Flashback: John Kerry and Israel
Kerry's dangerous multilateralism
Even the Israeli leftist newspaper Haaretz is appalled buy John Kerry's bungled, counterproductive, utter capitulation to Hamas in his latest intervention on behalf of a cease-fire. One person not surprised is our own Ed Lasky. Ten years ago, as John Kerry ran for president, Ed wrote the following about Kerry:
Kerry's dangerous multilateralism
As the son of a diplomat posted overseas and as someone who spent many years living abroad (indeed, he attempted but failed to get a deferment to study in Paris during the Vietnam war), he brings to the table a multilateralist view of the world, a penchant to seek international approval for his actions — what he notoriously called the 'global test.'
Kerry trumpets that he will work with the United Nations and European allies in developing foreign policy. Some have said that he intends to outsource our foreign policy to the likes of France and the UN. Others term this a surrender of American sovereignty. This is not surprising since he has a fetish for the UN.
When has multilateralsim ever been a positive for the world's Jews?
The League of Nations did not help stop Hitler and Mussolini. The one and only time that its erstwhile successor —the United Nations—ever did anything positive regarding the Jewish people has been the UN's role in recognizing the founding of the Sate of Israel in 1948. This support was based more on contemporary geopolitical concerns than any heartfelt concern for the survivors of the Holocaust, incidentally. The UN has been hijacked by despots and dictators, and by their coalition of the willing, coerced, and bribed allies, and has become a forum for anti—Israel venom and a source for anti—Israel actions.
The UN relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) has become a breeding ground for terrorists in Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The UN Food—for—Oil program was subverted from within and apparently used to funnel money to terrorists. Maybe this shouldn't be surprising since the UN cannot even agree on the definition of terror since Arab states thought it might infringe on their rights to kill Jews.
Selling out Israel
Kerry not only would seek to partner with these nations but he has said that he has 'cards' that could be played to garner support from them regarding Iraq. Since he clearly wants to create alliances and more cooperation with the Europeans, the chances are that in building that relationship, Europeans will demand less American support for Israel. Is that the 'card' Kerry will play? Given some of his past statements, and his list of advisers whom he intends to invite to the card game, Israel appears to be the joker in the deck.
Kerry spoke negatively about Israel's security fence before the Arab—American Institute last year, when he bemoaned 'how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the Green Line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas' and went on to say that 'We do not need another barrier to peace... and that provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel's security over the long term.' Of course, the fence has actually lead to fewer deaths among both Palestinians and Israelis, and has been the number one cause of the reduction in terror casualties.
Kerry also denounced the 'endless cycle of violence and reprisals' — thereby equating Israel's defensive measures to root out killers to the murder of innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists.
Kerry supporters point to a seemingly solid Senatorial record on votes for Israel, but this is a specious argument. It does not take much to have a solid record on Israel, since most of the Resolutions regarding Israel are painless offers of moral support.
In a devastating article, 'John Kerry on Israel: Second to Several' , Rick Rickman pointed out that Kerry was not a strong supporter of Israel. In 2000, for example, he did not join 60 co—sponsors of the 'Middle East Peace Process Support Act' — a bill calling on the President not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. He also failed to co—sponsor a pro—Israel 'Peace Through Negotiations Act.' In 1993 he failed to join 55 Senators in signing the Grassley/Lautenberg letter to the State Department, demanding that Hamas be listed as a terrorist organization. He did not support the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, often called 'the Palestinian Osama bin Laden' for his exhortations to violence.
In a book Kerry wrote, he called Yasser Arafat a 'statesman'. Granted this was during a period when diplomats were attempting to whitewash Arafat. But it was also a period when Arafat was openly brainwashing Palestinians to hate, and was planning his terror campaign against Israel.
Who would carry Kerry's water in negotiations with Europe, Israel, and the Arab nations? Kerry has suggested Jimmy Carter and James Baker. Jimmy Carter's animus towards Israel should be known by any reasonably intelligent Senator and many instances of this dislike can be found. James Baker famously said 'F%$#ck the Jews.... they don't vote for us anyway' (more on this later), when advisers remarked that his condescending approach to Israel could hurt domestically.
Kerry's "global test" thinking would be a disaster if he foisted it upon Israel, most likely as a bargaining chip in his dealings with the EU, Arab states, or other members of the vaunted 'global community.' Many of Israel's actions are preemptive in nature (stopping homicide bombers before they strike) and this policy would leave Israel defenseless since martyrs wish to die—as long as they can take plenty of Jews and Christians along with them.
Given Kerry's approach to foreign policy, Israel will be in deep trouble if he is elected President.