Thursday, May 24th | 10 Sivan 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
April 29, 2014 12:24 am

Say What? Top 10 Controversial Kerry Comments on Israel

avatar by Jacob Kamaras / JNS.org

Email a copy of "Say What? Top 10 Controversial Kerry Comments on Israel" to a friend

John Kerry. Photo: State Department.

JNS.orgDavid Letterman probably won’t be making this a “Late Show” top 10 list anytime soon, but here’s a sampling of some of the most controversial things Secretary of State John Kerry has said about Israel since he rose to the post of America’s top diplomat last year:

1. Israel could become an “apartheid state” if a two-state solution doesn’t pan out.

2. Israel announced 700 new settlement units and “poof, that was sort of the moment” the peace talks were imperiled.

3. It’s a “mistake” to keep demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

4. The Jewish state will face more boycotts and international isolation if peace talks fail.

5. “Not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank” in 2013. (A Shin Bet report said there were five such deaths).

6. Ignore Israeli thinking when it comes to Iran sanctions.

7. Israel could face a third violent Palestinian intifada if peace talks fail.

8. The U.S. views all Israeli settlements are “illegitimate.”

9. Amid the fall of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and a bloody civil war in Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the “core issue” of Middle East instability.

10. Juxtaposing the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Turkish militants killed aboard the Mavi Marmara flotilla after they attacked Israeli soldiers.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Yale

    Thank you, thank you, George W. Bush, for preventing a Kerry presidency.

  • John Kerry has become a joke in the international community. I believe he’s pushing for that honor in the United States, as well. And who is Kerry’s boss that he must answer to? Barack Obama, of course.

  • Titus Greenwood

    John F. Kerry (LSD-MA) is a Liberal Socialist ideologue. He has long been an enemy or Israel and the Jewish people. Kerry is more comfortable with Muslims and other haters of Jews and has been working diligently to destroy Israel. Kerry is not stupid and understands fully the intention of the Arab Muslims in their never ending quest to push the Jewish people into the sea. I despise Kerry as should every Jew. However, there are too many self-loathing Jews, who will follow Kerry’s and 0bama’s lead in order to see the destruction of Israel.

  • Dov

    Its sad that we, as Jews continue to support the democratic party. If the democratic party has people like Kerry, its time we support the republicans or any other institution, but not the democratic party any more.

    • Miriam Edelstein

      What will it take to wake up the Dummycrats? It’s in their blood and they can’t shake it.

  • The Jews have the right under International law to live anywhere in Israel according to the San Remo agreement
    under the League of Nations, signed by all 51 member countries. This agreement stands today as a legal document.

    The Origin and Nature of the “Mandate for Palestine”
    The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

    The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5

    The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community in blissful unawareness of Arab opposition to the very notion of Jewish historical rights in Palestine. The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form.

    Many seem to confuse the “Mandate for Palestine” [The Trust], with the British Mandate [The Trustee]. The “Mandate for Palestine” is a League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine. The British Mandate, on the other hand, was entrusted by the League of Nations with the responsibility to administrate the area delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine.”

    Great Britain [i.e., the Mandatory or Trustee] did turn over its responsibility to the United Nations as of May 14, 1948. However, the legal force of the League of Nations’ “Mandate for Palestine” [i.e., The Trust] was not terminated with the end of the British Mandate. Rather, the Trust was transferred over to the United Nations.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Recognition of the Historical Connection to Palestine
    Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

    “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”6

    Unlike nation-states in Europe, modern Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi nationalities did not evolve. They were arbitrarily created by colonial powers.

    In 1919, in the wake of World War I, England and France as Mandatory (e.g., official administrators and mentors) carved up the former Ottoman Empire, which had collapsed a year earlier, into geographic spheres of influence. This divided the Mideast into new political entities with new names and frontiers.7

    Territory was divided along map meridians without regard for traditional frontiers (i.e., geographic logic and sustainability) or the ethnic composition of indigenous populations.8

    The prevailing rationale behind these artificially created states was how they served the imperial and commercial needs of their colonial masters. Iraq and Jordan, for instance, were created as emirates to reward the noble Hashemite family from Saudi Arabia for its loyalty to the British against the Ottoman Turks during World War I, under the leadership of Lawrence of Arabia. Iraq was given to Faisal bin Hussein, son of the sheriff of Mecca, in 1918. To reward his younger brother Abdullah with an emirate, Britain cut away 77 percent of its mandate over Palestine earmarked for the Jews and gave it to Abdullah in 1922, creating the new country of Trans-Jordan or Jordan, as it was later named.

    The Arabs’ hatred of the Jewish State has never been strong enough to prevent the bloody rivalries that repeatedly rock the Middle East. These conflicts were evident in the civil wars in Yemen and Lebanon, as well as in the war between Iraq and Iran, in the gassing of countless Kurds in Iraq, and in the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis.

    The manner in which European colonial powers carved out political entities with little regard to their ethnic composition not only led to this inter-ethnic violence, but it also encouraged dictatorial rule as the only force capable of holding such entities together.9

    The exception was Palestine, or Eretz-Israel – the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, where:

    “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country [ Palestine] under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”10

    • Sonia Willats

      Excellent summary of the legal facts regarding Judea and Sumeria, let alone the rest of Israel i.e the remaining 33% of what was decreed should be respected by the international community, and not continually carved up as proposed in the Oslo accords and every day by the politicians of the world. (Perhaps they should consider carving up some of the other countries created at the same time and deal with the fall-out simultaneously!)

      These concrete facts put “the settler movement” in a different light to that commonly perceived. (There was a time I thought they were just touble-makers too.)

      THANKS for this summary, which we should save – as the world is largely deluded as to the legal rights, sp. the West Bank. Danny Ayalon explains well (available on youtube) but your summary here v. helpful.

  • martin

    its sad that Israel even listens to this imbecile.

  • Ron McVaney

    Duh! Unless you have been living under a rock and did not know who this man is, his comments should not come as a surprise.

  • Fred

    Obama is an incompetent president his deputy Kerry compliments him.
    Obama introduced the no blame rhetoric against the Islamic terrorists by deleting the word of Islam & Jihad
    and the blast in Boston should be viewed a schoolboy prank. Never mind the dead & wounded.
    Lame duck policies abound, no wonder the Arabs a field day.

    • Efram

      He is much more sinister than incompetent. He is willfully placing ideological prferences for the success of jihad ahead of his obligations to the US and its interests. His actions are far darker than naive incompetence.

  • Sec. Kerry’s pedestrian comments prove there is a distinction between a politician and a statesman.

  • J.E Hay

    John Kerry is An World Class Dumbass And Should Be Made To Resign Or Forcibly Be Removed From Office. He Is Patently Unfit For The Job He Now Holds And, Is An Menace To World Stability.

    • Efram

      Dream on. Remember, he is only stating the views of his boss.

  • HENRY K

    KERRY REMARKS ARE VERY SAD IT DOES NOT HELP THE PEACE PROCESS

    • Clint hale

      Kerry nor anyone else in the Obama administration (past or present) helps the peace processes. None in this administration is worthy of even talking about a peace process considering their anti-Israel rantings.

    • What peace process? It’s like saying that there should have been a “peace process” between the Nazis and the Jews during the Holocaust, and that the annihilation of most of Eastern European Jewry was the Jews fault for not agreeing to concessions!

  • NCS

    Somebody needs to get correct statistics to Fox News about Palestinian birth rate. Someone on THE FIVE gave incorrect stats saying Palestinians were producing more children than Israelis.

    Americans need to pray for righteous leaders in the next elections. The Republican Party needs to become more socially inclusive if they ever want to see a conservative president again.

  • Herman Cummings

    Kerry is following the orders from Obama, who in turn is following the orders of his puppet masters. Both are on their way to eternal torment.

    • Efram

      But not quickly enough.

  • Kenn

    With friends like him Israel doesn’t need any enemies.

  • Estelle

    This is beyond reprehensible . Kerry should resign. The sad part is this is how Obama really feels about Israel

    • rulierose

      exactly. Obama doesn’t want to fire Kerry for his stupid remarks any more than he wants to fire Eric Holder for HIS stupid remarks. Obama agrees entirely.

      • Sonia Willats

        Agreed with all above. The problem is that, when Kerry goes, the current tri-lateral commission and other puppet masters remain. The backbone of goodness in America seems to be undermined by a root of evil with a vision differing from the majority? There are so many excellent Congress members etc. But there is a will in the White House, it appears, to push another Agenda. Even a change to Republican may not change the Agenda pushed by these underlying forces?

Algemeiner.com