John Kerry’s foot in mouth syndrome and more American threats

This post is going to be a catch-up of sorts of news which I missed over the past week since I was out of the country. My apologies too for for missing my Good News Friday installment for the first time since I began the series.  I returned home from my trip on Friday and I simply ran out of time before Shabbat. I will try and make it up to you later in the week.

Kerry’s foot in mouth disease

Meanwhile the most important event that I missed (honestly, I leave the country and everything falls apart!) was that Kerry opened his mouth and put his foot in it again. The gaffe-prone Secretary of State still seems to want to save Israel from itself; this time, instead of warning Israel that it risks incurring a third intifada, or that it will suffer from boycotts and isolation like he did a few months ago, he warned Israel that it risks turning into an apartheid state if it does not accept his own obviously perfect peace plan (i.e. surrender).  This wasn’t the only veiled threat that he mentioned, as the Daily Beast report continues:

Kerry also repeated his warning that a failure of Middle East peace talks could lead to a resumption of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens. He suggested that a change in either the Israeli or Palestinian leadership could make achieving a peace deal more feasible.

Interestingly, the apartheid smear was shot down by no lesser a personage than Richard Goldstone himself as well as Barack Obama:

Leading experts, including Richard Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008 and 2009, have argued that comparisons between the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and “apartheid” are offensive and wrong.

“One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues ‘apartheid’ policies,” Goldstone wrote in The New York Times in 2011. “It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.”

In a 2008 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, then-Sen. Barack Obama shot down the notion that the word “apartheid” was acceptable in a discussion about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians:

“There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal,” Obama said. “It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.”

After the expected backlash against Kerry from both Israelis and American politicians, Kerry backtracked over his insulting remarks:

Kerry was criticized for his comments by Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz and by Dani Dayan, Chief Foreign Envoy of the Council of Judea and Samaria.

Congressional Republicans also lashed out at Kerry, with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor calling on him to apologize, and Sen. Ted Cruz taking it even further and calling for Kerry’s resignation.

Kerry’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, was unhelpful on Monday in trying to clarify Kerry’s remarks.

All Psaki could come up with to justify the statement was that it was part of Kerry’s support for the “two-state solution” and that “many officials have used similar phrases”.

Kerry himself walked back his remark in an official statement:

I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes, so I want to be crystal clear about what I believe and what I don’t believe.

First, Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that without a shred of doubt.

Second, I have been around long enough to also know the power of words to create a misimpression, even when unintentional, and if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution. In the long term, a unitary, binational state cannot be the democratic Jewish state that Israel deserves or the prosperous state with full rights that the Palestinian people deserve.

It is gratifying to note that the Daily Telegraph rebuked Kerry for his carelessly undiplomatic remark (h/t Honest Reporting):

Comparing Israel’s continued military occupation of Palestinian territory to South Africa’s former apartheid regime would be inflammatory at the best of times.


The use of such undiplomatic language also distracts from the very real difficulties the Israelis face in trying to reach an agreement. From the outset, Israel’s security concerns have dominated the discussions, with their negotiators offering to make painful territorial concessions in return for cast-iron guarantees concerning the future safety of Israeli citizens. But Mr Abbas’s refusal to allow Israel to maintain a limited military presence in any future independent Palestinian territory, together with his recent accord with Hamas, has meant that no such pledges have been forthcoming, thereby causing the talks to stall. Israel argues, with some justification, that there is little likelihood of reaching an agreement with an organisation such as Hamas, which remains committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. If Mr Kerry still wants his bold peace initiative to succeed, then he would be better advised to address these and other concerns than to use language that is guaranteed to cause offence to Israel.

If you get the feeling that this is deja vu all over again, you would be right. The Algemeiner has a roundup of Kerry’s top 10 controversial comments. (What? Only 10?):

1. Israel could become an “apartheid state” if a two-state solution doesn’t pan out.

2. Israel announced 700 new settlement units and “poof, that was sort of the moment” the peace talks were imperiled.

3. It’s a “mistake” to keep demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

4. The Jewish state will face more boycotts and international isolation if peace talks fail.

5. “Not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank” in 2013. (A Shin Bet report said there were five such deaths).

6. Ignore Israeli thinking when it comes to Iran sanctions.

7. Israel could face a third violent Palestinian intifada if peace talks fail.

8. The U.S. views all Israeli settlements are “illegitimate.”

9. Amid the fall of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and a bloody civil war in Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the “core issue” of Middle East instability.

10. Juxtaposing the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Turkish militants killed aboard the Mavi Marmara flotilla after they attacked Israeli soldiers.

Adding insult to injury, US officials told Nachum Barnea, an influential Israeli journalist, that whether Israel likes it or not, a Palestinian state will arise – whether by negotiations or by violence.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to Nahum Barnea, a prominent columnist from Israel’s best-selling daily Yedioth Aharonoth, the officials highlighted Netanyahu’s ongoing settlement construction as the issue “largely to blame” for the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry’s July 2013-April 2014 effort to broker a permanent peace accord.

They made plain that US President Barack Obama had been prepared to release spy-for-Israel Jonathan Pollard to salvage the talks. And they warned that “the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation.”

Barnea, who described his conversations with the American officials as “the closest thing to an official American version of what happened” in the talks, said the secretary is now deciding whether to wait a few months and try to renew the negotiating effort or to publicize the US’s suggested principles of an agreement.


The Americans said they had intended to begin the nine-month negotiating period with an Israeli announcement of a settlement freeze. But this proved impossible, an American official was quoted saying, “because of the current makeup of the Israeli government, so we gave up… We didn’t realize [that] continuing construction allowed ministers in [Netanyahu’s] government to very effectively sabotage the success of the talks. There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort’s failure, but people in Israel shouldn’t ignore the bitter truth: the primary sabotage came from the settlements. The Palestinians don’t believe that Israel really intends to let them found a state when, at the same time, it is building settlements on the territory meant for that state. We’re talking about the announcement of 14,000 housing units, no less. Only now, after talks blew up, did we learn that this is also about expropriating land on a large scale. That does not reconcile with the agreement.

It’s the “poof speech” all over again. And once again, here’s the not-so-veiled threat of violence against Israel:

One bitter American official told Barnea, “I guess we need another intifada to create the circumstances that would allow progress.”

Meanwhile, poor little Abbas is having SUCH a hard time:

Abbas, the officials told Barnea, had made concessions — in accepting that “Palestine” would be demilitarized; in agreeing to the US border outline that would see 80% of settlers coming under Israeli sovereignty, and in agreeing for Israel to retain control of sensitive security areas such as the Jordan Valley for five years.

“He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness,” the Americans said. “‘Israel won’t be flooded with refugees,’ he promised.”

In fact, as we know, Abbas agreed to no such thing and the Americans are lying.

Abbas said: No Jerusalem, no peace

Abbas said: No Jordan Valley, no peace

Abbas said: Not a single Israeli will be allowed in a future Palestinian state.

Even though Abbas claims he does not want to drown Israel with refugees, he is lying.  In any event, whatever Abbas said, Palestinians say that 8 million refugees must return to Israel. How 400,000 refugees in 1948 grew to 8 million in the space of 65 years is one of the miracles of modern mathematics.

Let the Americans square those anomalies with Israel and then come back to us with complaints.

Palestinian Apartheid State

However the Americans did allow a tiny criticism of him:

In a rare attribution of some blame to Abbas, the Americans said they “couldn’t understand why it bothered him so much” to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But here too, ultimately, the Americans were empathetic to Abbas: “The Palestinians came to the conclusion that Israel was pulling a nasty trick on them. They suspected there was an effort to get from them approval of the Zionist narrative.”

Read the whole depressing story. If Israel ever thought it had an ally in America, we need to get rid of that thought pronto. It is way beyond time that we consider only our own narrow interests and let our “allies” and “well-wishers” take a running jump.

It is also way beyond time that Kerry and all the rest of the President’s Men would explain why Israel refusing to accept a vicious murderous antisemitic entity on its doorstep risks making it into an apartheid state, whereas the Palestinians wishing to create a vicious murderous antisemitic entity on Israel’s doorstep does not make the Palestinians risk turning into an apartheid state.

Double standards anyone?

This entry was posted in Israel news and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to John Kerry’s foot in mouth syndrome and more American threats

  1. Aridog says:

    I am the broken record, of course. Repeating my mantra so to speak. I apologize. I do it in the faint hope that someone will read it, become curious, and research the subject rather than just accept the distorted nonsense posed by liberals with no skin in the game who only emote what fits their personal agenda. It is an existential matter. The day they come for you foretells the day they will come for me.

    John Kerry was traitorous to his own country, so why wouldn’t he seek to wreck another country. He bluntly asserted that his fellow soldiers and sailors wantonly killed women and children on direction by the US Government. That is precisely how he got his name in the news for the first time….the “Winter Soldier” pseudo-investigation. He is completely untrustworthy outside of his penchant for marrying money. Also…

    “There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security,… ~ Sen. Barack Obama

    We must apologize for the lack of history education of our current President. Maybe I can write him a letter, though even if I did it is doubtful that it would get past some goo-goo eyed urchin underling or at best never past Iranian born Valerie Jarret (yeah, that’s “shot”..she’s born there, but not of Persian blood IIRC). This two state living side by side thing has been tried. 1922 to be exact. A Palestinian state, aka Arab Palestine”, aka “Trans-Jordan”, made up of 77% (segregated from actually) of the original 1920 British Mandate aka future re-constitution of the Jewish National Home”, with 23% remaining as “Jewish Palestine.” Trans-Jordan, with majority population of purported “Palestinian Arabs” ( questionable descendancy in a territory once dominated by Persians and Greeks and emigre Arabs from elsewhere) subsequently became The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1948, after a transition from Mandate to nation between 1946 and 1948….and ruled by a Saudi Arabian clan favored by the British. None-the-less, it was the land orignally termed “Arab Palestine” and a de-facto Palestinian State alongside of the Israeli State in 1948. Two states and no peace, then or now.

    Beyond the original two state solution that politically failed, even if physically extant, came the Black September civil conflict within Jordan in 1970-1971, ending with the expulsion of the PLO/Fatah movement Arabs who had sought to un-seat the King of Jordan’s constitutional government and take over Jordan for their own. In summary, the denial of a separate state for the PLO/Fatah faction was by their own brethren and kinfolk…who expelled the PLO/Fatah contingent population to the West Bank of the original Jewish Palestine. PLO/Fatah came down with a case of the butt-hurt and have never forgiven Israel for kicking them out of Jordan (Arab Palestine)…er, wait a minute…can’t blame Arabs, so it had to be Israel, right? Hello?

    PLO/Fatah also tried to destablize Tunisia and were expelled. Lebanon, a Shiite majority country, had Israeli help in expelling Sunni PLO/Fatah contingents also intent on taking over the country. Not sure that was helpful to Israel as they wound up with equal animosity in the Shiite Hezballah. One enemy replaced by another. Two groups who dislike each other but share a common animosity for Israel. How do you win with that hand politically. Not by any new “two state solutions” because that would not satisfy the enemy now any more than it did in the period 1922-1971. The PLO/Fatah expulsion from Jordan was graphically memorialized by the attack and killing of Israeli athletes in Munich…Israel blamed for Arab expulsion by Arabs. Go figure.

    The sad part is that prominent leaders, including some American Jews, and President Obama actually believe this story of who did what to whom. They all speak of a “two state solution” as if it had never been tried and in fact exists today. They refuse to acknowledge the oft repeated assertion by PLO/Fatah/Hamas that no Israeli state can exist alongside of them, that their intention is to take over the territory of Israel, and expel all Jews, period.

    And John Kerry doesn’t care one whit…only that his hubris is burnished further. That is the same man, who in my home town (Detroit), asserted that I and my fellow soldiers were killers of women and children. That is the same man who spent not one minute as an infantryman or any other Army or Marine Corps element, but asserted he knew everything there was to know about us…and testified to Congress on the subject. SPIT!

    • anneinpt says:

      Aridog, thank you as always for reminding us of our history – and yours. I really ought to bookmark your comment, or even post it as a guest post. It really does bear repeating as much as necessary to get the message into the ignoramuses thick heads.

      As for Kerry… well, this is a family blog, but I agree with you and I’m sure I could out-cuss you if necessary. 🙂

    • anneinpt says:

      I guess yuo will be very happy to learn that even Jeffrey Goldberg agrees with you about the 2-state solution having been tried before. The tragic history of the two-state solution.

  2. Rob Harris says:

    @Aridog, interesting post – why don’t you submit that story about Kerry attacking you and your colleagues, in greater detail for a publication like The American Thinker? Only thing I would diverge with you on is about Lebanon as it was a majority Christian country until the PLO fled there in the early 70’s. They effectively instituted a civil war against the Christians, leading to an extraordinary degree of ethnic cleansing – in reality the PLO/Fatah are no better than Hamas and Hizbullah.

    • Aridog says:

      Enter your comment here…I will stand corrected on the majority question in Lebanon. I was aware that the Maronite Christian population was in power in Lebanon at the time, but not that they were a population demographic majority, which I thought the southern Shiiite were. Very difficult to analyze due to some 18+ religous groups in the country. Never-the-less, a partnership between Sunni and Shiite is merely temporary as in “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In Syria today we have the Sunni Al Qaeda in a war against an Alewite leadership, which are closer to Shiite than Sunni. There is no end to fighting among the Islamic cultures and the confusion between them to outsiders adds their cause by deflection. For example, in my view I have never seen a real difference between Fatah and Hamas. The nature of the terrorist beast is to form multiple cliques and unify and dissolve as it suits their purposes of domination of a nation or the world. This is something I am certain our political leadership here in the USA, either party, does NOT understand…they keep saying this or that group is decimated when in reality they have just morphed in to another group with the same ends. Asymmetrical organization is not something Washington DC understands going back to the late 40’s and early 50’s. Hence our trial by fire, where we never lost a major battle, but lost the war politically. The late Gen Vo Nguyen Giap’s memoirs make that very clear.

      As for me trying to highlight Kerry’s record of traitorous behavior…it is rather very old news in the US of A and none of the current party in power, nor the establishment versions of their opposition, care not one whit. The link I cited is accurate, and only one of many that describe the period. See, in the US of A your traitorous, or murderous, past is not as important as your political position as it stands at a given point in time. Witness Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (Ayer’s wife) and their celebrity today, not to mention the people who introduced us all to Barack Obama. There is nothing new to discover in Kerry’s “Winter Soldier” activities…no one cares except us veterans. We know he is a pathological liar and has lied throughout his career from the day he enlisted in the Navy at least…on through to today.

      Just my opinion, but I believe Kerry dreamed of being another JFK, hence his enlistment in the Navy, Navy OCS, and subsequently what he thought would be coastal PT Boat work like JFK. Whoops, those PCF’s were reassigned to the rivers and deltas to join the smaller PBR’s already there. Only took him 90 days to acquire 3 scratches which he endeavored to be awarded 3 Purple Hearts for…never mind not one of those “wounds” required so much as a hour at an aid station, let alone any evacuation to a hospital facility. I cannot respect that fool when I know men who as infantry soldiers were shot up several times, and hospitalized or treated in the filed and returned to their units. In one case evacuated to Japan for 90 days, and then returned to his unit in Vietnam BY CHOICE. Kerry go himself some boo-boos, got himself sent home, then further got himself released from active duty with over 180 days left, when the rule at the time was to have less than 150 days left,…so he could run for Congress. That first run didn’t work out so well, so he started up the Winter Soldier affair, which began his political career in earnest.

      You can tell I nearly hate the SOB, right?


      • anneinpt says:

        You make excellent points about the amorphous nature of terrorist groups and the West’s and US’s lack of understanding of such. It drives me crazy when a terror attack is carried out and the talking heads on TV ponderously wonder about which “shadowy terrorist group” is responsible, when it is blindingly obvious that they’re all the same murderous bastards.

        Re Kerry – yes, I get the distinct impression he’s not your favourite person. 😛

      • Rob Harris says:

        Thanks for the details and link Ari. I wasn’t familiar with the story at all. I take your point about the Ayers etc. of this world being accepted today. At some stage, if you ever reconsider writing about it, a site like the New English Review might also be interested.

        Lebanon was I believe a Christian majority until the 1980’s, when a vast number of Christians were killed and a great many fled – a good deal to America I believe. I read somewhere that a majority of the Arabs in the US are actually Christian rather than Muslim, attesting perhaps to the notion many in the Arab world view the US as a safe-haven. If memory serves me correctly, I believe there was a 65% majority of Christians in Lebanon – the only Christian nation in the Arab world, and relatively liberal with Beiruit the paris of Middle East. Then the PLO, Syria and the newly Islamicised Iran got involved. Today it is only 30% Christian. It isn’t an unusual example of Christian ethnic cleansing of course. East Jerusalem had a fairly big Christian minority but it evaporated under Jordan.

        • anneinpt says:

          The persecution and exodus of Christians from the Moslem-ruled Middle East is well-documented for anyone interested enough to learn about it. The operative word is “interested”. Most people aren’t, and are happy to assume that this phenomenon is all the fault of Israel, when in fact Israel is the only country where the Christian minority is stable if not growing. This of course excludes areas under Palestinian control, e.g. the birthplace of Christianity: Bethlehem.

          • Rob Harris says:

            Agreed Anne but it seems few make the connection with Lebanon. Bishop Moubarac of Beirut made the connection back in 1947 or 1948 between the fate of Christians in the Middle East and the fate of the Jewish people. Lebanon was sub-divided from Syria by the French, to be a Christian enclave but was over-run in just a few decades (there were to be other smaller enclaves for the Alawi and Druze, who are reputed to not be quite Muslim). The fate of Lebanon could be seen as an example of what may happen to Israel.

      • cba says:

        “You can tell I nearly hate the SOB, right?”

        I’m guessing you meant to write “really” instead of “nearly”–right? 🙂

    • anneinpt says:

      Thanks for the interesting historical detail about Lebanon. I didn’t realise it was Christian majority back then though I know they were in power. I remember that period clearly – it all degenerated into the Lebanon War in 1982.

  3. Rob Harris says:

    Thanks Anne, very interesting post. I appreciate the Israeli government has to keep the US as happy as possible since they have so few friends with real clout, but it is perhaps time that Netanyahu or a senior minister openly reject Kerry’s input, perhaps by issuing a schema of the content of the talks thus far, to push home the fact that Kerry is attacking Israel for Abbas’ intransigence. It is appalling to think Kerry wants more talks after the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation.

    • Aridog says:

      … by issuing a schema of the content of the talks thus far, to push home the fact that Kerry is attacking Israel for Abbas’ intransigence.

      Now THAT is a great idea…just so its done in a manner, through a media form that is widely read, but that the US media cannot suppress and/or ignore. With few exceptions, our media tends to effeminately adore “Dear Leader” and will protect him and his minions.

    • anneinpt says:

      I love your suggestion and I think most Israelis would deeply relish some Israeli politico telling Kerry et al to shove their suggestions where the sun don’t shine. Since we’re famous for our chutzpah it might yet happen.

      • Rob Harris says:

        Thanks Ari and Anne, I think Israel needs to take the initiative, which might stop Washington taking such liberties with the truth in the future. If there were worries about diplomatic fall-out, someone could present material to a moderately sympathetic source like the Daily Telegraph. Maybe a Fox News leak would be akin to waving a red flag at Obama. I think they need to realise they cannot beat Israel with impunity – the nerve of Kerry and his staff is rather extraordinary, e.g. the stunt he was going to pull last January demonstrates a contempt and an abject disregard for the lives of Israeli citizens.

      • cba says:

        I think Moshe Ya’alon already tried that a couple of times… didn’t work out so well, unfortunately.

        • anneinpt says:

          That was more because of the abject grovelling of our government, including Bibi, to backtrack Ya’alon’s words than because of anything the Americans said. Sure, the Americans objected loudly, but if our leaders had stood firm by Ya’alon’s side and backed him to the full, maybe the picture would look a bit different today.

          Why are we so scared of America when they so obviously do not support us today (I’m talking of the Administration, not the people)? They can’t withdraw their support because that seems to have gone already. In any event Obama and Kerry are going about weakening the US, making themselves a laughing stock in every jihadist hell-hole and every ex-communist country (Russia, I’m looking at you).

          We need to learn to laugh at them too and stop being frightened of their reaction.

  4. Reality says:

    Kerry & Obama just want quiet from our “sh..ty little country”. They want to go down in the annals of history as having produced “peace” or peace & quiet ” at the behest of the Arabs, so who cares if a couple of thousand of Israelis get displaced or even killed in the process? The main thing is that everyone kowtowed to them. And here we are daring to defy them? That is real chutzpah! It’s time Obama & Kerry realised that we’re not overly enthralled with them & they re making America totally irrelevant in the mix of world players. As far as I can understand thats Obama’s true vision. If thats so we, really don’t need to worry about “insulting” him & can do as we feel is best for country without consulting him.

    • Aridog says:

      Never consult Obama or Kerry on anything serious. Either one will rat you out immediately to your enemies, if not by design then just by their ignorant blabber mouths.

  5. Aridog says:

    Anne…I apologize for running off at the mouth all over this thread. You posed a name that triggers foaming at the mouth on my end. Hopefully some others will add to the conversation from perspectives I cannot fathom, but will likely improve the dialog. ~ R. Thompson aka Aridog

    • anneinpt says:

      No need to apologise Aridog. Your comments are both highly informative and very entertaining. Seriously, if they were a problem I’d contact you or simply edit or delete them. You are just echoing the thoughts of all of us here.

    • cba says:

      What Anne said…

  6. Brian Goldfarb says:

    From a “left” perspective, I’d like to add that I wonder if Bibi, et al, aren’t coming close to something like the following (and bear in mind that even Tzipi Livni agreed that the “peace” talks were at an end with the Abbas/Hamas “accord”): the recognition of Israel as the Jewish State is the first step in the peace process – everything else is detail – and yes, I’ll retell the Rabbi Hillel story if necessary – or Anne will. If Abbas and his (to be polite here) motley crew won’t take that small step, then perhaps Bibi et al should decide to take it for them.

    Declare the State of Israel to consist of Green Line Israel plus the major “settlement bloc(s)” (and I’m not going to draw maps here), with the future probability of land swaps when the Palestinians wake up to reality. Then, however painfully, pull everyone else off the rest of the area occupied since 1967 (and I refuse to use an even more politically laden term than that), put a powerful military picket line along the Jordan and announce “you want a state, here it is, it’s all yours, no Israeli troops, police, “settlers”, etc, just you. Do what you want with it. Come back when you’re prepared to take step one (recognition) and we’ll discuss the rest. Oh, and until then, Jerusalem remains united under our control. But one rock, one bullet, one rocket across that de facto border, and we flatten what’s left of your infrastructure. And the hell with John Kerry.

    Deal with it. We’ve had to since 1948.”

    Just an idle thought from a member of the sane left. With family and friends in Israel he wants to see live in peace and security. And who no longer cares what Abbas et al think and want.

    • anneinpt says:

      Brian, some of what you suggest has been posited before, but for various reasons they have been rejected. In fact I read a similar thing just today in Commentary Magazine by Jonathan Tobin: Israel’s plan B. He wasn’t very happy about it though and didn’t think it would work, for as long as Israel has ANY presence in the West Bank it will be considered an occupier by the Palestinians and the world.

      It’s completely unfair, that territory originally belonged to us and we captured it in a defensive war, but that’s how it it is.

      In that case why should we withdraw anybody at all? Let Israel annex the entire territory, settle it as much as we want, and let the world go to hell. It has worked in the Golan, it will work in Judea and Samaria too. We, Israel, just have to be very firm and certain of our convictions. I do not believe there will be a demographic threat. in any event we have always worried about our demography. Just look at the numbers in 1948 and see what happened next.

      In any case, a withdrawal cannot be reversed but an annexation can. Let Israel annex the territory as I said above, but if we do get overwhelmed numerically we can always withdraw afterwards. But once it’s done, a la Gaza, it cannot be undone. So why withdraw first? Why reward Arab intransigence and violence?

      • Aridog says:

        Anne…you already know my attitude about any withdrawal. So I’ll not repeat it to bore others. However I want to post a link to nonsense in the US of A involving the latest government planned education system called “Common Core.” A better name would be “Common Indoctrination” or “Common Nonsense.” Here are the links to the crazy, but dangerous material: Link1 , Link2 , Link 3 , and Link 4.

        I originally thought that this has to be a joke…but no, it is not a joke, it is real. I am beyond disgust. And very sorry my country has descended to this level.

        • anneinpt says:

          Hi Aridog, sorry for the delay, your comment was flagged as spam because you had more than 3 limks.

          I have good news for you. In fact if you look at your fourth link you’ll see for yourself that the school has revised the assignment.

          On the other hand the bad news is that they ever thought of it to begin with, and they only revised it after protests from the ADL. What WERE those pinheads thinking?! (/rhetorical question. They obviously weren’t thinking).

          • Aridog says:

            They are considering changes. No matter, the “Common Core” agenda is designed to revise history, and it will continue to do so. It sounded good when proposed…e.g., uniform standards, (similar to original New York State’s Regents Exam), but there is little doubt in my mind where the Holocaust denial meme started. Yes, they were thinking, very purposely, and any minor change today will not prevent future blasphemy. They will create false history every day and only flinch slightly when called upon it as the ADL did in this case.

            The key for me, buried within the text blarney, is the allegation that no autopsies were ever performed on purported victims. Really? That is purpose built anti-Semitic thought conveyed to children. Period.

Comments are closed.