John Kerry commented Wednesday on Israel’s rejection of a two-state solution. “If the choice is one state,” Kerry said, “Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.” Kerry was attempting to defend the U.S. decision not to veto a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements in “occupied territory.” Listening to Kerry’s statement, I had to shake my head in disbelief. The U.S. Secretary of State has argued that you can’t be Jewish and democratic. The two are mutually exclusive. I still don’t believe he said it.
If Donald Trump had issued a similar statement, the liberal press would be slapping the anti-Semite charge all over his backside. But Trump didn’t say it. Kerry did. Where is the outrage from the mainstream media? The New York Times reacted as though it never happened. “It is unclear,” said the Times, “what Mr. Kerry hopes to achieve from the speech.” Unclear? Are they joking? Bear in mind that Kerry’s speech comes only three weeks before Trump takes over. It sure is a classy way to promote a peaceful transition to the new administration, Mr. Obama.
Exposing the truth, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Kerry’s speech “barely touched upon the root of the conflict—Palestinian opposition to a Jewish state in any boundaries.” The Palestinians, along with their Islamic allies in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., want nothing less than the destruction of Israel. They are not interested in peace. Their goal is extermination. What Kerry and his boss Obama are advocating is a Palestinian terrorist state right next to Israel. Anything less, says Kerry, would be undemocratic. Are we supposed to take this seriously?
The implication of Kerry’s speech is that an Islamic country can deny human rights and at the same time be democratic. No problem there. “Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem,” wrote Andrew McCarthy in the National Review. That kind of pressure is reserved for Israel. The bottom line, said McCarthy, is that Kerry and Obama refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians “would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror.”
Adding insult to injury, Kerry alleged that, “No American administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s.” This is an outright lie. “From lifting sanctions on Iran to calling for Israel to return to its indefensible 1967 borders,” said the Washington Times, “Mr. Obama has spent the past seven years betraying America’s treasured friend.”
Why is Israel always singled out for criticism? Why doesn’t Kerry acknowledge that Muslim countries are the biggest abusers of human rights on the planet? One answer is that Barack Obama’s sympathies—and those of the U.N.—are aligned with Muslim interests. As former CIA officer and political strategist Clare Lopez has pointed out, Obama’s policies with respect to the Islamic world have favored our enemies and undermined our allies. It is therefore reasonable to ask the question: Whose side is he on?
Another plausible answer is that picking on the little guy is so much easier. Israel’s offense is that it is small. If the population of Israel was the same as Egypt’s—80 million—it would be more difficult to slander. If Israel was surrounded by a dozen Jewish states, the U.N. would be drafting a very different sort of resolution. Unfortunately, the U.N. has become a toy of the Muslim world and—until January 20th—so has the U.S. government.
Copyright © 2016 Ed Brodow. All rights reserved.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
Send this to friend