But one meeting in particular stands out. I was in Jerusalem and had a meeting scheduled for the next day with the prime minister. The American ambassador (appointed by Obama) told me that he insisted on joining us in the meeting. I told him no, he wasn’t invited. He responded by threatening to pull my security.
This was obviously a bluff. It was clear that then-Secretary of State John Kerry had told him that under no circumstances should I be allowed to meet alone with Netanyahu. So I replied, “Fine, pull my security. We’ll hire private security within the hour. You’re still not invited to the meeting.”
The confrontation had an almost comical element to it. The two of us were standing outside the Knesset (the Israeli parliament), literally bumping chests. Inevitably, he backed down.
The next day, I met privately with Netanyahu in his personal office. We smoked Cuban cigars—Montecristos, a personal favorite—and spent over an hour talking about Israel, America, national security, and geopolitics. It was surreal, and I felt remarkably blessed to be friends with such an extraordinary leader.
But, in my most recent meeting with Bibi (as he’s called), we returned to the ICC. He was in Washington in early 2020, and the two of us had breakfast together at Blair House (the White House guest house where he was staying). At the meeting, Netanyahu suggested a strategy: try to get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution that the ICC cannot proceed against citizens of any nation that is not a party to the Rome Statute (which created the ICC).
This would benefit Israel and the United States. To get through, it would take the agreement of all five permanent members of the Security Council. Russia and China, Bibi reasoned, might well agree because they don’t want to be hauled before the ICC. And France and the United Kingdom might agree if the U.S. really pressed them.
And, if the Security Council passed that resolution, it couldn’t be undone without another Security Council resolution—which any of the five could veto. Essentially, it would reverse the default.
One of the things I admire most about Prime Minister Netanyahu is how strategic he is, and, at the time of writing, I’m pressing hard to carry out his plan. If we succeed, it will be a kind of jujitsu: using the rules of a transnational institution against another transnational institution to protect our sovereignty from outside assaults.
Regardless of whether this particular effort is successful, the continued onslaught against sovereignty will continue. From the United Nations, the World Court, and the ICC. From today’s increasingly radicalized Democratic Party. And, when it comes to defending our sovereignty at the Supreme Court today, we’re just one vote away.
CHAPTER 5
ABORTION AND GONZALES V. CARHART
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court and judicial nominations fundamentally changed, and the character of our electoral democracy was profoundly altered.
Under our constitutional system, most public policy issues are left to elected legislators. And for nearly 200 years, that was the case with abortion laws, as well. For two centuries, each of the state legislatures decided what laws would govern the practice of abortion in their states. As a result, state laws varied as different legislatures and electorates came to different determinations about the appropriate standard.
But in the decision of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decreed that the people no longer had that authority. Abortion is a deeply personal issue on which passions run high. Many who favor a legal right to abortion are deeply committed to that proposition. And many who favor the robust protection of unborn children are every bit as fervent.
Our constitutional system allows for differing views to play out through the democratic process. But the Supreme Court determined that somehow abortion was different. One will scour the Constitution in vain trying to find any reference at all to abortion. The word is found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and yet, in the Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Blackmun, this brand-new constitutional right was created out of whole cloth.
At the time Roe was handed down, many liberal-leaning states across America were already in the process of expanding access to abortion. A national conversation was playing out in real-time. To borrow Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous formulation, the states were properly serving their constitutional roles as our “laboratories of democracy.” But the Court short-circuited that profoundly important debate by fabricating this newfound constitutional right in Roe. Rather than dousing the flames, the Court’s ruling poured gasoline on the fire. In the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself a lifelong advocate of expanded access to abortion, the Court’s decision in Roe “seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change.”
When it comes to the right to life, I am deeply and unequivocally pro-life. I believe that every child is an incredible gift from God and should be protected in law. For many Americans, being pro-life is a reflection of their religious faith. For observant Jews or faithful Christians, there is a strong scriptural foundation for protecting the innocent lives of unborn children. For example, Jeremiah 1:5 declares: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.…” And Psalms 139:13–16 tells us,
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained
