Adiv Sterman, writing in the Times of Israel, tells us:
As part of the Obama administration’s current campaign to push the Iranian deal signed July 14 in Vienna, Kerry told an audience at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York on Friday that should Congress vote against the agreement, “our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated, and more blamed.”"our friends in Israel"?
The statement was promptly rejected by the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, now a member of the centrist Kulanu party.
“If American legislators reject the nuclear deal, they will do so exclusively on the basis of US interests. The threat of the secretary of state who, in the past, warned that Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid state, cannot deter us from fulfilling our national duty to oppose this dangerous deal,” Oren said in a statement.
John Kerry has friends in Israel? This is rather difficult to imagine, actually, but I suppose that there must be one or two people in Israel who do not actively despise Barack Obama and John Kerry.
This administration is about as popular as a hunchbacked warthog with herpes in Israel... and that goes at least as much for the Arabs as the Jews, because both understand that in allowing Iranian nuclear weaponry it is enabling the potential holocaust of both people. It must also be remembered that Sunnis and Shias distrust one another almost as much as they distrust and despise Jews.
This is not the first time, by the way, that Kerry has made these kinds of veiled threats and the "isolation" of Israel is an ongoing theme with the Obama administration. Israel is constantly admonished by the U.S. administration in terms that I interpret as follows:
You guys better do as you are told or something bad could happen.
We are your best friends and we would not want to see you get hurt, so you better listen up.
You will allow the murderers of Jews out of Israeli prisons.
Your leadership will apologize before the international community to those who seek you harm by supporting efforts to break the blockade of Gaza and, thus, allow-in weaponry against you.
You will not let your people build housing for themselves on the parts of your land where we disapprove of your presence.
We will arm your Iranian enemies with the world's most dangerous weapons and you will be quiet.
We will also flood the Iranian economy with one hundred and fifty billion dollars which they can use to bolster genocidally anti-Semitic organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, but you will remain quiet.
When Arabs shoot rockets at your people you will sustain the suffering of your children without response because to do otherwise would constitute an act of aggression and a war crime.One of the memorable catch-phrases of the Obama administration is this notion of "leading from behind." This is a very real thing and Obama has perfected it in terms of Israel. In order to lead "from behind" one needs both the authority of position and the enthusiasm of those one is behind leading. Obama knows very well that both the EU and the UN are hungry for more sanctions and harassment of the lone, sole Jewish state. All Obama needs to do is remark about how displeased he is with the
At the same time, however - given Israel's economic, technical, and diplomatic relationships all around the world - Kerry's forebodings of "isolation" seem more like an attempt to play on Jewish fears more than anything else. The last thing that Israel is, or is likely to be going forward, is "isolated." The Jewish people in the Middle East are a people under siege, that is certainly true.. European Jewry is under siege, as well, because of the deterioration of Enlightenment values throughout that continent.
American, Canadian, and Australian Jews are doing nicely because of the strength of secular democracy within those countries. Nonetheless, the history of the Jewish people, as a whole, is that of a people under siege and, therefore, it is not difficult for powerful people, such as those from the Obama administration, to manipulate Jewish fears, which is precisely what they are doing.
Whenever the Obama administration starts making noises about Israeli "isolation" or the likelihood of Israel becoming a heinous "apartheid" state unless it does what it is told, these are veiled threats exploiting historically-based Jewish fears. It is a way for non-Jews with an agenda, like John Kerry, to use Jewish apprehensions, given our history, as a weapon against us. When people like Kerry claim that Israel is becoming, or already is, an "apartheid state" what they are saying is that like apartheid South Africa, it must be dismantled in favor of something else. In this case the "something else" is a 23rd Arab-Muslim Koranically-based dictatorship.
A direct threat, obviously, was the suggestion that, given Israel's refusal to sometimes do as told, the Obama administration may very well turn upon it at the United Nations.
As CNN reported after Netanyahu's recent victory at the polls:
Washington (CNN) The Obama administration's frustration with Benjamin Netanyahu is turning into outright hostility after the Israeli prime minister's commanding victory this week.There is no question, in my mind, at least, that the Obama administration is the most hostile American administration toward the Jewish State of Israel in the history of the United States. The reason that the Obama administration is hostile to Israel is not out of some form of direct anti-Semitism, but through the influence of post-colonial theory in the academe, which represents the very basis of Obama's political thinking.
Administration officials greeted his win with harsh words Wednesday and suggestions that the U.S. might scale back its support for Israel at the United Nations, a significant reversal in policy after years of vetoing resolutions damaging to Jerusalem.
A senior administration official said that Netanyahu's sharp tacks to the right before Tuesday's vote -- in which he ruled out the creation of a Palestinian state, a pillar of U.S. policy in the Middle East -- "raise very significant substantive concerns" for the White House, and that "we have to reassess our options going forward."
Post-colonial theory, as presented by anti-Israel / anti-Western / anti-American professors like Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, and Rashid Khalidi, suggests that the world is divided between white, western imperialists and their non-European victims "of color" and that Israel is a white, European transplant onto the indigenous soil of another people.
Thus Israel - and ultimately thereby the Jews - must be opposed and undermined.
Yet, somehow, we are supposed to believe that this is actually in the best interest of the Jewish people.
Finally, John Kerry would honestly have us believe that if the U.S. Congress rejects the Iran deal, this is the fault of the Jews in Israel or will be considered as such?
This is profoundly disturbing and reminiscent of European thinking in the early-middle part of the twentieth-century.
A song which wasn't (but could have been) dedicated to John Kerry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MZdAIEwdRYReplyDelete
what makes you think one can't be a follower of post-colonial theory; Said, Chomsky, Khalidi etc etc., and not be an anti-Semite as well?
these are not mutually exclusive categories.
However, I simply do not want to make the mistake of assuming that because someone holds to post-colonial theory it must, ipso facto, mean that this person is also, inherently, prejudiced against Jews.
It simply does not work that way within my experience.
No, of course. Of course.Delete
I would say though, that - certainly here in Europe, and in most of America's universities - the two seem to go together. Hand- in - hand.
There are probably differences in Europe due to its history, but I think one can observe a very alarming growth in bigotry and a strong swing towards the use of anti-Semitic tropes becoming commonplace in much "progressive" American discourse. At the moment it can be noted that, broadly speaking, the general American public do not share these beliefs and do generally support Israel. My view is that the progressive left are working very hard to alter that with the aim of creating the same atmosphere in America as we find in Europe. Then they can bring America in line with the European political culture that they seem to admire so much. Changing demographics in the States will make that more likely.
It is interesting also that this 'anti-Semitism ' is not confined to attacking Israel. It is being directed at Jews in the Diaspora who are now considered the wrong sort of Jews.
People like Obama and Kerry et al. seem to think they are entitled to sort out the 'wrong' from the 'right' Jews. This in itself speaks of something really rather unpleasant. It's certainly arrogant ; it might well be something else. I am less loth than you might be to believe it to be something else.
In fact, I find it difficult to grasp what 'else' it might be.
Sorry, there might be a syntactic error in above comment. ( Have headache!)
What I'm trying to say is that being an adherent of post-colonial theories etc. doesn't preclude one from being anti-Semitic.
They go together far more frequently than one might like to think.
Progressives exhibit way too much passion to be motivated merely by an academic theory.ReplyDelete
The academic theory represents the necessary intellectual backdrop and justification for the passion that you refer to.Delete
This is what slays me. As a matter of universal human rights and social justice the progressive-left tends to think that Jews who live in Judea have no right to build second bathrooms within their homes.
I am just flabbergasted that diaspora Jews go along with the notion that Jews may be allowed to live over here, but not over there, in the Land of Israel.
How did we got to a point wherein even well-meaning Jewish people - in Israel, no less - go along with this clear and obvious descrimination against us on our own soil?
The answer to that question is "the narrative" and that was spread via the academe.
But of course Obama and his man Friday, John Kerry, would know that a congressional vote against this abysmal sell out to the vicious mullahs would be due to the intrinsic weakness of the deal and Iran's malevolent designs, and not due to the influence of Jews - oops, Israel. To think otherwise would be classic anti-Semitism of the sort resurrecting itself from the sewers of Europe. The pros from Dover, Obama and his caddy, should be the first to speak out forcefully against such an egregious notion, especially is America, and America is different, i.e., the indispensable nation, American Exceptionalism and all that. Obama and Kerry do believe in that, or do they?ReplyDelete
Congress is a febrile body but one that is ultimately worthless and shameless. It's members want their own pieces of the coming Iranian gold rush as much as anyone else, and even if they didn't, they have no stomach to stand up to Obama. Not in any material way. They never have they never will. So all this talk about 'what the Senate will do' is nonsense. A few of them will make speeches and puff out their chests but everyone knows it's as much theater as the so called negotiations were in the first place. The fix was in years ago. Obama wants Iran to get The Bomb and his is the only voice that has any opinion at all. No one else is either strongly in favor OR opposed. Blaming the Jews preemptively is something he reflexively does. For everything. Of course he'll blame the Jews, for whatever happens. The deal will go through and he'll tell the Sunnis the Jews control all the things. The deal doesn't go through he tells Europe, Russia and Iran that's the Jews' fault too. And any movement on the spectrum from one end to the other on that scale is the Jews' fault.ReplyDelete
To me at least the funny part will be Debbie Wasserman Schultz defending anti semitic violence that will no doubt erupt on the floor of the Democratic Convention in Philly next year. Jewish Democratic votes will drop from 68% to 65% as a result and Chris Matthews will claim "Tel Aviv controls America" like he has before.
Janet Albrechtsen is a conservative columnist who writes for The Australian.ReplyDelete
In this morning's column she cites an annual survey by a private think tank that found that only 60% of Australians and just 42% of young Australians aged 18 to 29 believe "democracy is preferable to any other kind of government".
This is "cultural complacency" is appalling and terrifying.
This disgraceful state of affairs is the fault of teachers and universities who are quite simply not doing their jobs.
Albrechtsen quotes a report on Australian universities that despite the undeniable fact that Australian political and cultural institutions have their origins in Britain, of the 739 history subjects taught in the universities last year only 15 covered British history.
There is no space for economic history in any Australian history department. But there is room for 15 film studies subjects, 14 feminist subjects and 12 sexuality subjects.
I suppose it's possible to see the funny side of this. But in truth right now the "cultural appeasement" and "cultural complacency" that flow from this are a recipe for disaster..
In Britain last year there were nearly 4000 reported cases of female genital mutilation and 11 000 cases of "honour-based" violence over the last five years.
And that's just reported.cases.
.Australian statistics are likely to be proportionate if anybody if anybody bothered to report it.
Australian security authorities say there have been dozens of home grown terrorist plots that have been thwarted. A major attack is seen as certain..
In the meantime everyone from the PM down are busy denying that there is anything "Islamic" about terrorism. How often do you hear "there is nothing Islamic about terrorism"? From everybody except the terrorists themselves, it seems.
The British PM recently made a strong and long overdue statement on thisReplyDelete
"David Cameron delivered an important speech in Birmingham this week promising new measures to counter violent Islam. Note the Prime Minister’s use of the “I” word.
"Speaking in a city where 20% of residents are Muslim, Mr. Cameron was blunt. The root cause of Islamist radicalization, he argued, is neither economic deprivation nor the West’s alleged misdeeds in the Middle East. It’s a worldview that begins with “hearing about the so-called Jewish conspiracy and then develops into hostility to the West and fundamental liberal values, before finally becoming a cultish attachment to death.”
"As for responses, he insisted that it wasn’t enough for Muslim communal leaders in the West to denounce suicide bombings in London if they didn’t also denounce “suicide bombs in Israel.” He also took aim at the excuse-making and moral self-flagellation that seems to go with every terrorist attack. “How can it be,” he asked, “that after the tragic events at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, weeks were spent discussing the limits of free speech and satire, rather than whether terrorists should be executing people full stop?”"
In case anyone is interested, this is about Jeremy Corbyn who, as of today, is the bookies favourite to win the leadership of the British Labour Party.ReplyDelete
If Corbyn ever achieves real power there will in fact be pogroms in Britain.Delete