"Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose."

[Tigermike 3,026]

For John Kerry, when it comes to an American ally and a deadly enemy, it’s 1971 all over again

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. These timeless words apply with unusual accuracy to John Kerry and the role he’s chosen to assume in the current war between Israel and Hamas.

David Horovitz describes Kerry’s despicable conduct in his self-appointed role as peace negotiator between Israel, a recognized nation among nations, and Hamas, a designated terrorist organization:

When The Times of Israel’s Avi Issacharoff first reported the content of John Kerry’s ceasefire proposal on Friday afternoon, I wondered if something had gotten lost in translation. It seemed inconceivable that the American secretary of state would have drafted an initiative that, as a priority, did not require the dismantling of Hamas’s rocket arsenal and network of tunnels dug under the Israeli border. Yet the reported text did not address these issues at all, nor call for the demilitarization of Gaza.

It seemed inconceivable that the secretary’s initiative would specify the need to address Hamas’s demands for a lifting of the siege of Gaza, as though Hamas were a legitimate injured party acting in the interests of the people of Gaza — rather than the terror group that violently seized control of the Strip in 2007, diverted Gaza’s resources to its war effort against Israel, and could be relied upon to exploit any lifting of the “siege” in order to import yet more devastating weaponry with which to kill Israelis.

As another Times of Israel writer explained in great detail:

According to the text, “the Palestinian factions” and the State of Israel would make three commitments:

a) Establish a humanitarian cease-fire, ending all hostilities in and from the Gaza Strip, beginning in 48 hours, and lasting for a period of seven days

Build on the Cairo cease-fire understandings of November 2012 [that were reached, through American and Egyptian mediation, following Operation Pillar of Defense]

c) Convene in Cairo, at the invitation of Egypt, within 48 hours to negotiate resolution of all issues necessary to achieve a sustainable cease-fire and enduring solution to the crisis in Gaza, including arrangements to secure the opening of crossings, allow the entry of goods and people and ensure the social and economic livelihood of the Palestinian people living in Gaza, transfer funds to Gaza for the payment of salaries for public employees, and address all security issues.

The third part — “c” above — of the proposed ceasefire agreement, which was submitted by US Secretary of State John Kerry, was a particular source of vexation for Israeli leaders, as it basically accepts all of Hamas’s demands but addresses Israeli worries only tangentially. Rather than calling for demilitarization of Gaza or addressing the attack tunnels the group has dug, the proposal merely calls for a general discussion of “all security issues.”

According to the document, Israel would not be forced to withdraw its troops from Gaza during the course of the truce, but would also not be allowed to continue its work destroying any tunnels in the strip. During the ceasefire, “the parties will refrain from conducting any military or security targeting of each other,” the draft states.

The document also mentions that “members of the international community, including the United Nations, the Arab League, the European Union, the United States, Turkey, Qatar and many others, support the effective implementation of the humanitarian cease-fire and agreements reached between the parties, in cooperation and coordination with the parties, and will join in a major humanitarian assistance initiative to address the immediate needs of the people of Gaza.”

That segment effectively sidelines Jerusalem, Ramallah and Cairo, which are not mentioned at all. Especially noteworthy is the omission of Egypt, which borders on Gaza and has in the past mediated between Israel and Hamas. Instead, it appears, Kerry has designated Turkey and Qatar to take over this role in the current conflict. Doha and Ankara are Hamas’s staunchest allies in the region, which underlines why Jerusalem rejected the proposal outright.

In acceding to Hamas’s demands, John Kerry is injuring not only an American ally (that would be Israel), but America too, since Hamas is, as I mentioned, an official terrorist group, not to mention a sworn enemy of the West.

Here’s the thing, though: When it comes to John Kerry, we’ve heard this song before. Let me take you back to 1971, when John Kerry testified before Congress about his actions during the Vietnam War:

Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don’t mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer.

I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh’s points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned…

The Viet Cong’s demands at the time were for a complete American surrender and the communist takeover of the whole of Vietnam. (As an aside, that’s what we ended up doing, in part because people like Kerry, whose conduct at that time was illegal and seditious, paved the way.)

Looking at Kerry’s recent disgraceful performance in the Middle East, it’s clear that this is what Kerry does. He sides with murderous totalitarian regimes against his country and her allies. When it comes to Kerry’s embrace of Hamas, he is just acting true to form.

link

Times of London

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Kerry is pathetic. I almost feel sorry for him.

[AU-24 3,071]

I never thought I would live to see the day an American Administration would defend (or condone) Hamas, the way the current admin does.

I don't know what is more disappointing:

A. The poor way Kerry and Obama have handled this situation

or

B. The lack of major media attention (other than FOX) to this major, major world issue is garnering in the states!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/28/us-israel-clash-over-criticism-kerry/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3701522030001/report-wh-fuming-over-israeli-criticism-of-kerry/#sp=show-clips

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3701734513001/why-john-kerry-failed-to-broker-a-mideast-cease-fire/#sp=show-clips

[cooltigger21 0]

Kerry is pathetic. I almost feel sorry for him.

I don't. He's a gold digger and an American hater just like his boss.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Kerry is pathetic. I almost feel sorry for him.

The kicker is, he doesn't feel sorry for us at all. He loathes us, and this country. He, like Obama, want to take this nation down a few pegs, and he's doing a dandy job of getting that done.

[Tigermike 3,026]

MATT YGLESIAS: Given his enormous achievements as Secretary of State, John Kerry has to be considered a leading contender for the 2016 nomination.

link

[homersapien 11,369]

Kerry is pathetic. I almost feel sorry for him.

The kicker is, he doesn't feel sorry for us at all. He loathes us, and this country. He, like Obama, want to take this nation down a few pegs, and he's doing a dandy job of getting that done.

Funny you would post something that pathetic in response to a post calling Kerry pathetic.

But if it makes you feel any better, I - for one - feel sorry for you.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

barry and kerry is dum and dummer. They hate America. they hate Jews. All libtards do. they out to be in prisen. IMPEACH barry NOW

[TheBlueVue 177]

barry and kerry is dum and dummer. They hate America. they hate Jews. All libtards do. they out to be in prisen. IMPEACH barry NOW

I knew if "bolt neck" had a single supporter in this forum it would be YOU.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I guess the liberal leaning Washington Post is a "hater" too,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-john-kerrys-big-blunder-in-seeking-an-israel-gaza-cease-fire/2014/07/28/ab3fbfd2-1686-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html

[homersapien 11,369]

I guess the liberal leaning Washington Post is a "hater" too,

http://www.washingto...e981_story.html

"Hater"? :-\

I didn't see any "hate" in that article. What is it with you and hyperbole?

[Tigermike 3,026]

I guess the liberal leaning Washington Post is a "hater" too,

http://www.washingto...e981_story.html

"Hater"? :-\

I didn't see any "hate" in that article. What is it with you and hyperbole?

Having a hard time remembering all the times you and Igor & Tex have called anyone who disagrees with Obama a hater?

[homersapien 11,369]

I guess the liberal leaning Washington Post is a "hater" too,

http://www.washingto...e981_story.html

"Hater"? :-\

I didn't see any "hate" in that article. What is it with you and hyperbole?

Having a hard time remembering all the times you and Igor & Tex have called anyone who disagrees with Obama a hater?

Yes I am.

However, I do remember pointing out there are obviously some Obama-HATERS on this forum. That's hardly a secret. All you have to do is read the venom in the posts. But I don't recall labeling anyone who simply disagreed with (Obama or Kerry) on a particular policy a "hater".

There are Obama policies I don't agree with either. In fact, I tend to agree with the points made in this article. But I certainly didn't see any hate in it.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

barry and kerry is dum and dummer. They hate America. they hate Jews. All libtards do. they out to be in prisen. IMPEACH barry NOW

Translation = u talk bout my man i be mad wit u.

[cooltigger21 0]

I guess the liberal leaning Washington Post is a "hater" too,

http://www.washingto...e981_story.html

"Hater"? :-\

I didn't see any "hate" in that article. What is it with you and hyperbole?

Having a hard time remembering all the times you and Igor & Tex have called anyone who disagrees with Obama a hater?

Yes I am.

However, I do remember pointing out there are obviously some Obama-HATERS on this forum. That's hardly a secret. All you have to do is read the venom in the posts. But I don't recall labeling anyone who simply disagreed with (Obama or Kerry) on a particular policy a "hater".

There are Obama policies I don't agree with either. In fact, I tend to agree with the points made in this article. But I certainly didn't see any hate in it.

I don't hate Obama as a person but I despise what he is doing to this country. You may disagree on a policy here and there but his overall premise seems to set pretty well with you. I believe, no I know, he comes at everything from the viewpoint that America is the bad guy. Our strength is a problem. We created all the problems in the world. We bullied everybody and stole their resources and used them to make ourselves rich and powerful. I have a fundamental disagreement with that philosophy.

[cptau 169]

Kerry got the Secretary of State job because he didn't get sent out to lie about Benghazi on the Sunday news programs. Otherwise Susan rice would have the job. He is at best 2nd choice.

John McCain was a big proponent of Kerry getting the state job, which is just another bad McCain decision.

You would think Kerry would be sympathetic to Israel, as Kerry actually has Jewish ancestry. His paternal grandparents were Czech Jews who converted to Catholicism and changed their last name from kohn to Kerry prior to immigrating to the US. He had relatives who died in nazi concentration camps.

[homersapien 11,369]

I guess the liberal leaning Washington Post is a "hater" too,

http://www.washingto...e981_story.html

"Hater"? :-\

I didn't see any "hate" in that article. What is it with you and hyperbole?

Having a hard time remembering all the times you and Igor & Tex have called anyone who disagrees with Obama a hater?

Yes I am.

However, I do remember pointing out there are obviously some Obama-HATERS on this forum. That's hardly a secret. All you have to do is read the venom in the posts. But I don't recall labeling anyone who simply disagreed with (Obama or Kerry) on a particular policy a "hater".

There are Obama policies I don't agree with either. In fact, I tend to agree with the points made in this article. But I certainly didn't see any hate in it.

I don't hate Obama as a person but I despise what he is doing to this country. You may disagree on a policy here and there but his overall premise seems to set pretty well with you. I believe, no I know, he comes at everything from the viewpoint that America is the bad guy. Our strength is a problem. We created all the problems in the world. We bullied everybody and stole their resources and used them to make ourselves rich and powerful. I have a fundamental disagreement with that philosophy.

Funny, but even as I am typing this I am watching (repeat) a "Front Line" program on Iraq. Bush backed Maliki against the advice of his military advisers. Bush believed he could "feel" the essence of a political leader and wanted Maliki to stay in place. He liked him. (He had similar views on Putin if you recall.)

My point is not to hurl partisan barbs. After all, Obama can be faulted for avoiding the problem he was left with. He (naively) wanted to just get past it.

The point is "history" - meaning historians - will judge both of them. And that will occur for decades.

And I "like" Bush too. I'd love to have him as a guest. Seriously.

[TheBlueVue 177]

What I have difficulty understanding is why we continually are drawn into discussions comparing Obama to Bush. I mean we could set the bar even lower if we wanted to but WTF...its not like Bush was a great President. At some point, hopefully, we'll ALL be able to move on but I think the lefties are having the hardest time of that. If Obama was getting the same kind of "love" from the media Bush got, I seriously doubt there would be near as many Obama apologists.

After Katrina, the media made every effort to crucify Bush AND the republican party. Since Obama was elected they have worked even harder covering for his shortcomings and there are many. This guy is supremely unqualified, has never run anything other than efforts to shake the govt down as a community organizer.

America bought the sizzle the media put out and the electorate is getting what they deserve for re-electing him.