a post on X on Friday, Israeli President Isaac “Bougie” Herzog expressed appreciation for the United States on its 249th birthday.

“To the American people, from your proudest and most steadfast friends, the Israeli people, I send my warmest wishes and congratulations on the Fourth of July,” he began. “We stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder in the defense of freedom and liberty. We join you in celebrating your Independence Day as a symbol of these shared values.”

So far so good.

“I send special thanks to my dear friend, [U.S. President Donald Trump],” he continued. “Mr. President, Israel will never forget your courage, clarity and moral resolve in standing firm against the Iranian nuclear threat, in launching the Abraham Accords and expanding the circle of peace in the region, and your demand and action to bring home our hostages. Fifty innocent people remain in captivity in Gaza. They must all come home as soon as possible.”

He concluded, “Happy July 4th! God bless the United States of America, and the unbreakable bond between our nations.”

His message was appropriate, given the occasion. His reference to the current context—the “12-Day War” and potentially additional normalization agreements—was fitting. Yet something was missing from his tribute. And it wasn’t accidental.

No, Herzog’s words were carefully crafted to omit mention of the Israeli government and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu. Apparently, even nodding to their crucial part in the “unbreakable bond” between Washington and Jerusalem—let alone heroic operations against the Islamic Republic; gargantuan efforts at peace-making with Arab neighbors; and incessant attempts to free the hostages, most of whom were released through dangerous deals with the devil—was too difficult for Herzog.

Far easier for him was to punctuate his ode with a reminder of the “50 innocent people who remain in captivity in Gaza” and the imperative that “they must all come home as soon as possible.”

The implication was that only Trump, through his “courage, clarity and moral resolve,” can make this happen. You know, since Bibi and his coalition have been mere bystanders, if not actual hindrances, to the rescue of the hostages and defeat of Iran’s global terror machine.

Anyone who thinks this is a case of unfair nitpicking at Herzog’s little gesture should note that it comes ahead of Bibi’s meeting on Monday at the White House. The purpose of the summit is for the pair to figure out the best possible way to achieve the goals that both are seeking.

As was evident from the amazing secrecy with which the two leaders colluded to carry out a joint attack on Iran’s nuclear capabilities—with Israel launching strikes on June 12 and the United States capping them off 10 days later—much of what goes on in the Oval Office next week won’t be immediately revealed. Forget the “scoops” that undoubtedly will be peddled by the likes of self-anointed “insiders” Barak Ravid and Ronen Bergman; they’re usually wrong.

What’s clear is that Trump and Netanyahu share and promote a concept that Herzog and others of his ilk avoid if not shun: Peace through strength. You know, defeating one’s enemies.

In fact, Trump just released a new set of fragrances that he named “Victory 45-47.” The perfumes are called that, he explained on Truth Social, “because they’re all about winning, strength and success—for men and women.”

Which brings us back to Herzog, who would do well to buy a bottle

Two days prior to his July 4 post, he addressed a group of Israeli National Defense College course cadets. What he said to them was bad enough; that pride in his remarks caused him to publicize them on social media should be sufficient to disqualify him as the ceremonial figure voted by the Knesset to “represent the face of the country abroad and foster national unity at home.”

Oozing pathos, he recounted, “I am returning from condolence visits to four bereaved families. In one of the visits, I entered a home where … two families were gathered—two cousins: one killed on Oct. 7, and the other killed last week. You leave the homes of these wonderful families and ask yourself: How long will this bloodletting continue? Yes, it has accompanied us since the dawn of our existence, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take concrete steps to change the reality.”

Finally, he said, “The role of leadership now is to come up with more and more ideas. I trust the chief of staff [of the Israel Defense Forces] and the plans he is presenting, and I support him. I also trust that we will think ahead; we are an original people with an exceptional security system. This is not a dichotomy of ‘continued bloodletting or surrender’—it’s not one or the other.”

Someone ought to inform Herzog that the only “bloodletting” going on is that directed at Israeli civilians and soldiers. After all, he acknowledged that it has “accompanied us since the dawn of our existence.”

So, how dare he suggest that we haven’t taken sufficient “concrete steps” to change the situation? It’s all we’ve been doing since time immemorial—certainly since the establishment of the Jewish state.

The answer is that Herzog, though holding an ostensibly non-partisan position, hails from the defunct, land-for-peace Labor Party. Obviously, the notion that there’s always some new avenue to explore to stop our enemies from murdering us is still ingrained in him. Equally ensconced is an unwillingness to credit this right-wing coalition with, well, anything.

It’s why he stressed his trust in the chief of staff, after asserting something vague about the country’s “leadership” needing to come up with “more and more ideas.”

The worst bit, however, was his claiming that the “dichotomy” isn’t “bloodletting or surrender.”

Which entity did he mean? Was he saying that Israel is doing the bloodletting and that surrendering isn’t the only way to stop it? Or was he talking about the enemy?

We don’t know for sure. But there’s no question that the terms “Israeli victory” and “enemy defeat” didn’t cross his lips. Lucky for us, it’s Bibi, not Bougie, navigating the landscape.