SwiftVets.com :: View topic - Sacrificing Israel/KERRY/DEMOCRATIC PARTY (2024)

The awesome Charles Krauthammer comes out and openly states what many have suspected for a long time:

[Kerry] really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines.

...Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what "peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House — a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another — in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that.

Read the whole thing. And if the GOP were smart, they would be making sure this column got to every Jewish voter they could find between now and Election Day.

We noted and discussed Charles Krauthammer’s column about a Kerry administration’s likely Israel policy earlier today. According to a Kerry Spot reader tuned in to the New York City-Washington Jewish political leaders, both Democrat and Republican, Krauthammer’s argument comes on the heels of a Martin Peretz column in the Los Angeles Times on Monday is generating a great deal of buzz.

Why am I still exercised about John Kerry?

It's the ramifications of his foreign policy in general, especially his fixation on the United Nations as the arbiter of international legitimacy, proctor of that "global test."

Save for the U.S. veto in the Security Council, Israel loses every struggle at the U.N. against lopsided majorities. In the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, Muslim states trade their votes to protect aggressors and tyrannies from censure in exchange for libels against the Jewish state. The body's bloated and dishonest bureaucracies are no better, as evidenced most recently by the head of the U.N. Palestine refugee organization, who defended having Hamas militants on his staff.

I've searched to find one time when Kerry — even candidate Kerry — criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I've come up empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Union's continuous hectoring. Another thing that bothers me about Kerry is the deus ex machina he has up his sleeve: the appointment of a presidential envoy. It's hard to count how many special emissaries have been dispatched from Washington to the Middle East to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's easy to see is that none of them has gotten to "yes."

…For his part, Kerry grabs at any showy idea to demonstrate his sense of urgency. As a response to militant Islam and to encourage moderate Muslims, the presidential aspirant proposed that "the great religious figures of the planet" — he mentioned the pope, the archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama — hold a summit.

To do exactly … what?

"To begin to help the world to see the ways in which Islam is not, in fact, a threat," Kerry said, "and to isolate those who are, and to give people the strength to be able to come together in a global effort to take away their financing, their freedom to move, their sanctuary and so forth."

This muddled foolishness reflects Kerry's sense of politics as desperate theater. Another simply showy idea he proposed (to Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press") was to insert U.S. troops between Israel and the territories, as part "of some kind of very neutral international effort that began to allow Israel itself to disengage and withdraw."

Now, if anything would put U.S. soldiers in harm's way it is such a move, exposing our men and women to fiercely competing gangs of suicide bombers and other killers.

…Kerry seems to have nostalgia for the peacemaking ways of Clinton. But what Clinton actually bequeathed to George W., says Benn, was "an Israeli-Palestinian war and a total collapse of the hopes that flourished in the 1990s…. The height of the peace process during the Clinton era, the Camp David summit in July 2000, was a classic example of inept diplomacy, an arrogant and rash move whose initiators failed to take into account the realpolitik, misunderstood Arafat and brought upon both Israelis and Palestinians the disaster of the intifada."

By contrast, Bush has committed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to a Palestinian state and to a withdrawal from some, though certainly not all, of the settlements. In return, the president has recognized that the most populous and strategically pivotal settlements would remain in Israeli hands and has also ruled out what would be suicide for Israel, the return of Palestinian refugees after 56 years. The Palestinians have not yet signed on to these particulars. But they are the future details of any peace.

My plugged-in reader writes, “I am highly confident that the President will at least double his 19% of the Jewish vote, which will help win Florida win easily and maybe sew up Ohio.”

I've sent these three articles to my rabbi and a lot of my friends that are both Jewish and planning to vote for Kerry.

It really doesn't sway them AND IT DRIVES ME F**KING CRAZY!!!!

They respond by saying "I believe that Kerry genuinely has Israel's best interests at heart" and "Given the chance, he too would advocate for Israel" and "I don't see Bush as being any better than Kerry in that area"
I just don't get it. Half of my family lives in ISrael, and some have moved from here to there. They are mostly Massachusetts liberals and THEY are voting for Bush!

But the ones living here, its Kerry all the way.

Any jew that votes for Kerry should be ashamed.

Even Martin Peretz of The New Republic see's it - http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op-israel17oct17,1,5378974.story?coll=la-headlines-suncomment

Plus Bush has the endorsem*nt of the JewishPress - http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=4294

As a Jewish Voter for Bush - and with the 3 big swing-states having such a high Jewish Population (Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio) - this could swing enough voters in these states to make the difference.