I voted for John Kerry for president of the United States in 2004.
Of course, I also voted for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and the current resident of Pennsylvania Avenue.
In the past Kerry has suggested that unless Israel does what he wants – which apparently is to stop the building of second bathrooms in Jewish homes in the eastern section of Jerusalem – then the country will likely face delegitimization and BDS “on steroids.”
We were to understand that this did not represent a threat, but merely a description of what Israel would likely face if it did not heed Kerry’s warnings, although it is entirely unclear what the Jews are supposed to do beyond releasing our murderers and cease building housing for ourselves and our children on historically Jewish land.
Many people took it as a veiled threat because it screams out like a veiled threat and acts as a green light for the Nazi-like BDS movement within the European Union and American college campuses. If it was not a veiled threat then it clearly represents diplomatic stupidity. We cannot read John Kerry’s mind. We do not know what he was thinking when he said what he said. All we know is that he said it. Now, if he said it with the intention to threaten then he said it with the intention to threaten. If he did not say it with the intention to threaten, then just why did he say it?
Are we supposed to believe that the current Secretary of State of the United States is just plain dumb?
I find that rather hard to imagine.
And now we have Kerry’s “apartheid” hoopla.
Elior Levy and Yitzhak Benhorin write in Y-Net:
After a day of outraged responses, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that he had chosen the wrong word when describing Israel’s potential future as an “apartheid state” if it didn’t reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.
In a statement released by the State Department, Kerry lashed out against “partisan political” attacks against him, but acknowledged his comments last week to a closed international forum could have been misinterpreted.
He thinks that his words could have been “misinterpreted”?
What part of the word “apartheid” are we supposed to misunderstand, I wonder?
By following Jimmy Carter’s slander, Kerry has yet again busted out with a veiled threat.
By suggesting that Israel will become an “apartheid” state unless it acquiesces to an American diktat, he essentially threatened that, like apartheid South Africa, Israel will be dismantled by the world community.
The Obama administration, however, wants us to think that Kerry has foot-in-mouth disease.
I am not so sure.
From the comments:
3. Political correctness + decent manners means
choosing your words beforehand. But, If I was a barometer of character, I would say that Kerry’s spontaneous choice of words are true to his character.
barbara , Haifa Israel (04.29.14)
I have to agree with barbara in Haifa and I very much wish that I was in Haifa right at this moment!
The man is the Secretary of State of the United States of America. He is the chief diplomat of the United States of America, and yet he flings around horrendous implied accusations toward the small Jewish minority in the Middle East within the State of Israel and then insists that he was misunderstood.
So, the question remains, is it stupidity or intent?
11. To: No. 6
Amen! We did not ask for war in 1967, but the Arabs waged it — and lost. Time for them to accept the consequences. Israel will annex Judea and Samaria and its Arab population will be either repatriated to Jordan, or relocated to Gaza. War is not a picnic. And we should not reward those who wage it. West Bank Arabs will never be absorbed into the Israeli body politic; it is time, as you say, for them to move on.
Sarah B, U.S.A. / Israel (04.29.14)
For those of you who actually read the comments beneath Y-Net articles, the name “Sarah B” may not be entirely unfamiliar. I actually like Sarah. She doesn’t play games. She says exactly what she thinks. And she is not trying to make nice with people who have no intention whatsoever of making nice with her.
Agree with her or disagree with her, the woman has integrity.
16. How strange….
…..that it is always a denouncement of the only ones who truly strive for peace, Israel, and never of the palestinian-arabs who have no inclination too compromise, keep no agreement they ever signed and celebrate terrorism and deceit.
mindRider, The Free World (04.29.14)
And that, my friends, speaks for itself.
Michael Lumish is the editor of Israel Thrives.