Kerry’s ‘Apartheid’ Comment Angers Israel Supporters


John Kerry, not exactly a master diplomat, has managed to get Israel and its supporters angry at the Obama Administration, yet again.

This time, Kerry warned a roomful of world leaders at the Trilateral Commission that if Israel doesn’t reach peace with the Palestinians soon, it will become an “apartheid state” like South Africa.

But the Man Who Served in Vietnam didn’t stop there. He also said that failure of peace talks would lead to resumption of Palestinian violence against Israel, then he blamed both sides for the failure of talks, said that a change in Israeli or Palestinian leadership would help, then he got on Israel’s case about settlements.

And he topped all that off by saying he might soon come up with his own plan and force both sides to “take it or leave it.”

Predictably, Mr. Tact has drawn the ire of Israel’s leaders and several Republicans who called for a public apology.

Sen. Ted Cruz took to the Senate floor and demanded that Kerry resign.

There is no place for this word in the context of the state of Israel,” Cruz said. “The term ‘apartheid,’ means ‘apart, different, isolated.’ The state of the victims of apartheid with which the Jews are tragically all too familiar.”

Kerry no doubt was expressing frustration at his lack of progress in bringing about a peace that has failed to materialize for decades. Kerry was always a poor choice for secretary of state and only won the job because of his ties to the Obama camp. After all, it was Kerry’s decision to go along with introducing Barack Obama to the world at the 2004 Democratic convention that gave the future shoe-in his first true national exposure.

But Kerry suffers from a common liberal illness in that he always believes that he is the first to try something and the best one to accomplish it, experience notwithstanding. I believe Kerry genuinely doesn’t understand that far better men than he have attempted to crack the Mideast nut and failed.

Because of his particular liberal views, his failure must be blamed on someone else, and he is retreating to what he and the Democratic Party know best — attack Israel.

The talks broke down last week after Israel walked out — because the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas decided to form a coalition government with Hamas, which promptly came out and said it would not renounce violence and would never recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Obviously, the Israelis were being unreasonable again.

I’ve watched this Mideast song and dance for my whole life, and it’s always the same routine. The U.S. gets Israeli and Palestinian representatives together, Israel demands that Palestinians stop killing their people, the Palestinians demand that Israel ceases to exist and a few dozen other specific demands — whatever tickles the mullahs’ fancy that week. The U.S. goes out of its way to try to make the Palestinians happy, persuading Israel to make multiple concessions along the way. The Palestinians give nothing. When, as occasionally happens, the Palestinians run out of ideas for new demands long enough that their entire list can actually be checked off, then they find an excuse — the busboy used his left hand to set the cheese platter on the buffet table, or something equally earth-shaking — then they storm out of the talks and begin lobbing rockets and grenades at Israel again until the next round of “peace” talks.

And then Israel gets blamed.

It’s a game. The Israelis have on occasion played it as well, but by far the largest mass of hot air contributing to the perpetual whirlwind in the Mideast is from the Palestinian side.

Don’t believe it? Think Israel is picking on the poor little Palestinians just because? Let’s play a little thought game, then. Suppose Palestine disappeared tomorrow — they were offered a country in Iran and they all moved or something. What would happen? Israel would be secure. It would probably claim some of the empty territory to help make sure it stayed secure. And that’s it. Without the constant strain of having to fight a generations-long insurgency, Israel could turn its attention toward other matters, such as scientific research, manufacturing, developing a leadership role as a voice for democracy and generally making itself into a light for the world.

Now suppose Israel disappeared? The Palestinians would waste no time taking over all the territory, especially Jerusalem. They would bulldoze every synagogue and church in sight, no matter how historic, replace them with mosques and impose sharia law. With no more Israel to kick around, the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world could turn their full attention to conquering the U.S., Europe and every Westernized country, following Mohammed’s plan for world domination by the sword. Hard-line Islamists would be undistracted and free to spread their bloodlust to countries across the globe.

Cruz is right. Kerry needs to resign, and the Obama Administration needs to reassess its priorities.

Previous Can You Pass this 10-Question Citizenship Test and Spot the Mistake?
Next Should there be a Statute of Limitations on Sexual Abuse Crimes?

Comment