Israel

Seriously, What Is John Kerry Doing?

We have either an incompetent secretary of state or a momentous shift in Middle East policy.

|

State Department/Instagram

Let's concede for a moment that most of us don't believe the United States should be taking sides in conflicts abroad. Even so, most Americans would probably agree that at a minimum, our diplomatic efforts should not cause unnecessary harm. Which brings me to Secretary of State John Kerry's recent misadventure in the Middle East.

It seems like a rather big deal that Egypt, Israel, Fatah, Jordan, Saudi Arabia—ostensibly all allies of ours—agree on something. This development, one imagines, might be something the United States would be interested in fostering rather than destroying. Certainly, the idea that Hamas' power should be neutralized and the influence of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority expanded sounds like a plan worth pursuing.

Or so you would think. But instead, it looks as if Kerry ignored an Egyptian-led cease-fire effort and handed Israelis a document that offered them this:

  • Rather than empower Fatah, it would have recognized Hamas as the legitimate authority in the Gaza Strip, although it's considered a terrorist organization by the Justice Department and an entity whose founding principle and driving purpose is to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.
  • Rather than choke off this organization's lifeline, the agreement would have allowed it to collect billions in "charity," which it would have been able to use to rearm, retrench, and re-engage in hostilities.

All the while, it would have made no demands on Hamas to purge itself of rockets or tunnels or other weaponry that destabilizes the area. And at the same time, the agreement would have limited Israel's ability to take them out. (Update: This final point is disputed by U.S. officials.)

Hamas would have conceded nothing. No nation would have accepted such terms—not after what's transpired —and naturally, it was rejected unanimously by Israel's Cabinet, which includes the ideological left, center, and right. The proposal not only irritated Israel—a nation often accused of warmongering for kicks—but also upset Egypt and the Palestinian Authority.

All of which, one presumes, a seasoned statesman such as Kerry should have foreseen. So why did Kerry offer a proposal driven by Qatar and Turkey, two of Hamas' allies and Israel's antagonists? Qatar not only funds one of the leading anti-Israel propaganda outfits on the planet, Al-Jazeera, but also is, according to Shimon Peres—hardly a warmongering Likudnik—the "world's largest funder of terror" because of its financial support for Hamas in Gaza. And Turkey, which often sounds like some well-known progressive Twitter accounts, recently accused the Jews of committing genocide, called Israel a "terror state", and compared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler.

Though we've often pressured Israel to shorten these kinds of operations, only a historian would be able to come up with an instance of the United States pressuring Israel to accept such a lousy agreement. So naturally, the Israeli press, including left-wing newspapers such as Haaretz, went after Kerry pretty hard.

The United States, according to reports, believes that Israeli officials misrepresented the deal. And the Obama administration pushed back yesterday. "It's simply not the way partners and allies treat each other," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who seems to think Israel has state-controlled media.

But according to nearly every news report, Kerry was the one who brought Turkey and Qatar into the mix. And it is undeniable that Kerry went to Paris immediately after negotiations collapsed and met with officials from Turkey and Qatar to discuss a potential cease-fire in Gaza. Kerry did not meet with Egypt or the Palestinian Authority or Israel. That seems odd—inexplicable, even—but it certainly lends credence to Israeli media accounts.

David Ignatius at The Washington Post argues that "Kerry's mistake isn't any bias against Israel but rather a bias in favor of an executable, short-term deal." But it's conceivable that both of those factors played a part. As a political consideration, the administration would have benefited from a short-term deal. Perhaps because of tragic loss of life, the United States would rather see a cease-fire than Hamas dealt a mortal blow. And that is almost certainly one of the reasons Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields.

It is worth remembering that Kerry, who is rightly considered a longtime ally of Israel, has changed his tone considerably since joining the administration. He's accused Israel of being a few short steps removed from "apartheid"; he peddled the myth of Israel's imminent demographic demise; and he was conveniently caught on a hot mic sarcastically dismissing Israel's pinpoint strikes and insinuating that he, John Kerry, was not invited to embark on cease-fire talks because Israel was buying time to finish off Hamas. (If that's Israel's goal, it should have invited Kerry earlier.)

But maybe the United States doesn't want to take sides anymore. Maybe the Obama administration's recent dealings in the Middle East reflect this attitude. Maybe Kerry's actions were not a mistake but an attempt to show Israel's enemies that we can be evenhanded. Because we have either an incompetent secretary of state or a momentous shift in Middle East policy. Either way, Kerry's actions have created a bigger mess.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

104 responses to “Seriously, What Is John Kerry Doing?

  1. Speaking of Turkey, I’d love to see the US Navy stop the flotilla of arms that Turkey is threatening to send (has sent?) to Hamas. Its officially a US-designated terrorist organization, so I think the Navy has the authority, if not the outright obligation, to stop arms shipments to it.

    1. Turkey was planning to provide a naval escort to the flotilla. They agreed not to upon receiving assurances from Israel that the humanitarian materiel would be transported overland from the port in Ashdod to Gaza after inspection.

    2. IIRC, the flotilla is the creation of yet *another* designated terrorist organization.

      So, *two* reasons to go to war with Turkey.

      And then, since both the US and Turkey are in NATO — FOOD FIGHT!!

  2. Getting camera time.

  3. Kerry offered a proposal driven by Qatar and Turkey, two of Hamas’ allies and Israel’s antagonists.

    Just so you guys know, this wasn’t a misstep or a mistake. This shit is intentional with this administration.

    1. Hey, he didn’t know! How was he supposed to know? I mean, he’d have to read some books or something!

      1. How many books have you read, you fucking slug?

        More specifically, what year did you drop out of high school, dip shit?

          1. Sevo,

            I have no intention on going into this site. Forget it.

        1. My next bowel movement isn’t quite ready yet. Don’t panic, though, I’ve haven’t forgotten it’s past your feeding time and will give your lower lip a little tug the moment my colon’s ready to empty.

          1. John Galt,

            Go back to what you do best, which is rolling your feces into little balls, and throwing them against the wall.

        2. Hi Tulpa.

          Now fuck off and die.

        3. I’m partway through “Fun with Dick and Jane,” at the part where the narrator exhorts, “Run, Spot, run!”

          And 1970. More “expelled” than “dropped out,” but still, the effect is the same.

          1. “And 1970. More “expelled” than “dropped out,” but still, the effect is the same.”

            I just need one more credit for my GED!

        4. Wow, Mandalay didn’t even bother to troll this time, he just skipped straight to the insults! Sounds like somebody needs a nap…

    2. Yeah Paul, none of the tortured excuses make any sense. The only explanation that makes sense is one that no one wants to believe.

      1. Perhaps Kerry is just grasping at straws. If Turkey and Qatar have sway with Hamas he thinks they can help, never thinking through the collateral damage to our allies. He is a fool, and has always been a fool.

    3. There’s a name for those who betray their country.

      If you make one of them Secretary of State, you shouldn’t be surprised if they do it again?

      1. At least Kerry served in the Armed Forces as a decorated officer.

        When he left the Navy he expressed his opinion about that fucking war in Vietnam, and it was his right to do so.

        So, how did he “betray” his country?

        1. Been asleep since what … 1980?

          yep, John Kerry did a great job serving in the Armed Forces taking pictures and staged movie clips. He also got decorated for a very severe paper cut.

          I agree about the opinion part. Everyone has the right to speak his mind. Of course, he is a fraud who claimed to be tossing his papercut medals away but actually has displayed since.

          The betray part, well that is a judgement call.

  4. Kerry doesn’t know what Kerry is doing either. That look of disconnected confusion on his face? It’s real, not feigned.

    1. That’s not a mask?

    2. How can you tell which end is the face?

  5. Kerry has always (once I noticed him) struck me as an idiot. This was strongly reinforced by his blundering on the campaign trail. Look, if you are a vague JFK look-and-sound-alike you CAN run for the Presidency. It isn’t as if the democrats are doing better. But if you are going to run on your war record, then you need to distance yourself from your anti-war activism. It doesn’t have to be much; something along the lines of “When I got back from Vietnam I was a very angry young man and did and said some things that weren’t well thought out.”. It wouldn’t appease the Conservative Vets, but they weren’t going to vote for you anyway.

    Maybe he wanted to have it both ways and thought that the Press could actually make that happen (hell the Press can barely keep their own dirty laundry away from the public). Maybe he thought nobody would remember (fat chance). Maybe he didn’t understand it would be a problem for his electability. Whatever he thought, it was a blunder that made me sure he wasn’t Presidential material.

    1. His war record was going to irrevocably polarize people no matter what. I think his loss was more a function of voters not wanting to walk away from the “sunk costs” of the Iraq war. If he’d made a coherent argument for what he’d do different from Bush going forward, be it hawkish or dovish, maybe he’d have had a chance. As it was, the closest he came to a policy was “I’ll call in our wise European and UN friends to help”, which was laughable regardless of whether one wanted a “surge” or immediate withdrawal.

      He did indeed want to run a middle-of-the-road, content-free campaign. While Obama was able to do that 4 years later, it’s harder to pull off when a war is the front-and-center issue.

      1. I don’t think it was that at all. I think the Democrats believed his anti-war activism was a selling point, not a liability.

        1. Correct, Hazel. And his “John Kerry, reporting for duty” was simply to show he was pro-Vietnam before he was against it, in a cynical attempt to capture some conservative (moderate) voters.

          1. …”And his “John Kerry, reporting for duty” was simply to show he was pro-Vietnam before he was against it”…

            It was also one of the most embarrassing scenes ever videoed.
            I did not see it live, I saw it recorded and could barely watch.

  6. The verdict on Mr Kerry is still out IMO. I’ll judge the results, as opposed to the process.
    My criteria for success: Is U.S. treasury or blood being spent unnecessarily? If no: Well then I say fine job Mr. Secretary.

    Part of the U.S. stepping aside as world’s policeman is that shit is going to get ugly in many parts as the power vacuum is filled. This will piss off the neo-cons and liberal interventionalists, but the rest should stick to our principles.

    1. *Is U.S. treasury or blood being spent unnecessarily? If no: Well then I say fine job Mr. Secretary.*

      Kerry is just an errand boy for the administration, so you might as well save your plaudits for Obama.

    2. “Part of the U.S. stepping aside as world’s policeman is that shit is going to get ugly in many parts as the power vacuum is filled. This will piss off the neo-cons and liberal interventionalists, but the rest should stick to our principles.”

      There is a big difference between being the world’s policeman and the world’s diplomat. This is supposed to be diplomacy, not police work.

      This administration seems to be incompetent on both issues.

      1. Why don’t you fly to Washington right now in your private jet and straighten all of those incompetents out.

          1. Sevo,

            As always, fuck you. Have a nice weekend, you ass hole dimwit.

            1. Why bother? Sevo’s an illiterate fuckstick. Just try to take his guns. His head’ll ‘splode.

              1. Aw, did I call you on your bullshit?

                1. Sevo,

                  Expect to see my posts in the future. However, do NOT expect to see any replies to you on my part.

                  I made the giant mistake of responding to your insults quite some time ago. I opened myself up to more of your insults.

                  So, enjoy blasting my posts in the future, but you can be sure they will be totally ignored by me.

                  1. On The Road To Mandalay|8.2.14 @ 11:07AM|#
                    “Sevo,
                    Expect to see my posts in the future. However, do NOT expect to see any replies to you on my part”…

                    Promises, promises…

            2. Ah, more of those finely reasoned and persuasive arguments!

    3. “Is U.S. treasury or blood being spent unnecessarily”, either directly or indirectly, immediately or with future likelihood?

      If yes: Then I say you are a traitor Mr. Secretary.

    4. Part of the U.S. stepping aside as world’s policeman is that shit is going to get ugly in many parts as the power vacuum is filled.

      The power vacuum is already being filled in the ME. How’s that working out for you?

      It is VERY difficult getting off the tiger without getting eaten.

      1. And whatever virtues Mr. Kerry may have been hiding under a bushel, I am quite sure that tiger-dismounting skills are not among them.

  7. The first indication of Obama’s abject incompetence in foreign affairs was tossing the department of state to Hillary as a consolation prize to mollify her brain-dead fans. Replacing her with the Ketchup Gigolo showed that he just doesn’t give a fuck.

    -jcr

  8. You go to negotiations with the bumbling idiot you have, not the bumbling idiot you wish you had.

    1. Post of the day.

  9. The so called “Middle East” (a British term invented to mean anything east of the Suez Canal starting with Near, Middle and Far) has always been a mess. It is now, and will always be, nothing more than the efforts of two volatile peoples to destroy each other. Most of it is based on the beliefs of their two bullshit religions. It’s too bad the U.S. cannot stay completely out of this. Regrettably, the fundamentalists of a third religion are always involved this murderous area of the world, because of bullshit beliefs that Jerusalem is the navel of the earth. It’s too bad the “Holy Land” can’t be turned into a giant parking lot, and super mall with religious museums run by the U.N.

      1. Fuck you.

    1. All I see is ONE side with the stated goal of destroying the other. Guess which?

      1. Tulpa?

    2. It is now, and will always be, nothing more than the efforts of two volatile peoples to destroy each other. Most of it is based on the beliefs of their two bullshit religions.

      Israel is a sideshow. The real fight has always been intra-Muslim.

      This involves far more than two “volatile” camps, its mostly based on the beliefs of one religion.

      Reducing every problem in the ME to Israel is falling into any number of traps laid by all sorts of foul, disgusting people. Don’t do it.

  10. I’m not sure how Kerry’s “competence” fits in, because I’ve always doubted that the Secretary of State has had very much policy autonomy since the invention of the telegraph. I think the incompetence here encompasses the White House as a whole.

    1. -Umbriel-|8.1.14 @ 9:07PM|#
      “I’m not sure how Kerry’s “competence” fits in, because I’ve always doubted that the Secretary of State has had very much policy autonomy since the invention of the telegraph.”

      Depends on the individuals.
      Truman gave Jimmy Byrnes some and then canned him. But Marshall got a long leash.
      Nixon let Kissinger run pretty free.
      Others not so much; I’d guess it depends on whether the P thought he was getting credit or blame.

      1. Thanks for the reminders. Kissinger was at least somebody I’d consider technically competent to handle the nation’s foreign policy (whether it’s appropriate to fully delegate that power, and whether he used it for good or evil being other matters entirely). Kerry? I’m not sure I’d consider him competent to organize a bachelor party.

        1. “Kerry? I’m not sure I’d consider him competent to organize a bachelor party.”

          I wouldn’t either; he’s a camera whore. But he has the redeeming quality of not being between the camera and Obo. Prolly one of the reasons he was selected.

    2. I believe you are correct. Kerry is unlikely to be much more than a messenger.

  11. It makes perfect sense if you assume the administration (or at least the State Department) is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates like Hamas, versus the variety of more secular tyrants that keep them in check.

    1. ant1sthenes|8.1.14 @ 9:21PM|#
      “It makes perfect sense if you assume the administration (or at least the State Department) is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates like Hamas, versus the variety of more secular tyrants that keep them in check.”

      I think you’re presuming intent where ignorance is indicated.

      1. The Admin probably believes Hamas contains “SOME elements that are radical,” as Obama previously stated about the Muslim Brotherhood, and some supposedly moderate, “charitable organization” elements. Holding this position would also make Pelosi’s ridiculous comments somewhat comprehensible.

        Every time from now on when I hear this Administration or some other Obamaton cry racism at any hint of criticism, I will be also be waiting to hear why its statements about Israel and middle east policy isn’t antisemitic.

        Whether by inaction, words, or by providing aid, everything Obama has done and said leaves me with the impression that he sympathizes with any inane Islamist group that hasn’t directly attacked the US (yet.)Just like almost any hardcore campus leftist.

  12. Israel had a chance to deal with HAMAS decades ago…by not oppressing palestinians to the point of ditching FATAH……

    1. Creeper|8.1.14 @ 9:35PM|#
      “Israel had a chance to deal with HAMAS decades ago…by not oppressing palestinians to the point of ditching FATAH…..”

      Ah, yes, one more terrorist apologist!

      1. Your posts show a decided lack of imagination, you shit for brains.

        First there is the quote from someone’s post, followed by a one liner literary fart.

        Always the same bullshit. Fuck you, penis breath.

        1. Last post ???

          1. Got to be kidding.
            Shitstick is amazingly self-absorbed. Look at the ‘oh, so, thoughtful’ posts; the evil of banality. And now we’re to be concerned if that s/he leaves the bbs for a couple of days and reduces the smell?
            It’s pretty clear that someone told him or her that s/he was “smart!”. That someone was drunk at the time.

            1. Eventually it’s going to have a brain aneurysm. =D

              1. I think it already has.

      2. terrorist..ah yes…exactly what country does hamas terroize other than verbal threats???? and when was the last time you lived with out any human rights at all??? and how exactly would you act if you and your family had to live with zero rights for two generations? and why are israeli soldiers putting out breaking the silence vids on youtube? just wondering……

        1. Creeper|8.1.14 @ 11:56PM|#
          “terrorist..ah yes…exactly what country does hamas terroize other than verbal threats????”

          !!!!!!!!!!!I ??????? presume )))))))))) you ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ haven’t ///////////// heard 33333333333 about 22222222 the !!!!!!!!!!!!! ROCKETS !!!!!!!!!!!
          Is that clear?

        2. Oh, and Creeper, look here:

          “Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:
          [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement”…
          http://www.mythsandfacts.org/C…..harter.htm

          I just KNOW that’s what you (are you a lefty?) want to promote!

      3. And another hebrew bag-licker when you’ve checked in.

        1. Aww, did one of your terrorists get it in the shorts?

        2. Anti-semitism, that’s it. I knew this thread was lacking something, I just couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

          1. Hava, nagila hava, nagila hava, nagila hava hey!
            Can your brother-in-law get me a good deal on a nice chesterfield?

  13. John Kerry is practicing Cargo Cult version of diplomacy. He has the right kind of form and rituals, all the while not understand what the fuck he’s doing.

  14. Make no mistake about it, John F Kerry (not to be confused with John F Kennedy) is a waterhead.

    1. Sadly, John F Kerry does have an actual history of confusing his own self with John F Kennedy. The man has some serious mental health issues.

    2. John F Kennedy wasn’t exactly a genius either.

      Except for the Cuban Missile Crisis, where he lucked out with the CIA getting everything right*, for once, his administration was not exceptional at all.

      *including knowing that what Khrushchev really wanted was the US missiles out of Turkey and making a secret deal to remove them.

  15. It’s easy to see how John Kerry could confuse himself with a dead man also named John.

    BTW: Neither John’s given middle name started with “F”.

    1. And, Forbes.

      Actually, both men’s middle names begin with “F”. Where on earth did you get the idea neither did?

      1. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was the first president of the United States who was never president of the United States?

  16. I think this bigoted opinion un-Reasonable.

    1. Maybe your’re right REMant. We should probably be more understanding of people who use their children as shields for their missiles, send their young away as suicide bombers, shoot missiles into housing districts, and have their primary purpose the murder of every citizen of their neighbors. I mean, what’s so bad about that?

      1. BigT, I think you have to take into account that Hamas mostly isn’t trying to kill actual, you know, people. Just Jews.

        1. I’m curious as to how these people who perpetually come down on Israel in this would feel if, for instance, the Tijuana cartel took over Baja California and started conducting attacks including firing rockets and missiles into San Diego in retaliation for, say, the US treatment of illegal Mexican immigrants in SoCal. I’ll grant you that the analogy isn’t perfect, but the salient point viz major population centers being repeatedly attacked stands pretty well, I think.

          I’m not saying that I agree 100% with Israel’s actions here, nor do I think that in the full historical perspective Israel is somehow blameless, but it’s just a little ridiculous to pretend that Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization with no real interest beyond killing non-Muslims and extorting those countries that seem to believe they’re one “charity” donation away from non-violence. And I’ll go further and say that when your national charter is based on the annihilation of another country, you’re sort of painting yourself into a corner, dontcha think?

          1. “And I’ll go further and say that when your national charter is based on the annihilation of another country, you’re sort of painting yourself into a corner, dontcha think?”

            It’s as if Hamas apologists never quite got around to reading what Hamas requires.
            But then watermelons continue to pitch Ehrlich, and I assume they never bothered to read that, either.

            1. According to them, Hamas doesn’t really represent the Palestinians, despite the fact that the Palestinians voted for them, because the Palestinians are just so oppressed that they are incapable of voting for rational policies.

              Basically they blame Israel for creating the whole situation in the first place, although I don’t think that’s fair.

              Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was the outcome of the 1967 war, in which Israel was attacked by it’s surrounding Arab neighbors. And after that war, neither Jordan nor Egypt asked to have the Gaza strip or the West Bank returned to them. Basically, they didn’t want the Palestinians in their territory either.

              Have you ever wondered why neither Egypt nor Jordan ever agreed to resettle the Palestinians in their territory? How come these people don’t just leave and go to a neighboring country?

              1. “Have you ever wondered why neither Egypt nor Jordan ever agreed to resettle the Palestinians in their territory? How come these people don’t just leave and go to a neighboring country?”

                I don’t have an answer for either of these, but it says something regarding the popularity of that population.

                1. Yet they’ve been voted Most Likely to Secede for over 30 years at the UN.

  17. There are times when you see the real ugly side of the left, and this is one of them. And they don’t even TRY to hide their anti-semitisim.

    But to be fair, if Hamas made a racial slur online and blew up a black church, then they would care.

    It’s all about calibration.

    1. I don’t really get it though.
      There’s no logical philosophical connection between socialism and hating Jews or Israel. In fact, for many years Israel was supported by the USSR, and socialists admired the kibbutz system.

      I think what happened was that as Soviet power shifted to supporting Arabic states, and anti-imperialism, and Arab nationalism gained popularity in the Arab world, the left’s political alleigances shifted. They saw Arab anti-Americanism and Soviet alignment as fertile ground for leftist philosophy (similar to the way that the left hitched their wagon to all sorts of other causes), and they were happy to encourage anything that whipped Arab hatred of anything “Western”, or American, because they thought that would help defeat the “global capitalist system” which they saw as a creature of American Empire. Hating on Israel was just a way of turning Arabs and Muslims into allies against US empire and capitalism.

      1. …”because they thought that would help defeat the “global capitalist system” which they saw as a creature of American Empire.”…

        I’m convinced there is enough here to explain it.
        The left lost. The USSR (‘The Future’) was shown to be a disaster, as was Mao’s China. Capitalism was the obvious alternative and was (and is) the road to prosperity. And that PISSES THE LEFT OFF!
        The left will grasp at any straw whatsoever; the failing claims of the watermelons, the claims of ‘feminists’ and gays, the claims of Muslims (diametrically opposed ‘feminists’ and gays); simply whatever the left can find to oppose that which is freely chosen and not coerced.
        The left cannot admit that humankind does not require the services of self-appointed assholes like, oh, Tony.

  18. 1. Kerry was given the Sec. of State job because he is Obama-a traitor, a pathological liar, incompetent, and wants to bring America down.

    2. Kerry’s marriages to filthy rich women make him a self-appointed aristocrat who actually believes he has some worth as a human being because he married filthy rich women.

  19. comparing israelis, netenyahu specifically, to adolf hitler is an epic troll.

    1. And lazy, besides.
      It’s an assumption that exaggeration is sufficient to make the point, when it does nothing of the sort.

  20. I read reason for many years, and am especially a big fan of David Harsanyi’s articles. This one however, dissapointed me greatly.
    How can anyone call himself a supporter of limited government, yet support Israel unquestionably in these wars? Yes, no foreign government should intervene, unless there is a UN supported decision to do so. But the UN generall secretary as recently as this morning condemned the attack of Israel on a school building used as a well-known UN shelter, and called it a criminal offense, then asked the international community to do something about it. And this is the n-th time this has occured. A quick search on google news reveals that Israel has done this several times in this war, and well as the 2009 war, and so on.
    Which other government in the world could bomb UN buildings and not receive retaliation by everyone? Multiple times? With the general secretary repeatedly asking for action against Israel? Which other war would have 1,700+ casualties (over 300 children) on one side, and 63 casulaties on the other side, and still considered a fair fight, as opposed to an ethnic cleasing? How can people fit such numbers in their heads, and still excuse Israel? Yes, Hamas is beyond shit, but that is no excuse to compete with them on who is the worst monster.

    1. Why should a “UN decision to do so” mean anything to anyone who hadn’t already made up his mind? More often than not, a UN decision to do anything is an excellent reason for not participating.

      The UN is a bastion of antisemitism. Israel is routinely condemned by the UN, yet it trivializes or ignores the ubiquitous and much more egregious actions of despotic regimes everywhere around the globe. The fact that it so often singles Israel out gives proof to the farce that is the UN.

      Read the accounts of Pedro Sanjuan or John Bolton to get an idea of the antisemitic culture at work on a daily basis.

      As for the numbers you’re citing, what were the casualty rates for the US and its coalition during the first Gulf War, compared to the casualty rates for the Iraqis? Was that an “ethnic cleansing?” What about the war with Iraq? Afghanistan? The Spanish-American War? Were those ethnic cleansings, for which there is no excuse as well?

      Unlike a lot of commentators, I realize that force is the only language barbarians understand. Sympathizing with them, or comparing Israel to them, is beyond idiotic. Hamas would likely exterminate every man, woman, and child in Israel had they the capability. The fact that Israel doesn’t reduce the whole of Gaza to rubble, and instead sends in its foot soldiers at great risk to themselves, provides all the moral clarity needed for anyone interested in the truth.

    2. “Which other war would have 1,700+ casualties (over 300 children) on one side, and 63 casulaties on the other side, and still considered a fair fight, as opposed to an ethnic cleasing?”

      Uh, just about every war ever fought as regards the disparity of casualties; that’s the point of a war.
      As regards the kids, that is truly sad. I hope you’re posting here and other places protesting the practice of Hamas to use kids as human shields.

  21. I’ve got a hankering for some kosher pickles.

  22. I say we ban every government shithead from entering the Middle East, Africa, Russia, and Asia, or anywhere within a 1000-mile radius of any of them.

    I’d bet anything the ‘problems’ we fret about so much would cease to bother us in any way, shape, or form if we didn’t have arrogant, careerist government fuckasses constantly shrieking in horror over them.

    Let’s trade with them, how about. Let’s stop interfering in their affairs.

    1. ‘Government shithead’ by the way means ‘someone who works for government’ — not inviting some self-assessed wise arbiter to deem certain government employees shitheads and others non-shitheads.

      Oh, and Russia is in Asia, I realized in hindsight…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.