Kerry Tries to Justify the Unjustifiable

On Wednesday, I sat through the entire 70 minute speech by John Kerry regarding the UN resolution against Israel. Much of it was spent explaining how good Obama has been to Israel - providing aid, vetoing previous resolutions and so on. It was all done in an effort to justify the USA's abstention on a measure giving a state to the Palestinians, and taking away the holiest sites in Judaism from the Jews. Afterwards, I likened the speech to a man explaining to the police how he really loved his girlfriend and regularly showered her with gifts and flowers - right up to the day he stabbed her in the back and killed her. In any event, here are some of the highlights (lowlights, actually) of Kerry's speech.

"President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop." Countless times? Doesn't that tell you that the Palestinians are not listening? Doesn't it also tell you that their true interest is in killing Jews? THEY"RE NOT LISTENING you dumb ... (I will not do it. I have never cursed in the blog and as angry as I am I will not start now.)

"Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue." Wow! That was a big whopper of a lie. It was US policy that Jerusalem was one of those "final status" issues to be resolved by negotiations between the parties. Here is what the resolution said: Israel must "cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem..." Given that the resolution declares East Jerusalem to be "Palestinian territory," I would like Secretary Kerry to explain how that is "nothing new" in terms of policy.

"The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward." That is hardly a denial of some type of US involvement. New Zealand was one of the countries that put it forward. What was Kerry doing in New Zealand in November? Some other big issues between the US and New Zealand? Kerry met with the leading PA negotiator beforehand. Why? Does anyone really think that the Security Council would have bothered with this just before Christmas unless they knew that the USA would not use its veto power, thus allowing the measure to pass.

"The Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israeli law. Does anyone here really believe that the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?" Excuse me! Is Kerry saying that Jews would be treated badly under Palestinian law and therefore would not want to stay? Is Kerry defending the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future Palestinian state? As usual, nothing is to be expected from the Palestinians. Certainly not allowing freedom of religion to all people within their future state. Here is what I think - Kerry and Obama know that they are helping to create a non-democratic, terrorist state on Israel's border, and they simply do not care.

Kerry also said that absent a two state solution Israel will be unable to remain both Jewish and democratic. So, his big concern is that Israel remain democratic, after already suggesting that he knows a future Palestinian state will not be democratic (see above paragraph). Obama was not very "democratic" when he placed the Iranian nuke deal before the UNSC instead of the US Senate. Obama was not very "democratic" when the majority of people opposed the ACA, but he signed it into law anyway. Is it "democratic" for Obama to issue one executive order after the next, while saying that "if Congress won't act, I will." Who makes the laws in this country?

Kerry ended his speech by laying out six principles for further discussion. Here is one of the six: "Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly resolution 181 of two states for two peoples - one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens." So, explain again, if the Jews get "full equal rights" why he believes they would not be able to stay in their homes on the Palestinian side of the border? The answer, again, is he knows full well that Jews would NEVER be given full equal rights.

Kerry said that the US would not give official recognition to a Palestinian state, or impose any outcome through a UN resolution. Well, the last resolution definitely does impose a solution. Furthermore, on what basis should we take Kerry at his word? He speaks for Obama, and Obama has habitually lied on any number of issues, including foreign affairs. Like when he lied about the reason for the Benghazi attack that killed our Ambassador and other Americans. Like when he lied about the Iran nuke deal and when negotiations started. Like when he lied about his "red line" for Syria.

We will certainly know soon enough if Obama has more in store for Israel. France is hosting an international conference on January 15, 2017, regarding the Middle East. I am sure that it is strictly coincidental that this conference will take place while Obama is still President, allowing four more days of his Presidency for another UN resolution. Sure, I believe it's coincidental.