It seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu has interminably remained in the public’s spotlight, unable to extricate himself even for a moment. Unfortunately, most of the attention he has been receiving is strictly pejorative. He has been accused of everything from stunting the peace process to fomenting greater instability in the region. More upsetting still is the pace at which these allegations have been taken up in the collective consciousness and the rate at which they have been promulgated and spread. Virulent and malicious, they have been disseminated through every channel with any and every means available. They have been circulated out in the open or they have been hatched surreptitiously by people who hold positions of power and are determined to see Netanyahu’s reign come to a conclusion.

It is time for their festering growth to be terminated and for the truth to surface in their stead. In order to expose the reality of the situation and to gain proper insight into the dynamics at play here, we must ask the underlying questions that pertain to this issue. For starters, why has the peace process lost its momentum, why is the Middle East in such a turbulent state and who benefits from the incessant bashing of Bibi? This article will set out to give basic answers to each of these questions and to delineate why, now more than ever, unity and the recentralization of thought amongst the Jewish population both play absolutely instrumental roles in the wellbeing of our nation.

The peace process was poisoned when the PA and Hamas struck an accord and signed a unity government deal. The magnitude of this agreement has been downplayed by every government and every media outlet internationally because they fail to comprehend the gravity of the risk it directly poses to Israel’s security. How on Earth can Israel possibly be expected to negotiate with a government that incorporates terrorists determined to destroy them? It simply does not make sense to even think for a moment that this is a rational possibility. People can wag their fingers all they want and blame Netanyahu’s administration for the stagnation in peace talks but what viable alternative did he have? The United States claims constantly that it does not deal with terrorists, not only as a matter of pragmatism but also as a matter of principle. So how, then, can people actually disregard and dismiss the threat Hamas poses to Israel and ask Israel to simply ignore it and make peace anyways? It is an unfathomable request, plain and simple.

The PA receives millions in foreign aid directly from the international community. With the appropriation of resources and power that the deal between them and Hamas solidified, it is entirely obvious that that money will sooner or later, if it hasn’t already (which it likely has), land up in the hands of terror operatives who are digging more tunnels and concocting more rockets with which to carry out attacks on Israel. Thus, as a basic extension of this reasoning, the West is actually helping to fund groups hell-bent on destroying Israel. It is inconceivable. Were Bibi’s recent comments about his aversion to a Palestinian State coming into existence politically motivated? Yes, that cannot be disputed; after all, he is a politician who had an election to win. But are they justified given all that has gone on Israel’s borders and the peripheral perils that threaten to strike at any moment? Unequivocally. If the PA was determined to make peace with Israel, which its track record dictates is absolutely not the case, then it should have aligned itself Israel and not with a terror cell. Netanyahu’s critics are going to have to grow up and accept the fact that a deal with the PA, in present times, bears no promise of peace, or even of sustainable quiet, and grants Israel zero advantages or advances whatsoever. Period.

Moving on, Obama announced subsequent to Netanyahu’s sweeping victory that the United States needed “to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region”. First of all, it seems as if this is an embarrassing and offensive negation of the calamity that already ravages the Middle East. A chaotic situation has been pillaging the region for quite some time and Israel is the only place in the vicinity that is actually functioning and, on top of that, prospering. For Obama’s understanding of the situation to be so backwards is both frightening and shameful. To obliquely ascribe the horrors that have been transpiring in the Middle East to Israel and to pin responsibility on the one democracy in the area is a disgrace that must be rectified. As Charles Krauthammer brilliantly addresses in his Washington Post opinion piece entitled No Peace in Our Time:

Israel is ringed by jihadi terrorists in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic State and Iranian proxies in Syria, and a friendly but highly fragile Jordan. Israelis have no idea who ends up running any of these places. Will the Islamic State advance to an Israeli border? Will Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear on the Golan Heights? No one knows.

Well, say the critics. Israel could be given outside guarantees. Guarantees? Like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the United States, Britain and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”? Like the red line in Syria? Like the unanimous U.N. resolutions declaring illegal any Iranian enrichment of uranium — now effectively rendered null?

He poses the fundamental question that people all too often forget to contemplate or even consider: “What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability?” The instability outside could easily permeate within- and then what? While the worldwide contingent of Israel bashers would raise their hands and say, “Whoops, sorry guys, our mistake” (or at least we’d like to hope so), it would be Israel that would be left dealing with the insufferable consequences. Netanyahu understands this and does not try mitigating it with consoling rhetoric. He understands too that he has an obligation to protect his people and to shield those who value freedom by wielding the sword of truth. He is not a fear-monger but a truth-teller. He has assumed the role of leader of the free world because of his audacity and his boldness– or, rather, because of his unwillingness to wait until it is too late. He knows that Israel will inevitably have to end up cleaning up the mess that the rest of the world, up until this point, has ignored.

Lastly, let us look at why Netanyahu has been branded such a controversial figure on the world stage. First and foremost, it is because he has been forced into saying what other politicians are too reluctant to say. He is the one who rises in international forums to speak about matters that are frightening in an upfront manner. Matters that, quite simply, many people do not like hearing. For this reason, he has been classified as an alarmist. In addition to this, Netanyahu is an unapologetic Zionist. He believes wholly and sincerely that Jews have a right to their historic homeland and he does not play the appeasement game. Netanyahu is less concerned with accommodation than he is with national preservation. The tragic fact is that people hate the Jews and, thus, they axiomatically hate the Jewish homeland. They always have and, sadly, it seems they always will. They will jump on any materializing, fabricated bandwagon to thump Netanyahu. Even if they are not familiar with his policies, they are cognizant of what he stands for- Israel- and that is enough reason for them to hate and defame him. Finally, Netanyahu can be used as the archetypal scapegoat. Instead of dealing with substantive issues, issues that are important and require the publics’ awareness, effort is pumped into generating controversies that take centre-stage instead. Obama has had great success in using Netanyahu to detract from some core issues by igniting petty scandals that captivate the world’s attention. Why do people care so much about one man and his day-to-day going-ons? Because he is a proud Jew and a robust Zionist. Why does every single disagreement between Netanyahu and another state premier turn into a full-blown controversy? Because it implicates the Jewish Homeland’s leader. It has worked magnificently to date to instigate some petty impasse that then obtains all the news coverage while the really pertinent stuff is shoved to the side.

But let us be clear: Netanyahu is a modern-day warrior who has made it his personal prerogative and responsibility to protect and perpetuate the Jewish people. You may disagree with some of his policies; I certainly do. You have the right to criticize some of his tactics. You can object to some of his principles and reject some of his propositions. But to hate the man for his love of Israel is to hate Israel is to hate Jews. End of story.