Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Risk Management

"If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,”
Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday."  Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state... (read more)
Then Monday, yesterday, Kerry backtracked... 
On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry issued an apology after it was revealed by The Daily Beast that he said Israel was at risk of becoming an “apartheid state.” In a statement, Kerry said “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.” He also said “apartheid” was a poor choice of terms. In his statement, he said “if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word.”
Usually, what people say at first is what they really mean to say.  Kerry backtracked because there was a bad reaction to it.   Kerry potentially risked campaign donors for democrats if he had stood by his statement that Israel risked becoming an apartheid state.

ht Michael Haz

37 comments:

KCFleming said...

The Israelis know we have abandoned them, in favor of terrorists and fascists and thugs.

Kerry's words made that as clear as can be.

David Mamet:
"Love of the Victim is an attempt at a non-deist recreation of religious feeling," Mamet writes. News organizations sell the Middle East conflict as entertainment, and "there is something of the sadomasochistic" in the Left's love of the Palestinians, whom audiences are conditioned to see in the role of Woman in Jeopardy (e.g., "The Rape of Jenin").
The price of admission to the extravaganza is indictment of the State of Israel, which is condemned and scorned regardless of the facts of history, the exercise of reason, or the recognition of cultural affinity. In the West's abandonment of Israel, Mamet charges, the audience does not care that Palestinian claims are insoluble, exaggerated, unjust, or skewed. To care would require audience members to do something, which would end their enjoyable position as viewers.

"Just as in the movies we would resent the fellow in the next seat explaining the effects," Mamet writes, "so actual information about the Middle East conflict is considered an intrusion and a distraction from the spectacle. One has made one's choice (bought one's tickets) and would like to be left in peace to enjoy the show."
So it doesn't matter if Israel factually proves that Jenin wasn't "raped" in 2002 and that Israel allowed its young soldiers to be killed in the twisted alleyways of that Samarian town rather than level the terror nests with artillery or airpower. The insights of Mamet the master entertainer, the communicator par excellence, reinforces this reviewer's belief that in the end it's not about facts, or even about right or wrong, but rather about emotional engagement. It's about who you love and who you don't. It's about whose side you're on.
"The Liberal West would like the citizens of Israel to take the only course which would bring about the end of the disturbing 'cycle of violence' which they hear of in the Liberal press. That course is abandoning their homes and country, leaving, with their lives, if possible, but leaving in any case.
"Is this desire anti-Semitism?" Mamet asks rhetorically.
"You bet your life it is."


Shouting Thomas said...

Israel was founded as a Jewish state to shelter the survivors of the Holocaust.

It is not another Diversity project.

Unknown said...

Pogo - perfect.

I love truth bombs.

The Dude said...

Obama hopes to make it the location of the next holocaust. That's just how he rolls.

Unknown said...

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry issued an apology after it was revealed by The Daily Beast that he said Israel was at risk of becoming an “apartheid state.” In a statement, Kerry said “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.

Kerry lies in his apology. He claims to have never stated what he in fact stated.
What an a-hole.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry issued an apology after it was revealed by The Daily Beast that he said Israel was at risk of becoming an “apartheid state.” In a statement, Kerry said ......

What?!? You guys were actually listening to what I was blathering on about??? Humina humina....I meant.....more blather.

Aridog said...

John Kerry has been a liar all of his life, including while he was in the military and subsequently when he alleged sanctioned atrocities.

No reason to expect him to not lie now. It is pathological for him.

Icepick said...

John Kerry on one side, Roseanne Barr on the other. I think I'm hoping for both sides to lose.

Icepick said...

Humina humina

Isn't she the one that married that sleazy NYC Congressman? Carlos Danger or something?

Icepick said...

Carlos Danger IS ... the most self-absorbed man in the world!

Unknown said...

Carlos Danger would make a better Secretary of State than either Hillary! or John Kerry.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Homina homina

Or something like that. :-)

Mitch H. said...

Really, put a US Senator in a position of any sensitivity or responsibility, and you're responsible for whatever damage he does. Hillary Clinton was actually an *above-average* example of the Senatorial breed put in a position of responsibility, and all she managed to do was not burn the building down while she was in charge. Clearly *that* is beyond John F'n Kerry, Sage of the Solons.

Mitch H. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aridog said...

John Kerry and his predecessors from both parties have been willfully ignorant about what constitutes the legal boundaries of Israel. The San Remo Accords, as amended in 1922, define that simple fact. The UN didn't even exist, let alone subsequently have authority to modify the accords. Note that virtually every Arab nation defined by those 1922 amended accords still adheres to the same borders, sans "partitions", outlined in those accords. Odd then, that Israel is expected to do otherwise?

Originally defined within the British Mandate as the future Jewish National Home circa 1920. Subsequently the San Remo Accords were amended in 1922, taking 77% of the orignal mandate and creating two Palestines, one as Trans-Jordan and the other as the remaining future Jewish Nation Home...aka legally noted as Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. Note it included the Golan Heights, which the British unilaterally ceeded to the French Mandate aka Syria later in 1922.

In essence a "two state solution" was already effected by the 1922 San Remo Accords. Frequently we hear that Israel took the west bank away from Jordan...when actually, upon Israel's declaration of independnce, Jordan and other Arab states attacked Israel with Jordan occupying the west bank, along an armistice line, until they were pushed back across the Jordan River in 1967. In short, in 1967 Israel re-occupied its own territory.

As for the willful ignorance of men like Kerry, et al...it isn't that the Information is not available for their use.

History is hard when you are solely focused on re-writing it to fit your personal paradigm.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

If you're a Lefty being scolded by Roseanne Barr, maybe it's time to pack it in.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Homina homina

I thought that's what Hillary! said the first time she saw Huma.

PS Sounds like Lurch has been channeling the Man From Plains for his wisdom.

Unknown said...

Ponder the money we could have saved tax payers. We spent millions upon millions sending Hillary! to travel the globe in style. All Carlos needs is a private computer and a washcloth.

ricpic said...

I said what I really meant before I unsaid it.

I exposed myself before I buttoned up.

Goddammed Jews! Oops...but I love your wallets. So there's that. Let's kiss and make up.

--John Effing Kerry

sakredkow said...

Kerry is more or less right - Israel probably does risk becoming an apartheid state. It's not entirely Israel's fault but it is what it is. He was too far out in front of the Obama admin though so he got his hand slapped for political reasons.

Not a big deal. That stuff happens pretty often in every administration with the cabinet. He is Obama's responsibility.

ricpic said...

Filth like phx charges Israel with apartheid so that it can be linked with South Africa and the campaign to annihilate the hated Jewish State can progress under the cover of righting a terrible wrong. It's been standard practice with the Left since the Jews had the chutzpah to first establish a homeland for themselves, how dare they! and then had the unmitigated gall to defend its continued existence. The charge is so spurious and so deliberately malicious that it doesn't deserve an answer. Total war on phx filth, Obama filth, Kerry filth. That is the only acceptable answer.

sakredkow said...

Filth like phx

"Filth" ha ha. Grow up ricpic. Aren't you the guy that really is a racist here after all?

sakredkow said...

Total war on phx filth, Obama filth, Kerry filth. That is the only acceptable answer.


*sotto voce* "Nut case"

Aridog said...

phx said...

Kerry is more or less right - Israel probably does risk becoming an apartheid state.

1.) Kerry is historically a liar and fabricator, and is no different today. It is pathological.

2.) Yeah a risk of being an "apartheid state" all right, so unlike our USA's risk..we solved that by annihilating most of the opposition.

Israel should hold on to their territory, all of it, until Kerry and Theresa give up any property they own in Massachusetts and return it to the Wampanoag Native American Tribe.

Synova said...

I have other things on my mind, but isn't an apartheid state sort of the same thing as a two state solution?

Certainly neither of them involve even a tiny bit of integration.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Phx:

Many, if not most, countries of the world are very protective and selective of who they let in as immigrants. They do it to protect and preserve their nation and their own nationality. That is not a racist act Phx.

Not doing that can be an act of nation suicide [see England for an example].




sakredkow said...

I understand that AJ Lynch. I'm not completely blaming Israel here. No way the status quo can be maintained here forever though. These people need to start talking with each other before it does turn into apartheid - or worse. Or before the Arabs turn it all into Armageddon.

Aridog said...

Synova said...

I have other things on my mind, but isn't an apartheid state sort of the same thing as a two state solution?

Certainly neither of them involve even a tiny bit of integration.


See my comment at 12:28 PM today. A "two state solution" was imposed way back in 1922.

The problem since then is that the powers that be in Jordan don't want the "Palestinian 'PLO' Arabs" in their midst...e.g., apartheid established by the "Black September" civil war in Jordan 1970-71. Result of that separation was expulsion of the PLO advocates and their supporters. Now the PLO is in the "West Bank" and joining hands with Hamas in Gaza.

Hamas who indiscriminately rocket and mortar Israeli towns from across their border. I have a piece of one of those rockets fired at Ashkelon on my mantle, made in to a steel sculptured rose.

When it comes to "integration" between Jews and Arab Muslims, Israel has (dangerously IMO) enabled it to happen in Israel. Can you tell of any Arab nation where that is reciprocal for Jews in those lands?

I have friends in Israel and they tell me it is not morally acceptable for their IDF to obliterate their enemies' civilian population centers. They understand that means they miss eliminating a resource. All the while their opposition feels free to blow up Israeli women and children.

It is a point I fail to understand, but respect their adherence to what they believe. There will be no Dresden, nor Tokyo fire bombing, et al by the Israelis.

Lydia said...

These people need to start talking with each other before it does turn into apartheid - or worse.

Talking, eh? Well, there's been quite a bit of that.

The sticking point is that the Palestinians will not recognize Israel's right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people.

Aridog said...

"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,"

~ John Kerry to the Associated Press.

Yessir, by gosh dang golly...John just cannot avoid lying even when trying not to lie.

I bet he's still "the hat" from that episode, too.

Trooper York said...

John Kerry is just revealing the true face of the Obama administration and the Democratic party. Any Jew who supports Israel and it's right to exist is a fool if they vote Democratic or contribute to the candidates who will sell them out at he drop of a hat.

The hat that is seared in their memories.

The Holocaust? They forgot about that. Old news.

Trooper York said...

Luckily the Jews of Israel have balls and will not let the likes of Obama and Kerry send them to the ovens. They will fight. With nuclear weapons on the table. Obama is working to get Iran the bomb. Israel will not let that happen.

They need not fear Obama's reaction if they take out Iran. He will do nothing. They know they have a free hand. The Ukraine proved that.

When the time is right they will move.

Aridog said...

"Seared" I say "Seared!!"

Quick someone get ole John some Army-Navy surplus ribbons to throw over a wall.

Hooah.

Heh heh.

deborah said...

Man has he screwed up. Makes me think of 'there are no accidents' (Freud, I think.)

When will these dunderheads realize they must always speak as if the microphone is on?

sakredkow said...

Man has he screwed up. Makes me think of 'there are no accidents' (Freud, I think.)

When will these dunderheads realize they must always speak as if the microphone is on?


Wait a minute. Can't you just copy and paste this in the Donald Sterling thread as well? It's a twofer deal.

chickelit said...

My outlook towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was profoundly shaken at around age 14 when I had an outspoken Palestinian immigrant as a high school American history teacher. This was circa 1973-74. Not only did she try to convince us of her people's cause, she painted a hateful picture of the people she said forcibly took her family's house in Jerusalem. Oh and she gave me a D even though I probably knew more American history than she did at that point.

William said...

The Christians in Palestine and in other areas of the Middle East have found compelling reasons to emigrate. Perhaps we need a three state solution.......Here's an interesting fact. Jews were at one time a plurality, perhaps a majority, of Baghdad's population. They had been there since the Babylonian captivity, so they had been there before the Arabs. Nonetheless, when the Israel state was established, they were forced to flee and leave their homes and possessions behind. Why is their case different than that of the Palestinians? How about the Greeks of Anatolia? How about the Volga Germans? How about the American Loyalists? What makes the Palestinians such extra special refugees?