kerry in israel
 

“Kudos” to Kerry for following through on the Obama Regime’s foreign policy:

Treat your enemies with respect, and treat your friends like dirt.

Just about every time Kerry opens his mouth, he infuriates the Israelis.

Here are some Kerry “gems:”

Last year, he went on Israeli TV’s Channel 2, and, in a threatening tone, warned of “chaos” and “another intifada” if the Israeli-“Palestinian” peace talks failed.

He also warned that Israel “risked becoming an apartheid state” if peace talks failed.

During the Israel-Gaza conflict last summer, Kerry was caught on a hot mic, snickering about Israel’s “pinpoint operation.”

And, two weeks ago, Kerry appeared to imply that the lack of progress in the Israeli-“Palestinian” peace talks was fueling the rise of ISIS.

Yes, according to our “genius” Secretary of State, Israel’s “failure” to achieve a two-state solution with the Palestinians has led to the rise of ISIS.

(Gosh, who knew?)

All of Kerry’s “interventions” are really getting on Israelis’ nerves:

Back in January, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was quoted by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonoth as saying that Kerry is “obsessive and messianic,” and he added that he hoped Kerry “gets a Nobel Prize and leaves us alone.”

State Dept. Spokesperson Jen Psaki was not amused.

She called Ya’alon’s remarks “offensive and inappropriate,” and the State Department demanded an apology.

So, Yaalon apologized.

Twice.

But that was apparently not enough for Kerry.

Last week, Defense Minister Ya’alon was in Washington DC., where he was denied a meeting with VP Biden and Kerry.

Via National Israel News: Ya’alon Refused Meetings with Biden and Kerry

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was denied meetings with top American officials during his visit to the United States this week….

While Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon did see Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, the officials said the White House and State Department rejected Israeli proposals for meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, national security adviser Susan Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry.

The officials also revealed that the Obama administration had sought to stop Ya’alon from seeing Power, but the objections were made too late to cancel the meeting.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the snubs….

Anyway, stay tuned for round #3000.

Related:

Bret Stephens: WSJ — Bibi and Barack on the Rocks

Times of Israel: Ya’alon launches scathing assault on US policy in the Middle East

Times of Israel: US anger at Netanyahu said ‘red-hot’ as ties hit new low

Jeffrey Goldberg: Atlantic — The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here

Times of Israel: Bennett: US officials’ rhetoric an affront to all Jews

Reuters: Israeli minister attacks Kerry over boycott warnings

Haaretz: U.S. publicly humiliates Israeli defense minister as visit ends

Haaretz: Netanyahu responds to U.S.: I am under attack for defending Israel

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Maynard says:

    That Atlantic article is interesting in its mix of (presumably) hard facts with evaluations that don’t necessarily follow. Example:

    The fault for this breakdown in relations can be assigned in good part to the junior partner in the relationship, Netanyahu, and in particular, to the behavior of his cabinet…

    Okay, I don’t want to jump into a knee-jerk reaction of “Bulsh!”, but this sort of thing must be connected to a factual argument. And I realize that the “in good part” qualification renders the allegation squishy to the point of meaninglessness. If it’s “in good part” Netanyahu’s (or his cabinet’s) fault, that doesn’t rule out it being “in good part” Obama’s (or his cabinet’s) fault as well. Bah! Anyway, that’s followed by:

    …Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached. For their part, Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a “red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the West Bank, and building policies in Jerusalem, that they believe have fatally undermined Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process.

    Okay, so there’s a conflict. But why? Can’t it be reasonably argued that an Iranian nuclear bomb is a greater threat than an apartment in Jerusalem? That seems to be the crux of the conflict as set down here; that Netanyahu is focused on nukes and Obama is focused on settlements, which Netanyahu regards as irrelevant to the nukes or the greater challenges in the ME. My sense is this writer is interpreting reality according to his (that is to say, Obama’s) agenda, rather than arguing from the facts he lays out.

    • Shifra says:

      Maynard, there is much speculation that the Obama Administration wants to “get rid” of Netanyahu, because he stands in the way of their dream of signing a treaty with Iran. And if this is true, they are succeeding in damaging Netanyahu’s chance for re-election; The Left-wingers in Israel (check out Haaretz, the Israeli equivalent of the NYT http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.622717) are using these stories as ammunition against him. (“See? He’s so ineffectual that he cannot get along with the President of the United States!”) It’s hard for people in this country to understand how deeply the Israelis feel dependent on, and connected to, the U.S., and how these stories are causing much anxiety.

      • Maynard says:

        It would be nice if Netanyahu were the problem, because then he could be replaced and things would improve. When arguing this point, I note the wide range of Israeli leadership over the past generation, running the gamut from left to right. All have tried different approaches, some harsh and some generous, and none have achieved peace with the Palestinians. Does anyone really believe that someone more flexible (or whatever word you want to use) than Netanuahu can achieve local peace, or even bring it any closer? My sense is a lot of Democrats are unhappy with Obama’s dangerous detachment from reality, although whether they’re willing to do anything other than offer a few impotent words is dubious.

You must be logged in to post a comment.