Posted on 04/29/2014 8:57:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
Anti-Semitism is not a simple bigotry. It is a complex neurosis. It involves assigning malign intent to Jews where none exists on the one hand, and rejecting reason as a basis for understanding the world and operating within it on the other hand.
John Kerry’s recent use of the term “Apartheid” in reference to Israel’s future was an anti-Semitic act.
In remarks before the Trilateral Commission a few days after PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, Kerry said that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.”
Leave aside the fact that Kerry’s scenarios are based on phony demographic data. As I demonstrate in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, Israel will maintain a strong and growing Jewish majority in a “unitary state” that includes the territory within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria. But even if Kerry’s fictional data were correct, the only “Apartheid state” that has any chance of emerging is the Palestinian state that Kerry claims Israel’s survival depends on. The Palestinians demand that the territory that would comprise their state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it.
In other words, the future leaders of that state – from the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike — are so imbued with genocidal Jew hatred that they insist that all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly ejected from their homes. These Jewish towns, cities and neighborhoods must all be emptied before the Palestinians whose cause Kerry so wildly champions will even agree to set up their Apartheid state.
According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not of outcome. It is the malign intent of the Palestinians –across their political and ideological spectrum — to found a state predicated on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing. In stark contrast, no potential Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.
By ignoring the fact that every Palestinian leader views Jews as a contaminant that must be blotted out from the territory the Palestinians seek to control, (before they will even agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it), while attributing to Jews malicious intent towards the Palestinians that no Israeli Jewish politician with a chance of leading the country harbors, Kerry is adopting a full-throated and comprehensive anti-Semitic position.
It is both untethered from reason and libelous of Jews.
Speaking to the Daily Beast about Kerry’s remarks on Sunday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was quick to use the “some of his best friends are Jewish,” defense.
In her words, “Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister [Tzipi] Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers [Ehud] Olmert and [Ehud] Barak, was reiterating why there’s no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish state. He was talking about the kind of future Israel wants.”
So in order to justify his own anti-Semitism – and sell it to the American Jewish community – Kerry is engaging in vulgar partisan interference in the internal politics of another country. Indeed, Kerry went so far as to hint that if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is forced from power, and Kerry’s Jewish best friends replace him, then things will be wonderful. In his words, if “there is a change of government or a change of heart, something will happen.” By inserting himself directly into the Israeli political arena, Kerry is working from his mediator Martin Indyk’s playbook.
Since his tenure as US ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, Indyk has played fast and dirty in Israeli politics, actively recruiting Israelis to influence Israeli public opinion to favor the Left while castigating non-leftist politicians and regular Israeli citizens as evil, stupid and destructive.
Livni, Olmert, Barak and others probably don’t share Kerry’s anti-Semitic sensitivities. Although their behavior enables foreigners like Kerry to embrace anti-Semitic positions, their actions are most likely informed by their egotistical obsessions with power. Livni, Olmert and Barak demonize their political opponents because the facts do not support their policies. The only card they have to play is the politics of personal destruction. And so they use it over and over again.
This worked in the past. That is why Olmert and Barak were able to form coalition governments. But the cumulative effects of the Palestinian terror war that began after Israel offered the PLO statehood at Camp David in 2000, the failure of the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, and the 2006 war with Lebanon have brought about a situation where the Israeli public is no longer willing to buy what the Left is selling.
Realizing this, Barak, Livni and others have based their claim to political power on their favored status in the US. In Netanyahu’s previous government, Barak parlayed the support he received from the Obama administration into his senior position as Defense Minister. Today, Livni’s position as Justice Minister and chief negotiator with the PLO owes entirely to the support she receives from the Obama administration.
Neither Barak nor Livni ever lost sight of the cause for their political elevation, despite their electoral defeats.
Like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government, today Livni provides Kerry and Indyk with “Israeli” cover for their anti-Israeli policies. And working with Kerry and Indyk, she is able to force herself and her popularly rejected policies on the elected government.
Livni – again, like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government – has been able to hold her senior government position and exert influence over government policy by claiming that only her presence in the government is keeping the US at bay. According to this line of thinking, without her partnership, the Obama administration will turn on Israel.
Now that Kerry has given a full throated endorsement of anti-Semitic demagoguery, Livni’s leverage is vastly diminished. Since Kerry’s anti-Semitic statements show that Livni has failed to shield Israel from the Obama administration’s hostility, the rationale for her continued inclusion in the government has disappeared.
The same goes for the Obama administration’s favorite American Jewish group J Street. Since its formation in the lead up to the 2008 Presidential elections, J Street has served as the Obama administration’s chief supporter in the US Jewish community. J Street uses rhetorical devices that were relevant to the political realities of the 1990s to claim that it is both “pro-peace and pro-Israel.” Twenty years into the failed peace process, for Israeli ears at least, these slogans ring hollow.
But the real problem with J Street’s claim isn’t that its rhetoric is irrelevant. The real problem is that its rhetoric is deceptive.
J Street’s record has nothing to do with either supporting Israel or peace. Rather it has a record of continuous anti-Israel agitation. J Street has continuously provided American Jewish cover for the administration’s anti-Israel actions by calling for it to take even more extreme actions. These have included calling for the administration to support an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council, and opposing sanctions against Iran for its illicit nuclear weapons program. J Street has embraced the PLO’s newest unity pact with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And now it is defending Kerry for engaging in rank anti-Semitism with his “Apartheid” remarks.
J Street’s political action committee campaigns to defeat pro-Israel members of Congress. And its campus operation brings speakers to US university campuses that slander Israel and the IDF and call for the divestment of university campuses from businesses owned by Israelis.
On Wednesday, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is set to vote on J Street’s application to join the umbrella group as a “pro-peace, pro-Israel” organization.
Kerry’s “Apartheid” remarks are a watershed event. They represent the first time a sitting US Secretary of State has publically endorsed an anti-Semitic caricature of Jews and the Jewish state.
The best response that both the Israeli government and the Jewish community can give to Kerry’s act of unprecedented hostility and bigotry is to reject his Jewish enablers. Livni should be shown the door. And the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations should reject J Street’s bid for membership.
I’m sure the self hating progressive types in places like Brooklyn agree with John ‘Effin’ Kerry(who served in Vietnam and Christmased in Cambodia)
Jewish best friends...
Come on in here Ethel. The buffoons is trying to hoodwink us again.
Just because Arab Muslims have practiced and still practice forms of apartheid themselves doesn’t mean the Israelis don’t. They clearly do, especially in the occupied territories, or conquered territories, however you term them.
So Kerry rang the racist bell, using the word “apartheid.” It’s what liberals do. It doesn’t mean the targets have to take the bait, and it doesn’t mean he’s an anti-Semite - he’s just an idiot who doesn’t see that “apartheid” is a policy that Israel finds essential to its survival, and will continue to practice in defiance of criticism.
Ironically, Kerry is himself Jewish, his grandfather’s name was Fritz Kahn, and the “Kerry” moniker is made up.
Don’t blame Kerry, he is just implementing the anti-Jew policies of president Obama that are enabling another Holocaust.
American Jews share on the blame; most of them voted for Obama and always vote for Democrats as zombies in spite that FDR closed the doors of United States to the Jews who tried to flee from Nazi occupied Europe during the Holocaust. Remember the SS Saint Louis!!!
That is the way the Devil pays those who serve him well.
WHY AMERICAN JEWS VOTE SO LIBERAL & WHY THEY SHOULDN’T
israelmuse ^ | September 4, 2010
By Dr. Norman Berdichevsky:
Jewish Liberalism is an inherited disease, it is not incurable
Time and time again, I read in websites and blogs around the internet the question and puzzling paradox posed by Gentiles who strongly support Israel, how can it be that so many Jews continue to blindly vote for ultra-liberal causes that are inherently ultra-critical of Israel and even subliminally of Jews.
The rest of the history...
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/27296
Don’t blame Kerry, he is just implementing the anti-Jew policies of president Obama that are enabling another Holocaust.
American Jews share on the blame; most of them voted for Obama and always vote for Democrats as zombies in spite that FDR closed the doors of United States to the Jews who tried to flee from Nazi occupied Europe during the Holocaust. Remember the SS Saint Louis!!!
That is the way the Devil pays those who serve him well.
WHY AMERICAN JEWS VOTE SO LIBERAL & WHY THEY SHOULDN’T
israelmuse ^ | September 4, 2010
By Dr. Norman Berdichevsky:
Jewish Liberalism is an inherited disease, it is not incurable
Time and time again, I read in websites and blogs around the internet the question and puzzling paradox posed by Gentiles who strongly support Israel, how can it be that so many Jews continue to blindly vote for ultra-liberal causes that are inherently ultra-critical of Israel and even subliminally of Jews.
The rest of the history...
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/27296
So Kerry talks of apartheid and Israel, big deal, the Jewish vote will still go RAT....they never get it.
Any Jews in America that support Obama/Kerry are traitors to both America & Israel & God himself. Obama is a total “closet” Jew hater!!! Obama is Satan’s hand maiden!!! End of story!!!
“They clearly do, especially in the occupied territories, or conquered territories, however you term them.”
I don’t see how. I suppose I don’t understand your definition of apartheid. To me, it’s government-mandated separation of people by race. Notwithstanding that “race” is not a relevant factor in the Middle East, the Israelis attempt to do the opposite in the territories, and are murderously opposed for doing so.
Arabs in the occupied territories cannot move freely in Israel. They have special identity cards and must go through checkpoints. Those are legal issues.
Then there are the economic issues. The Arab areas are economically depressed compared to Israel. Many Arabs travel to work in Israel, having to go through checkpoints.
While Arabs of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were offered citizenship after those territories were annnexed, I don’t believe the Arabs of the West Bank were offered citizenship. The West Bank is divided into Palestinian adminstration and Jewish-owned areas.
There are certainly parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa. “Apartheid” is a morally-loaded word but it is a natural policy where a powerful minority prevails amid hostility. It doesn’t have to be defined in strictly racial terms.
I can’t WAIT to go on vacation to Israel some day. I’ll plunk down a lot of money for tours and beers at the beach. Take in the sights. Odd how we never hear about the Israeli Arabs and muslims that live there and love it.
> John Kerry’s recent use of the term “Apartheid” in reference to Israel’s future was an anti-Semitic act.
Thanks Kaslin.
“Anti-Semitism is not a simple bigotry. It is a complex neurosis. It involves assigning malign intent to Jews where none exists on the one hand, and rejecting reason as a basis for understanding the world and operating within it on the other hand.”
Keep this in mind when considering the neurotic anti-semitic obsession of groups like the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam, and their apparent influence on the values and principles of Obama and Holder.
Before Kerry lamely attempts to manipulate Israeli politics he should remember (1) That most Israelis are smarter than Kerry (2) More than one person can play that game.
“While Arabs of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were offered citizenship after those territories were annnexed, I don’t believe the Arabs of the West Bank were offered citizenship. The West Bank is divided into Palestinian adminstration and Jewish-owned areas.”
That does give me some insight into Kerry’s assertions. The Arabs there, though, appear to endorse this “apartheid” in an aggressive fashion. Israel theoretically could escape this dreaded apartheid label by ceding the West Bank (minus East Jerusalem) to the Arabs. But the few hundred thousand Jews there would consequently be disgorged or buried without any international ado, and it would still be the Israel that is labelled “apartheid”.
Norman Finkelstein, Mordecai Rumkowski, the Neturei Karta...
You are way over the top. I think israel has the right to defend its borders and the survival of its people. I don’t believe in “the right to return”. I don’t think survival has to be pretty or polite. I think muslim arabs are generally savage and untrustworthy especially when it comes to jews.
Otoh, the land of palestine was only 10% jewish after ww1 and if you believe in the right of the conquering british to parcel it out then you ought to believe in the right of every conquerer over the centuries to do as they see fit. I don’t think a moral claim to lost land holds after 4 centuries let alone 19, or I’d be taking a boat back over the Atlantic.
But it’s not only arabs who would harbor a sense of grievance about the purchases and politicking and war that displaced them. They didn’t like the ottomans either but at least they were the right religion.
I don’t have to love israel or think its creation was divine or moral to believe that it has the right to survive. Good enough for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.