Writing opinion columns (or blogs), let’s be honest, is not rocket science. Many such writers are bright men and women, but only one that I know of has a background that makes me stop short for sheer intellectual firepower and that is Charles Krauthammer. I admit that I pay special attention to what he writes, give it extra weight.
Krauthammer has a column this morning that is getting a lot of attention in the blogosphere and elsewhere. In it, he contends that the essence of Kerry’s so far exceptionally vague Middle East “plan” is the sacrifice of Israel. That is the lever by which Kerry will achieve his vaunted international coalition. In Krauthammer’s words:
Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?
The answer is obvious: Israel.
The “road map” would be back in spades with a fake negotiated settlement being proposed at every turn. Ironically, it was Clinton and his team that finally exposed the bankruptcy of this policy at Camp David when it became clear that the Palestinian Authority under Arafat had no real interest in a two-state solution, only in a one-state solution. Returning to this policy helps no one, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians who are not encouraged to face the reality of their situation and improve it. Only Arafat and his kleptocrat cohorts profit. And, of course, the Euros who get to act out their weird/sick justification of their treatment of the Jews that Ron Rosenbaum so aptly described a while back.
There is a lot to be said about all this, including Kerry’s peculiar denial of his own background (Where does that fit in?), but I will stop and allow commenters to take over. Have at it.
Roger:
I don’t know if it is good or bad or indifferent but once again I am first up to bat.
I, too pay attention to Charles Krauthammer on most issues, but especially this one.
I have wonderd the same thing myself. Either the plan Kerry refers to does not exist or he does not feel comfortable discussing it with the voters.
I have no idea how we are to win the hearts of the anti semitic European mobs and the maniacal Arab League as well as the corrupt factions in the UN if we do not abandon Israel. We can either play into their bizarre prejudice or stand against it. I think Charles is right, Kerry intends to cave.
The Jewish Press, largest independent Jewish weekly, endorses Bush:
George W. Bush For President
It was George W. Bushís lot to have been elected president at a time when two defining developments were at work, fundamentally changing the world landscape. The European Unionís burgeoning determination to fill the international political void created by the collapse of the Soviet Union was one. And the unprecedented challenges presented by an international terror crusade on the move óunderscored eight months into Mr. Bushís presidency by 9/11 ó was the other.
Both these developments required ó and will continue to require ó leadership not rooted in outdated geopolitical thinking; leadership cognizant of the reality that our ostensible friends do not necessarily share our interest in a strong United States and that our enemies do not risk as much as we do from confrontations gone seriously bad.
With this in mind, the choice Americans must make on November 2 should be an easy one. One can prattle about the significance of this or that difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry on the environment, Social Security, jobs, taxes and a whole slew of other domestic issues. But that avenue ineluctably ends up as a clash of partisan talking points about inherently insoluble problems. When it comes, however, to the war on terror ó the overarching issue of our time ó the choice of Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry is a clear one from everything available in the public record. And for those with a special interest in Israel, the choice is even clearer.
Although the reality of terrorism was with us well before 9/11, the attacks on that day crystallized for most Americans the awareness that the threat we had been facing for a decade – albeit in a mostly lackadaisical manner ó was very different from those posed by more conventional enemies in our nationís past. No longer could our approach to national security be based upon the defeat, far from our shores, of identifiable enemy states. Sabotage within our borders could no longer be viewed as one-dimensional adjunct criminal acts to be addressed by militarily defeating an offending state and criminally prosecuting the direct perpetrators.
Complicating matters was the unpleasant recognition that, save for Britain, our post-World War II allies were just not interested in facilitating yet another U.S. success, even over a growing Muslim terror threat. After all, went the thinking in European capitals, it was the U.S. that was the direct target, and alienating the Muslim world and its actual and potential markets made little economic sense.
President Bush said in his State of the Union address less than five months after 9/11 that “In a single instant, we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty, that weíve been called to a unique role in human events. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential.”
When the president spoke, he noted that the Taliban had already been routed from Afghanistan, “Yet tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terror, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it….”
As if anticipating future critics who would not grasp that the lack of traditional threats did not matter, or who would find it politically and economically convenient to shrug off seemingly non-imminent danger, he went on to underscore the new reality, summarizing what came to be labeled the Bush doctrine of preemption: “Weíll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer….”
And, almost presciently, he added, “But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.”
In sharp contrast, Senator Kerry seems to see the state of the world much more statically, certainly not in terms of a holy war launched against America. As has been widely noted, when asked recently by a New York Times Magazine interviewer what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he responded, “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but theyíre a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know weíre never going to end prostitution. Weíre never going to end illegal gambling. But weíre going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isnít on the rise. It isnít threatening peopleís lives every day, and fundamentally, itís something that you continue to fight, but itís not threatening the fabric of your life.”
Itís hard to imagine when pre-9/11 terrorism against the United States was a “nuisance,” routine and allowable. Was he referring to the Al Qaeda attacks against our embassies abroad? Our military barracks abroad? The assassinations of our ambassadors? The attack against the USS Cole? What?
In a speech critical of President Bushís war against terror, Senator Kerry pledged to “fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”
More thoughtfulness and more sensitivity will bring our erstwhile allies around? Does Mr. Kerry really believe that longstanding economic and political competition with the U.S. are of no moment and that all that the times require is a president who knows just the right sweet nothings to whisper in the ears of European leaders?
In the aforementioned New York Times Magazine interview, the following revealing colloquy on the post-9/11 world took place between Senator Kerry and his interviewer:
” `We need to engage more directly and more respectfully with Islam, with that state of Islam, with religious leaders, mullahs, imams, clerics, in a way that proves this is not a clash with the British and the Americans and the old forces they remember from the old days,` Kerry told me…`and thatís all about your diplomacy.`
“When I suggested that effecting such changes could take many years, Kerry shook his head vehemently and waved me off. `Yeah it is long term, but it can be dramatically effective in the short term. It really can be. I promise you.` He leaned his head back and slapped his thighs. `A new presidency with the right moves, the right language, the right outreach, the right initiatives, can dramatically alter the worldís perception of us very, very quickly.` ”
Plainly Mr. Kerry thinks there is some magical formula for the effective prosecution of the war against terror that up until now has eluded President Bush. Indeed, as the Times Magazine interviewer said of Mr. Kerryís statement that he is committed to destroying terrorists “effectively”:
“This was a word that Kerry came back to repeatedly in our discussions; he told me he would wage a more `effective` war on terror no less than 18 times in two hours of conversations. The question, of course, was how.”
It should be noted that in the second presidential debate Mr. Kerry stated 23 times, without adding anything more, that he ìhas a plan.î
Is there any question that President Bush can be relied upon to more forcefully prosecute the war on terror?
When it comes to the Middle East, the contrast between the two candidates is even more striking.
In his 2002 State of the Union address, his first international affairs declaration after 9/11, President Bush noted that “Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld ó including groups like Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Haish-I-Mohammadóoperates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.”
Viscerally, the president draws no distinction between international terror and terror directed against Israel. And indeed, the Bush administration has consistently acknowledged Israelís broad right to defend itself against terror, even in the face of claims at the UN that it has overreacted to attacks by Palestinian terrorists.
Moreover, in addition to linking Israelís response to the Intifada with the global war against terror, President Bush groundbreakingly declared that, respecting U.S. policy, there would be no Palestinian “right of return,” since it would mean the end of a Jewish state in Israel, and that Israel had a legitimate claim to substantial portions of the West Bank.
On the other hand, Senator Kerry has spoken of former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker ó both blatantly anti-Israel ó as his choice for emissaries to the Middle East. He has also retained as advisers many of Bill Clintonís discredited Oslo architects and others who have urged moral equivalence between the murder of Israeli women and children and Israelís reaction to terror.
Nor can we forget that Mr. Kerry told an audience at an Anti-Defamation League dinner that he wanted to be an “honest broker” in the Middle East, despite all the political baggage that phrase has assumed and as if there were a moral equivalence between Israel and Palestinian terrorists. Or that Mr. Kerry told an Arab group that the Israeli defense wall ó which has sharply curtailed the murder of Israelis ó was an “impediment” to peace in the region and was “provocative and counterproductive.”
Senator Kerry also called Yasir Arafat a “statesman” and a “role model.” He has said that we must “look to Chairman Arafat to exert much greater leadership.” On “Face the Nation,” he said the Israel-Palestinian conflict is “an extraordinarily complicated, incredibly deep-rooted problemÖ Arafat has forces around him, underneath, close by him that donít want peace, that are working against what he is doing.”
In short, Arafat, according to Kerry, is not the problem ó some around him are. Kerry also stated on “Meet the Press” that “Israelís presence [in Gaza and the West Bank that] puts Israel in difficult circumstances and obviously creates an enormous handle for Osama bin Laden for all the radicals and extremists to hand on to.”
For Kerry, the victims are the problem.
It should be noted that President Bushís commitment to Israel was not merely a function of 9/11. In “The Price of Loyalty,” Paul OíNeill, the former treasury secretary who left the Bush administration on less than friendly terms, reported that on January 30, 2001, just ten days after his inauguration, and well before 9/11, President Bush met with his senior national security team and declared: “Weíre going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. Weíre going to tilt back towards Israel. And weíre going to be consistent. Clinton overreached, and it all fell apart. Thatís why weíre in trouble.”
Secretary of State Powell reportedly objected to this approach, protesting that “such a move might be hasty,” speaking of the “roots” of the violence in the Palestinian areas, and stressing that “a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army” and that “the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians.” President Bush responded: “Maybe thatís the best way to get things back in balance. Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things.”
To our mind, based on their own statements, the imperative of responding to the worldwide terrorist threat, and the particular targeting of Israel, the choice this year is George W. Bush over John F. Kerry.
And this is not even to address Mr. Kerryís shameful creating, out of whole cloth, politically motivated scares over a reinstatement of the military draft and a reduction in Social Security benefits. Mr. Kerryís assertions are totally without foundation, and they put his credibility further into question. He should be ashamed of himself.
All things considered, we all will be better off with George W. Bush as president for the next four years.
This article is dead-on.
It is incredibly disheartening that a man who would be president, bases his foreign policy around demeaning and abandoning our closest allies.
Think about it – Britain- coerced and bribed. Australia, coerced and bribed. Poland, the same. Allawi and his government – puppets of the Bush administration. And now Krauthammer hits on the final nail in the coffin – Israel is Kerry’s bargaining chip. What a sorry state of affairs it is that an American president would use Israel to try to get back into the good graces of France, Germany and those morally bankrupt monkeys at the UN.
An analogy comparing a headstrong yet supportive wife, who you love and can rely on – but instead of clinging to her and making her feel appreciated, you scorn her and waste your time chasing after a woman who may appear more sophisticated and appealing but is cold and demanding and erudite and who you KNOW will turn on you when its in her best interest to do so. Hell, look and listen to Theresa – its not like John Kerry hasn’t picked erudite snobbery before.
If I was a Jew living in Israel, I would have very serious issues with so many Jews in this country voting for Kerry.
I was particularly struck by this in an email to the Kerry Spot (scroll to COULD KERRY’S ISRAEL POLICY SINK HIM WITH JEWISH VOTERS?):
This muddled foolishness reflects Kerry’s sense of politics as desperate theater. Another simply showy idea he proposed (to Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press”) was to insert U.S. troops between Israel and the territories, as part “of some kind of very neutral international effort that began to allow Israel itself to disengage and withdraw.”
Now couple this with the post on Just One Minute blogspot about a proposed “three state” solution to the Iraq situation by none other than Leslie Gelb reported in the NYT last year:
Second and at the same time, draw down American troops in the Sunni Triangle and ask the United Nations to oversee the transition to self-government there. This might take six to nine months; without power and money, the Sunnis may cause trouble.
“For example, they might punish the substantial minorities left in the center, particularly the large Kurdish and Shiite populations in Baghdad. These minorities must have the time and the wherewithal to organize and make their deals, or go either north or south. This would be a messy and dangerous enterprise, but the United States would and should pay for the population movements and protect the process with force.”
Apparently some form of the three state solution is still alive as proposal with the Dems.
So we now have two possible scenarios where US troops “would not die in vain” for a UN sponsored cause. No Mr Kerry, I am afraid they will die in vain and they will die in very large numbers if you have your way. As a supporter of President Bush’s muscular policy in the Mideast I can assure you of this: I will be on the frontlines of ANY antiwar demonstrations if either of these policies are enacted. Furthermore I would be urging our troops to refuse orders. This is insanity pure and simple.
I have many Jewish friends, most of whom will vote for Kerry because not in spite of his hopelessy naive foreign policy. When I argue that the UN has Hamas on its payroll, they shrug and look at me like the benighted fool I apparently am.
There will never be peace in the Middle East in our lifetimes, at best only a controlled state of limited war. Hence, Israel’s development of a security perimeter makes perfect sense, as does our continued financial and military support. It’s clear that the Arab and Palestinian leadership want only dead Jews. Senator Kerry should keep that in mind if he ever gets the chance to make Israel a bargaining chip.
Kerry will say anything to get elected and will no doubt do anything to win world approval, so this theory is quite possible.
BTW beautifulatrocities.com has a very trenchant post on the real meaning behind his Mary Cheney dig.
Absolutely on the target…Chapeau, Charles Krauthammer (Gee, why do I have to use a french word ?). Israel is the 2004 version of 1938 Czechoslovakia, and J.F. Kerry could easily replace Chamberlin. This policy will pass his “Global test”, it’s “more sensitive”, and will buy his Teresa more time to do “real job”.
Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to re-live it…
yadid:
That is a very good comparison.
Hopefully the hardware they bought will have been delivered in full shortly.
Tragically, I’m not convinced that most American Jews in the under-55 age group care that much about Israel. I can see them willing to sell Israel down the river in order to preserve their daughters’ abortion rights and the “guarantee” that their sons won’t be drafted. At least this is the impression I get from my many discussions with fellow Jews in the Philadelphia suburbs. Talk about forgetting history and being condemned to repeat the past. It’s terribly depressing.
Continuing in my quixotic quest to transform my Liberal Jewish friends and family from reflexive liberals to 9/11 conservatives, I e-mailed Krauthammer’s column to all, including the Rabbi of my liberal synagogue. Unfortuantely for Israel and Pres. Bush, it will take another two or three generations for jews to wake up and abandon the anti-semitic and anti-Israel Left once and for all.
The jackals are on the move, via Lucianne:
Five European foreign ministers will be coming to Ramallah soon to attempt to lift the siege on Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath told the Jerusalem-based newspaper al-Quds. Spain will lead the initiative and will also attempt to renew negotiations with Israel with the full participation of Arafat….
It’s not just a plan, it’s a cunning plan.
Roger:
A Kerry administration will be the beginning of the end of the steadfast defense of the state of Israel that has been the centerpiece of most Administrations since the mid sixties. The Democratic Party is slowly being taken over by the intellectual wing that thinks that Israel, not Arafat and the Palestinians, is the biggest threat to a middle east peace.
Most of Europe has already adopted to the Zionism equals racism slur. The far left in America has switched from the two state solution that they pushed for decades to the new one state solution that of course would be the end of the state of Israel. Half of them refer to the entire area as Palestine and by using that name they of course signal their lack of support for a seperate Jewish state and show that they support the eventual dhimmi status that the Jews of the middle east would be reduced to. They have rewarded Arafats refusal to accept any reasonable two state solution by giving him the framework for what he has always wanted, the destruction of Israel. Kerry won’t ever say it, but by looking at who he would appoint to bring his idea of “peace” to the area you can see the beginning of the end for Israel.
Kerry will eventually force Israel into an untennable position. He will knuckle under to the refusal of the Palestinians to accept a solution that would provide Israel security and then will withhold American aid to Israel to blackmail them into signing so he can get a Nobel Peace prize and then witness the destruction of Israel when he is safely out of office.
And sadly this lunatic form of diplomacy will not be the political suicide that it would have been 20 years ago. Any Jew that thinks the Democratic Party will protect Israel is not reading the tea leaves correctly. That party has changed into a weak copy of the European intellectual class and when you see the Israel = Nazi Germany propaganda pouring out of our ancestoral homes you can see whats coming.
“Israel is the 2004 version of 1938 Czechoslovakia…”
Bingo.
Plus, we all know how well the gift of Czechoslovakia sated the appetite of that era’s wolf.
Do you really think that Hamas, et al, would settle down to a bucolic life if they defeated and eliminated Israel? Really, do you?
Or do you think they would merely be emboldened?
Here’s what scary to me. I think that Bush will win and this parade of Kerry horribles will be avoided, but some day the Democrats will get the White House back, be it Hillary in 2008, Obama in 2012 or whatever. Even if Kerry does not get the chance to sell Israel out, one of his successors will.
Because I think it’s relevant, here’s a link to an essay on the cause of anti-sematism (http://www.editorsoffice.de/ME_faust_cause_excuse.htm) I don’t always agree with Faust, and his rhetoric is often grating, but I think in this case he’s hit the nail on the head. If he has, then it won’t stop with Israel, or even with Jews.
But then, I’ve observed for some time that the Left hates Christians too.
Whilst I,ve always thought that selling Israel down the river was on the agenda in Europe and would be a mere bagatelle to a man who could betray his comrades in arm,it is a mistake to think that this is Kerry’s principle bargaining chip.
What Kerry has up his sleeve is American military power,the tribute he will offer up will be to give Kofi Annan the keys to the Pentagon.The UN will then proceed to involve you in endless quagmires as they did in Korea.
It does put Kerry in the awkward position of either responding to it with a real (and different) plan, or letting his silence appear to indicate the “terrible truth”.
I don’t think he has a real plan, just rhetoric, so this may well be a painful blow for him.
Krauthammer is notable for his ability to come up with crackpot theories with little to no evidence. This latest column is just scaremongering of the basest sort directed at American Jews who care deeply about Israel.
Name one prominent Kerry team person who would seriously think about throwing Israel to the “wolves” (as the new, strangely funny BC04 ad puts it).
Krauthammer is the same guy who keeps on accusing various Democrats and leftists of being crazy, in his medical professional opinion, despite never having examined them.
This is the guy whose opinion you respect?
“This is the guy whose opinion you respect?”
Certainly much more than the opinion of someone showing up and making ad hominem assertions without cites to back them up. Dr. Krauthammers piece on BDS described the symptoms without once alluding to a particular individual. Your assertion concerning “accusing various Democrats and leftists” is specious claptrap without foundation in reality. Produce a verifiable cite with a name or get thee hence.
We really used to get a better class of troll. Where have they gone?
My feeling is that “the plan” for dealing with Iraq went out the window when a couple of our ‘allies’ stabbed us in the back at the moment it counted most.
Had France, Germany and Russia not turned on us I do not believe we would have been forced to use Plan B.
Anyway, plans never work with reality.
Rick,
I thought most people would remember stuff like this. Sorry. Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37125-2003Dec4¬Found=true
In this one, Krauthammer diagnoses Dean and an entire segment of the public with delusion (Bush Derangement Syndrome, as he calls it).
Other places, he accuses Hans Blix of being in a state of denial.
Now, if he were not a psychiatrist, he might be just throwing terms around loosely. But he should be true to his profession and stop coming up with silly DSM sounding definitions of political beliefs of those he opposes.
Update: according to Newsday, the head of Iran’s security council just endorsed Bush.
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-iran-us-elections,0,4375343.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
I guess they know who is likelier to screw up and let them get what they want.
Left in Texas,
My apologies. I obviously didn’t do my homework. Obviously Dr. Krauthammer was deadly serious in his diagnosis and thus should be barred from consideration as a serious commentator.
Left:
Actually, the Newsday piece is a selective quote. He actually said he doesn’t care who gets elected. However, the Iranis are quite sophisticated. The are not Arabs. They are using psyop to engineer support for Kerry. Their actions and previous statements over the summer indicate that they would prefer Kerry to Bush.
As far as Israel goes, all of Kerry ME advisors support European position on the Middle Peace Process. For all intents and purposes Kerry supports the one state solution. Why do you think the Arafat endorsed him?
Left in Texas,
Now I’m really confused. Obviously, you’ve done your homework on this Iranian quote. I was actually quite firm for Bush (especially with Arafat and Manathir Mohammad supporting Kerry) perhaps you could recommend something from The Nation or The Guardian that would allow me to gain true insight into how things really are in the world?
I take it all back Rick. Krauthammer is a serious columnist. He just likes to pull stuff out of thin air is all.
His vitriol in the piece basically equates engaging in any sort of support for a peace process as selling Israel down the river. Nevermind that the Bush administration also engaged in a peace process between Arafat and Sharon.
The whole argument is just specious. Its called negotiating. If Israel doesn’t like the terms, they stop negotiating or refuse the agreement. Which they have done under Sharon. Kerry can’t and won’t shove an agreement down their throat, and neither could Bush.
Left:
The exact quote the your link left out was “It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the election”. Now of course the writer didn’t intentionally leave out this qoute because of course he wanted to present an accurate presentation of the facts. If you read the entire interview he wasn’t endorsing Bush specifically, he was just discussing that historically Iran preferred Republicans because they didn’t prees human right s issues as hard. Now that Kerry has abandoned his parties traditional stance and is claiming that it would have been better to wait for some other time to remove Saddam and that Bush has removed both the Taliban and Saddam, two massive human rights violators, this might explain the Iranian Hason Rowhani’s indifference to which party wins the election. Now that you know that the endorsement link was innaccurate and incomplete I am sure you will stop spreading the false story that you linked in respect of truth and accuracy two virtues that I am sure you try to uphold at all times. Hey, why is everyone laughing?
I have long argued that a subtle form of anti-Semitism pervades the John Kerry campaign. My guess is that at least a third of Kerryís supporters perceive Israel as an apartheid nation victimizing the Palestinians. And yes, many Jews also feel this way. Are they self haters? A non-Jew like myself perhaps should hesitate in saying so. Let me therefore prudently put it this way—many American Jews are at least thoroughly guilt tripped liberals.
Is it fair to describe the Democratic Party as anti-Semitic in a practical sense? Yup, this is most certainly accurate—and has been so for some time. There is little doubt but that Jimmy Carter, for instance, believes that the Palestinians are mistreated by the Israeli government. Wasnít the despicable Michael Moore honored during the Democratic Convention? Lastly, Al Sharpton even gave a speech. Pat Buchanan was given his exit papers by the the Republican Party some ten years ago.
Krauthammer is just making things up. This is the worst kind of “speculative journalism,” filling a putative “gap” with slander.
On a site deadly opposed to Isreal, I found a collection of speeches by Kerry in which his support for Israel is made crystal clear (I love it when I can find evidence for my position provided by those opposed to it – it makes the evidence all the more credible.)
Here is a link to the blog; if you want to avoid reading all the vitriol, here are the speeches and statements themselves:
September 15, 2004:
Statement by John Kerry on Rosh Hashanah, 2004
For Immediate Release
Toledo, OH – John Kerry released the following statement today on Rosh Hashanah:
“On the occasion of Rosh Hashanah, 5765, I send my warmest personal greetings to Jews everywhere who are gathered in prayer and celebration.
Rosh Hashanah is a time of deep contemplation and renewal. For thousands of years, the resonant sound of the shofar has been a call for the Jewish people to reflect on the past and respond to the challenges of the New Year.
“As it is written in the high holiday prayer book, “Let us proclaim the sacred power of this day, for it is one of awe and anxiety.
“At this time of great challenge and change, one thing will always remain constant: our commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state of Israel. Particularly in uncertain times like these we must reaffirm and indeed strengthen our special relationship with Israel, our most steadfast friend and ally in the region. Israel’s cause must be America’s cause.
“May you and your families here, in Israel and in Jewish communities throughout the world be inscribed in the book of life for peace and prosperity.
“Teresa joins me in sending our best wishes for a sweet and healthy New Year. L’shanah Tovah Tikatevu V’techatemu.”
August 27, 2004:
OP-ED: An Unwavering Commitment to Reforming the Middle East
“The Forward”
by John Kerry
Across the Middle East, the United States and Israel are facing a range of crucial security challenges. We are not secure while Saudi donors fund terror, while Iran pursues a nuclear weapons programs and while Syria sponsors terrorist operations. We are not secure while Iraq is at risk of becoming a haven for terrorists. And we are not secure while Israel, the one true democracy in the region, remains the victim of an unrelenting campaign of terror. If we continue without a more effective strategy, we are not supporting our ally as best we can.
For too long, America has not led, and Iran’s program has advanced. Let me say it plainly: a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. I believe we must work with our allies to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and be ready to work with them to implement a range of tougher measures, if needed. Developing an international coalition enhances our influence by ensuring that all nations are united in the effort, leaving no room for Iran to play allies against one another.
The Syria Accountability Act, which I co-sponsored in the Senate, gave the president authority to sanction Syria, a concrete step against Syria’s support for terror and its occupation of Lebanon. As president, I will never delay implementing sanctions as the Bush administration did for many months.
The greatest long-term strategic threat to U.S.-Israeli relations is U.S. dependence on Mideast oil. A new national security policy demands an end to that dependence. For too long, America has lost its voice when talking about the policies and practices of some governments in the Persian Gulf. If we are serious about energy independence, then we can finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological backing for Islamic fundamentalist jihadists. This is a problem that this administration has ignored ó and one that must be addressed.
I have a plan for energy independence from Mideast oil in the next 10 years. I will invest in the research and exploration needed to develop renewable energy sources. I will take the lead in developing the new technology and production methods needed to ensure that resources such as coal and natural gas are used more efficiently and cleanly, and fully integrated into the new energy economy. I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation and not the Saudi royal family.
As president, I will use bold diplomacy to get governments to recognize the growing crisis of resurgent anti-Semitism, and take action to deal with it ó not hide it. Silence will never prevail ó either abroad or at home. As president, I will support the creation of an office within the State Department dedicated to combating anti-Semitism, as well as adding reporting on acts of anti-Semitism around the world to the State Department’s annual human rights reporting.
I will work with the United Nations and our allies to bolster security in Iraq so that we can meet our goals for elections and speed up reconstruction. I will launch a massive effort to train and equip Iraqi security forces, so that they can take over the security of their nation, allowing us to draw down our troops in an orderly manner.
These steps will be vastly more effective when backed by a long-term strategy to change the political equation in the Middle East, to empower reformers and foster democracy.
I will launch an aggressive public diplomacy campaign in Arab and Muslim countries to tackle head-on the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda that fuels ignorance and hatred. This will be a part of an expansive American-led, international effort to promote democratic reforms throughout the Middle East by supporting secular education, business development and educational initiatives. By carefully targeting aid and development programs we can most effectively bolster civil society groups to take action to advance reform.
American leadership is needed to bolster Israel’s security at home as well as in the region. I believe that we must stand with Israel, supporting our ally’s right to build a security fence and to allow its own Supreme Court ó not the International Court of Justice ó to address the issue of the route of the fence. The fence has proven its value as an anti-terror measure.
I believe, in addition, that the withdrawal from Gaza, which Prime Minister Sharon announced in April, holds great promise. Indeed, this step enjoys overwhelming support among Israelis. It must receive our support and backing as well.
The success of the withdrawal also requires a real Palestinian effort to establish security ó to ensure Gaza does not remain a haven for terrorists to launch attacks on Israel. Experience has made very clear that for the Palestinians to meet this key test, new Palestinian leadership is required, as Yasser Arafat has proven himself not to be a partner for peace.
As president, I will work with the Palestinian community to empower new, responsible Palestinian leadership committed to a permanent end to terror and the promotion of democracy. I will ensure that allies are united in this effort, not working at cross-purposes by propping up a failed Palestinian power structure. This kind of tough and frank diplomacy will be a hallmark of my administration. We will magnify our power and restore American influence to enhance our own security and that of our allies. We will restore our alliances and we will lead. But we will never compromise America’s special relationship with our ally Israel. As president, I will never pressure Israel to make concessions that will compromise its security.
My commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state is unwavering. For 19 years, this is a pledge I have kept in the United States Senate ó whether through my votes on economic aid, military security or the location of the U.S. Embassy. And it is one I will continue to keep as I lead a bold new effort to enhance regional security throughout the Middle East.
July 9, 2004:
Statement by John Kerry on International Court of Justice Ruling Regarding Israelís Security Fence
For Immediate Release
Beaver, WV – Senator John Kerry released the following statement today regarding the International Court of Justice ruling on Israelís security fence:
“I am deeply disappointed by todayís International Court of Justice ruling related to Israelís security fence. Israelís fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence is an important tool in Israelís fight against terrorism. It is not a matter for the ICJ.
“I have made very clear from the start that I do not believe that the ICJ should even be considering this issue given that they do not have jurisdiction.
“We were right to oppose the resolution in the General Assembly and to convey this opinion to the ICJ. Several months ago, I joined in sending a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urging him to “act so that the ICJ does notÖissue an advisory opinion on the legality of the security fence Israel is building.”
“Our nation is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes Palestinians. And Israelís own Supreme Court has looked at the very same issues and we should respect that process.”
MAY 3, 2004:
Strengthening Israel’s Security and the U.S.-Israel Special Relationship
“The people of Israel should also know that, as president, my commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state will be unwavering. For nineteen years, this is a pledge I have kept in the United States Senate ñ whether through my votes on economic aid, military security, or the location of the U.S. Embassy. And it is one I will continue to keep.”
–John Kerry, Speech to the Anti-Defamation League, May 3, 2004
At the forefront of the fight for Israelís security throughout his entire nineteen year career in the Senate, John Kerry has built an impeccable pro-Israel voting record. Along with his colleague John Edwards, he has stood time and again for Israelís security. John Kerry and John Edwards have never wavered in their commitment to Israelís security, and they never will.
John Kerry did not wait until he was running for president of the United States to visit Israel – he has traveled there throughout his public life. Through his meetings with Israeli political and military leaders ñ and especially with ordinary Israelis ñ he has gained a deep understanding of the everyday security threat the Israeli people face. His running mate, John Edwards, visited Israel in August 2001, meeting with Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres.
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that in uncertain times like these we must reaffirm and strengthen our special relationship with Israel, our most steadfast friend and ally in the region. Their commitment to a safe, secure, democratic Jewish state of Israel is unwavering. It comes from a shared personal belief that Israelís cause must be Americaís cause.
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that anti-Semitism ñ often masked in anti-Israel rhetoric — is a dangerous trend threatening both Israel and Jewish communities around the world. They have spent their careers standing up to prejudice in all of its forms, and they will continue that fight every day because America cannot remain silent when the voice of hate rises.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR AMERICAíS SUPPORT FOR OUR ALLY ISRAEL
ï We will never pressure Israel to compromise its security.
ï We will never expect Israel to negotiate for peace without a credible partner.
ï We will always work to provide the political and military and economic help for Israelís fight against terror.
ï We will restore American leadership in the Middle East because Israelís security is bolstered when we lead and America is safer.
A BOLD PLAN: SUPPORTING ISRAEL, RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
Supporting Israelís Right to Respond to Terrorism. John Kerry and John Edwards support Israelís right of self defense to eliminate threats to its citizens, including actions taken by Israel against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. In spring 2002, John Kerry and John Edwards co-sponsored a resolution expressing solidarity with Israelís efforts to provide security to its citizens by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian areas. The resolution called for continued assistance in strengthening Israel’s homeland defenses and reaffirmed a commitment to Israelís right to self-defense. As Kerry said in April 2004, appearing on Meet the Press, “I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it.”
Yasser Arafat: A Failed Leader Unfit to be a Partner for Peace. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Yasser Arafat is a failed leader unfit to be a partner for peace. They support Arafatís isolation. John Kerry and John Edwards will work tirelessly to ensure that new, responsible Palestinian leadership — committed in word and deed to ending the violence, fighting terror and promoting democracy — emerges.
Supporting the Security Fence. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that Israelís security fence is a legitimate response to terror that only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel. The fence is an important tool in Israelís fight against terrorism. Kerry strongly condemned the International Court of Justiceís July ruling on the fence, and he has always made clear that he did not believe that the ICJ should even be considering the issue. John Kerry believes our nation is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes Palestinians. Israelís own Supreme Court has looked at the very same issues and Kerry believes we should respect that process.
Supporting Israelís Withdrawal Plan and the Creation of a Palestinian State. John Kerry and John Edwards support Israelís unprecedented plan to withdraw from the Gaza strip and they support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. They believe that the creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. They understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949óand they understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed on.
Maintaining Israelís Military Superiority. In a Kerry-Edwards administration, America will continue to guarantee Israelís military superiority. John Kerry and John Edwards support carefully restricting arms sales to Arab countries in the region. John Kerry opposed the sale of Maverick missiles and F-15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, and voted to prohibit the Department of Defense from awarding contracts to any foreign entities that cooperate with the Arab boycott of Israel.
Supporting Aid to Israel. John Kerry and John Edwards have always voted to maintain critical foreign aid to our ally Israel, resisting any attempts to cut it over their years in the Senate. In the early 1990s, John Kerry fought President George H.W. Bush when Bush threatened to veto loan guarantees for the costs of resettling Soviet and Ethiopian refugees in Israel. As John Kerry said of Bushís attempt to make guarantees dependent on Israeli concessions, “It would be highly unfair to hold Israel hostage to a peace process that it has no control over.” Kerry also co-sponsored legislation to provide the loan guarantees.
Fighting to Move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. John Kerry and John Edwards have long advocated moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Israelís indisputable capital. In 1999, John Kerry and John Edwards signed a letter taking President Clinton to task for not moving the embassy.
Standing with Israel in the UN and other International Organizations. John Kerry and John Edwards have always believed the U.S. must stand solidly behind Israel at the U.N. and other international organizations. They recognize that the U.N. must establish more credibility on Arab-Israeli matters, and John Kerry will never hesitate to wield a U.S. veto on the Security Council in the face of anti-Israel/anti-Zionist resolutions. As John Kerry said in opposing the U.N. General Assemblyís one-sided resolution regarding Israelís security fence in July, “As president I will stand up for Israelís security in the UN or any international organization.”
Strengthening Israelís Economy While Working Together to Secure Homelands. John Kerry and John Edwards will work to secure the U.S. homeland while simultaneously strengthening the Israeli economy. He will help to jumpstart Israelís high tech sector by working to adapt many of the innovative technologies Israel has developed to combat terrorism and protect its homeland for U.S. use.
Restoring American Leadership in the Middle East John Kerry and John Edwards believe that bringing security and stability to the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state. In a Kerry-Edwards administration, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority that will always get the consistent, high-level attention it deserves. John Kerry and John Edwards will bring determined leadership to ending the violence and developing a new Palestinian leadership – one that is committed in word and deed to fighting terror and meeting the needs of its people. John Kerry and John Edwards will work tirelessly to achieve a stable, lasting peace with security in the Middle East and ensure that American leadership is a source of hope in the region.
Ending the Financing of Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards will demand accountability and action from all states, including Arab and European countries, to eliminate sources of funds that flow freely to terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Aqsa Brigade.
Ending Iranís Nuclear Program. John Kerry and John Edwards understand that a nuclear armed Iran poses an unacceptable risk to the U.S., Israel and the rest of the free world. As president, John Kerry will lead our allies in a comprehensive international effort that brings all available resources to bear on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability.
Ending Americaís Dangerous Dependence on Mideast Oil and Getting Serious About Saudi Support for Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to reduce America’s dependence on Mideast oil over the next ten years because they know that only if we are serious about energy independence, can we finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological backing for Islamic fundamentalist jihadists. As John Kerry said in accepting the Democratic nomination, “I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation ñ not the Saudi royal family. And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future — so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.”
Fighting Saudi Government Anti-Semitism. John Kerry and John Edwards have condemned anti-Semitic comments made at all levels of Saudi government. John Kerry has acted while George Bush remained silent in the face of remarks that call into question the Saudi commitment to fighting terrorism. In May, John Kerry condemned outrageous anti-Semitic comments by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, who blamed ëZionistsí for terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. Kerry said Abdullahís statements raised “serious questions about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabiaís commitment to combating terrorism,” and Kerry strongly criticized President Bush for saying nothing. “As president,” Kerry said, “I will never permit this kind of attack to go unanswered.” In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League in May, Kerry said: “With Saudi-funded hate speech littering the textbooks of children and the Saudi interior minister claiming that ‘the Jews’ were responsible for 9/11, our current administration thinks that our current relationship with this regime is acceptable. I do not ñ and I intend to be a president who holds Saudi Arabia accountable for its conduct.”
Holding Syria Accountable. John Kerry and John Edwards are co-sponsors of the Syria Accountability Act, legislation to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East. In May, Kerry criticized the Bush administration for its delay in imposing sanctions on Syria.
April 27, 2004:
Kerry Statement on the 56th Anniversary of Israelís Independence
Washington, DC ñ John Kerry issued the following statement today on the 56th Anniversary of Israelís Independence:
“Today, on this Yom HaíAtzmaut, we celebrate Israelís 56th Anniversary of Independence.
“The State of Israel continues to be a ëlight unto nations,í a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. As we commemorate this Israeli Independence day, I know from my many visits to Israel that every day in the Jewish state is a celebration. From the splendor of Jerusalem to the vibrancy of downtown Tel Aviv to the natural beauty of the Negev Desert and the Sea of Galilee, Israel is a triumph of brave citizens flourishing in the face of stunning adversity.
“The people of Israel should know that our pledge to a safe and secure Jewish state is unwavering. Israel was founded amid the awful recognition of the vulnerability of Jews. Today, that vulnerability is felt more than at any time since the State of Israel was founded. It is in challenging times like these when we must reaffirm, and indeed strengthen, our special relationship with our steadfast friend and ally.
“From this enduring friendship will always come the promise of never-ending support. Our commitment must be clear: We should never pressure Israel to compromise its security; never coerce it to negotiate for peace without a credible partner; and always work to provide the political and military support for Israelís fight against terror.
“Today, I continue to hope that our friendship can be a source of strength to the Israeli people just as their perseverance in the fight to build a safe and secure democratic state is surely a source of courage for all Americans.
“From one dear friend to the other, I wish to relay my heartfelt congratulations to the people of Israel and to Jewish people throughout the world on this 56thyear of Israeli Independence.”
April 7, 1997:
John Kerryís Remarks at AIPAC Annual Policy Conference
“You know, in truth, our two nations really share something much more than that and I think you know it. As the prime minister so eloquently stated tonight—and what a privilege it was to be able to listen to the truth that he spoke this evening—Israel and the United States are, neither of us, just a place in the land, a piece of geography.
Both of us are founded on the shining vision of both human dignity and purpose. And the Jewish people have taught the world much about dignity and purpose because they have preserved their vision through 2000 years of exile and persecution, and they have had to outlast historyís fiercest fires of hate.
Teresa and I watched Schindlerís List as 25 million other Americans did a few weeks ago. We were obviously left asking, as anyone in their right mind and conscience would—Why, why, why?
But I remembered my trip to Israel, as we all do — my first visit to Yad Vashem. And I will never forget one sight there that stood out above all others — not the documents or the photographs as stark as they were, but a small childís single lonely shoe, which brought home to me even more so the incomprehensibility of the Holocaust expressed on the most human of scales.
Again, as I watched this movie about a handful who entered the Nazi hell and returned, the small remnant who proved that millions didnít have to perish, I thought the words of Elie Wiesel about others who could have acted to prevent, to stop, to oppose this crime of the century. Not all were guilty, he said. But all were responsibleÖ.”
“And as we know—-and I say ëweí— all of us with connections of any kind to Israel- anti-Semitism did not disappear with the ashes of Auschwitz. Over 50 years after the end of World War II, the ancient evil still stalks our time, striking at Jews around the world and at the Jewish people and at the Jewish soul in the state of Israel.
What Roger Wistrich called “the longest hatred” continues to reach far and wide. An explosion ruins a peaceful afternoon at a street cafÈ in Tel Aviv. There are bombings in a Jewish community center in Argentina- the rising popularity of the National Front in France; the prevalence of skinhead violence and murders in Germany; the arson of Warsawís last synagogue; the anti-Jewish scapegoating and conspiracy of Louis Farrakhan and of the militia groups; the Nazi-like images of Jews in the press in Egypt and Syria; and the blatant anti-Jewish hatred of Hamas proclaiming, “we worship God by Killing Jews.”
These-these are different sins, but they are rooted in the same anti Semitic temptation.
Some cannot face the truth or the twisted hates in their own soul even today in this country, or the rationalizations for the sake of political advantage or profit. As the youth of Europe asked about the Holocaust and the challenge to their parents about what they did or didnít do, the legacy of collaboration and oppression still emerges from under the rocks of the hidden historyÖ. ”
“We all have to work harder now. We have to work harder in order to make real the peaceful dreams of millions of Israelis and millions of others in the world, who look to that parent of the world for peace. And of us cannot continue to be held hostage to Hamas or Hizbollah.
We must all of us reject the absurd, dishonest and cruel approach-the propaganda if you will- from the Palestinians, the attempt by some Arafat advisers to equate terrorist attacks with Israelís decision to construct new housing in Jerusalem — however controversial that decision may be deemed.
It is one thing for the Palestinians and others to hear Prime Minister Netanyahu say it, but I want to say it also — Terrorism is an incontrovertible evil, and an unacceptable response and the idea that every bitter dispute between Israelis and the Palestinians can somehow justify Palestinian violence or justify Arafatís winking at it or should warrant the release of yet more Hamas leaders or could excuse the PLOís failure to rewrite its covenant- all of this reflects a moral blindness, a failure for courage that only encourages the cowards, the haters and the killersÖ.”
“As Americans, as Americans, we owe it to our Israeli partners to stand with them so that they can negotiate from the greater strength, to be an ally beside them, not an ally that undermines them. Israel will.
Israel will and should choose its own leaders, its own policy, its own bargaining position. And the United States cannot and should not dictate the outcome.
Let me state it as plainly as I can. The UN Security Council has no right to impose insecurity on Israel.
President Clinton was right in his veto of the Security Council resolution on Har Homa, and the United States can and should veto any other similar one-sided measure that brings discredit on nations such as France and Russia whose own anti-Semitic records now rebuke their anti-Israeli votesÖ.”
“For our part, we must leave here more committed than ever to support Israel in the exacting, essential and sometimes tense search for that dream. I think its fair to say that the ashes of the Holocaust victims were scattered on the wind, but that wind also carries on it their prayers and purpose — above mountains and sea, across hundreds of thousands of miles, so that the pain of history is redeemed in the land of Israel.
It is a sacred place — for them, for their people who live there, and for the whole world.
So let us now resolve again that the day will never come for Israel when the redemption is put at risk, when any of us would ever have to repeat Schindlerís cry and say — We could have done moreÖ.”
Kevin P. and Jerry,
“We do not desire to see Democrats take over,” Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush.
Seems pretty clear to me.
bruce:
“That was then, this is now.” Or something like that.
Kerry and supporters are saying that the infamous statement on behalf of VVAW was a thing of the past and so should be discounted. A reasonable statement on the face of things…
Now comes Mr. Bruce who quotes – I stipulate accurately – recent and past statements of Mr. Kerry. And holds that they should be taken as present policy.
Look, pal, let me give you another quote. This time biblical…”By their fruits you shall know them.” What we’re discussing here is the PRESENT attitude and FUTURE actions of Senator K.
In other words, based on present conditions, we’re saying that the likely result of a Kerry policy will necessarily lead to an ultimate end of Israel as an independent state.
If Kerry-ites wish us to ignore the VVAW statement, we are free to ignore ALL past pronouncments, absent either an explanation or disavowal. We judge by real actions NOW in the heat of an election battle.
Under real pressure, the real truth usually emerges. Real World Lessson #29.
Just as Dr. Krauthammer: he’s a shrink, y’know…
Sorry for the jeremand:
Last line should read “Just ASK Dr. Krauthammer: he’s a shrink, y’know…”.
I really must proof-read closely.
Sorry about that, folks…
Dear good ole charlie:
Krauthammer’s column is based on a putative lack of any Kerry plan to deal with Isreal. Krauthammer fills the putative gap with wild speculation.
In the stuff I presented above, Kerry lays out a clear plan.
I don’t know how to respond to what you have said. If you are content to ignore what the man says and indeed go so far as to say he is not talking about the issue, and just plain make up stuff that he might be thinking to fill in the “gap,” there is really nothing rational I can say in response.
I really don’t care to bring the whole vietnam thing into this… both sides have managed to thoroughly trash each other on that issue, and it feels to me like voters want to think about what the both candidates are up to now, as opposed to 30 years ago.
Left:
I will explain it to you again. When Hason Rowhani was talking about democrats he was talking abouy a historical preference. “It makes no difference for us which of the parties wins the election” was refering to this election. I know you prefer to use the article that is incomplete because it fits your argument better but how does the quote I listed not show that he is not endorsing President Bush. Please explain how ” It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the election” is an endorsement of Bush. This should be interesting.
Bruce:
The problem with Kerry is that what he said and believed in the past has no bearing on what he will do in the present. During the first Clinton campaign he made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. It was about using the Vietnam war and what people did or didn’t do as a campaign issue. It was in response to the flap over Clintons avoidance of the draft. He said that to bring up that troubled time as an election campaign issue was to bring up painfull memories for the country and that whether people fought or didn’t fight in that war was not a proper issue in a presidential election campaign and that to drag the country back into that time of pain was a cheap political trick and that what the young men decided to do at that troubled time should have no bearing on whether or not they would make a good president. Of course we should have known that he was stating below the surface that if he ran for president then the war would be an excellent issue and that it was now ok to drag the country back to that painfull time and that the Democratic party would be justified to bring up Bush’s war record and it would not be a cheap political trick. What Kerry says one day can be tossed aside at a moments notice. Witness his different opinions on Israels security fence when he is talking to a Jewish group and how he reversed it when he was in front of an Arab American group.
The bottom line is that Bruce doesn’t deal with the fact that Kerry’s own chosen Middle East “advisors” actually stand for a more hostile approach to Israel. We’ve already learned that Kerry’s words are not to be given any credence. The core example as Kevin points out was his brazen attempt to have both positions on the security fence. Amazing how those speeches didn’t end up in Bruce’s collection.
As for Kerry, his actions to date lie in his choice of advisors. He can’t be trusted on this issue.