Posted on 07/29/2014 4:55:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Let’s concede for a moment that most of us don’t believe the United States should be taking sides in conflicts abroad. Even so, most Americans would probably agree that at a minimum our diplomatic efforts should not cause unnecessary harm. Which brings me to Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent misadventure in the Middle East.
It seems like a rather big deal that Egypt, Israel, Fatah, Jordan, Saudi Arabia—ostensibly, all allies of ours—agree on anything. This development, one imagines, might be something the United States would be interested in fostering rather than destroying. Certainly, the idea that Hamas’ power should be neutralized and the influence of the “moderate” Palestinian authority expanded, sounds like a plan worth pursuing.
Or so you would think. But instead, it looks like Kerry ignored an Egyptian-led ceasefire effort and handed Israelis a document that offered them this:
•Rather than empowering Fatah, it recognizes Hamas as the legitimate authority in the Gaza Strip, although it’s considered a terrorist organization by the Justice Department and an entity that’s founding principle and driving purpose is to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.
•Rather than choking off this organization’s lifeline, the agreement would have allowed them to collect billions in ‘charity’ that would be been able to use to rearm, retrench, and re-engage in hostilities.
•And all the while, it would have made no demands on Hamas to purge itself of rockets, or tunnels, or other weaponry that destabilizes the area—while at the same, the ceasefire would have limited Israel’s ability to take them out. (Update: This final point is disputed by U.S. officials.)
Hamas would have conceded nothing. No nation would have accepted such terms, not after what’s transpired, and naturally it was rejected unanimously by an Israeli cabinet that includes the ideological left, center, and right. Not only did the proposal irritate Israel—a nation often accused of warmongering for kicks—but it also upset Egypt and the Palestinian Authority.
All of which, one presumes, a seasoned statesman like Kerry should have foreseen. So why did Kerry offer a proposal driven by Qatar and Turkey, two of Hamas’ allies and Israel’s antagonists? Qatar not only funds one of the leading anti-Israel propaganda outfits on the planet, Al Jazeera, but it is also, according to Shimon Peres—hardly a warmongering Likudnik—the “world’s largest funder of terror due to its financial support for Hamas in Gaza.” And Turkey, which often sounds like some well-known Progressive Twitter accounts, recently accused the Jews of committing genocide, called Israel a “terror state,” and compared Netanyahu to Hitler.
Though we’ve often pressured Israel to shorten these kinds of operations, only a historian would be able to come up with an instances of the United States pressuring Israel to accept such a lousy agreement. So naturally, the Israeli press, including left-wing newspapers like Haaretz, went after Kerry pretty hard. The United States, according to reports, believes that Israeli officials had misrepresented the deal. And the Obama administration pushed back yesterday. “It’s simply not the way partners and allies treat each other,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who seems to think Israel has a state-controlled media.
But, according to nearly every news report, Kerry was the one who brought Turkey and Qatar into the mix. And it is undeniable that Kerry went to Paris immediately after negotiations collapsed and met with officials from Turkey and Qatar to discuss a potential cease-fire in the Gaza. Kerry did not meet with Egypt, nor the Palestinian Authority, nor Israel. That seems odd—inexplicable, even—but it certainly lends credence to Israeli media accounts.
David Ignatius at the Washington Post argues that “Kerry’s mistake isn’t any bias against Israel but rather a bias in favor of an executable, short-term deal.” But it’s conceivable that both of those factors played a part. As a political consideration, the administration would have benefitted from a short-term deal. Perhaps because of tragic loss of life, the United States would rather see a ceasefire than Hamas dealt a mortal blow. And that is almost certainly one of the reasons Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields.
It is worth remembering that Kerry, who is rightly considered a longtime ally of Israel, has changed his tone considerably since joining the administration. He’s accused Israel of being a few short steps removed from “apartheid,” he peddled the myth of Israel’s imminent demographic demise, and he was conveniently caught on a hot mic sarcastically dismissing Israel’s pinpoint strikes, and insinuating that he, John Kerry, was not invited to embark on a ceasefire talks because Israel was buying time to finish off Hamas. (If that’s Israel’s goal, they should have invited Kerry earlier.)
But maybe the United States doesn’t want to take sides anymore. Maybe the Obama administration’s recent dealings in the Middle East reflect this attitude. Maybe Kerry’s actions weren’t a mistake but an attempt to show Israel’s enemies that we can be even-handed. Because we either have an incompetent Secretary of State or a momentous shift in Middle East policy. Either way, Kerry’s actions have created a bigger mess.
Kerry was a strong supporter of Israel, now he is undermining Israel at every turn.
Another liberal with no core values, no moral compass and no spine.
I think someone nailed one foot to the floor - explains why he’s going in circles ...
What is the term they used to describe Israel having or using more powerful forces than Hamas?
These politicians need to understand that the best way to being a real peace is for one side to win
Kerry serves at the pleasure of the President.
It pleasures Barry to see the wreckage.
No THAT’S someone who needs to go play more golf. (Kerry)
Boy she looks like some kind of lizard.
She should be standing in a corn field scaring away crows.
“I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.”
Yeah. And I just let my dog to do his “duty.”
Where "here" and "there" are is left to the imagination of the reader.
just trying to kill some time away from teresa, i’d guess.
Helping to SABOTAGE America's foreign policy, what else? Name ONE instance in the past 5 years when team 0bama's foreign policy has worked in favor of America's BEST INTEREST?
Who’s that strange looking guy in the middle?
No one - NO ONE - is that stupid. Not our queer pResident and not old horse-face. No, this is by design. It is VERY purposeful.
May Heaven have mercy on this country, because if we experience justice then we’re screwed.
In our all inclusive cabinet, Kerry is the special needs secretary. (With my apologies to all people of special needs.) You can’t take him serious, but neither can you tell him to f -off, like you want to.
Whatever the homosexual Mulsoid in the White Hut tells him to do.
If he’d betray his own country over the Vietnam war, why is it so surprising he’d betray Israel?
Agree. A caller on Hannity’s show, today, said something similar...that Kerry has NO business holding ANY government position.
Kerry and Obama work for Hamas, they prove it every day.
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.