I hope that you have enjoyed the holinights or other holidays. If you feel somewhat socially exhausted, you are not the only one. There have also been lots of events that had to be cut and won't be discussed by us, the TRF community. But there's a random event that might be.
An hour ago, I received an e-mail alert and watched John Kerry's speech about Israel and Palestine. He tried to provide the audiences with a boringly longish, 72-minute-long sequence of repetitive excuses for the Obama administration's betrayal of Israel in a U.N. vote. A hopefully symbolic resolution drafted by an Arab state criticized the Jewish settlements. It was the kind of a resolution that the U.S. would veto at every moment in the past. But because the likes of Obama and Kerry are still in charge and their anti-Israel sentiments are culminating during the last month of their tenure, the U.S. abstained and the resolution passed.
At Fox News, Anne Bayefsky has argued that the Palestinians have hijacked all limbs of the U.N. and Obama+pals are encouraging that process. Thanks, Bill, for the URL. It's being said by the Israeli officials that while Obama and Kerry formally abstained, they're the true masterminds of the U.N. slap into Israel's face.
Israel has already stopped funding of the U.N. bodies. Donald Trump has already criticized Kerry's moves and promised Israel a radical U-turn back to friendship from January 2017. As far as ambitious and unlikely projects go, Trump may even dissolve the U.N. (withdraw the U.S. out of the U.N., kick the U.N. out of New York, and make the U.N. basically irrelevant).
Kerry's speech has strengthened my belief that he's a top anti-Israeli force behind the international scenes. He basically said "we're the best friends of Israel but we have accepted the international consensus that the Jews' nose is too hooked and Israel has to be gradually destroyed". I am really allergic to this type of enemies pretending to be someone's friends.
He simply stabbed Israel into her back so wouldn't it be manly and honest to at least admit that it was so? Kerry's statement – a template that I sometimes encounter in the real life as well – is truly malicious. He pretends to be saying "I love Israel" but what he's actually saying is that "I want the idea that everyone hates Israel to spread". This trick is truly disgusting.
Equally importantly, it's not true that everyone hates Israel (and its current government) at least as much as Kerry. I love Israel and so do most Czechs, including our officials (in recent years, the Czech and Israeli governments had joint sessions of the type that the Czech government only does with the Slovaks and no one else), and most of the ethical Europeans. Kerry and Obama don't belong to this Western community but it's not a reason for them to brag. It's a reason for them to splash themselves (along with numerous terrorists) into a lavatory.
Kerry also said that what needed to be defended by the anti-Israel resolution was the chance for a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He explicitly admitted that he realized that this excuse for the betrayal is just BS because Jewish homes may exist on the would-be Palestinian territory just like Arab homes exist – and will probably always exist, at least to some extent – on the territory of the Jewish state. So a necessary condition for the settlements' being an obstacle to the two-state solution is the assumption that only the Arab state, and not the Jewish state, should have the rights to ethnically cleanse its territory. Kerry should have made it clear that he makes this assumption – and he apparently does make it.
More importantly, the two-state solution isn't considered a realistic plan by the current political representatives of Israel who know much more than Kerry about the situation on the ground and the balance of forces, opportunities, and risks.
Also, Kerry said that when the two-state solution is rejected, Israel cannot be Jewish and democratic at the same time. It's just rubbish. First, as we know from the ancient Greek city states, democracy doesn't quite mean that every group of the human beings participates. More importantly, i.e. if we assume that every group participates, the following statement is true: On the whole territory of Greater Israel or Israel+Palestine, there are 6.4 million Jews and 4.7 million Arabs ("Palestinians"). So if a democratic vote decides about the basic character of this combined territory, it may be reasonably expected that the Jews will democratically prevail and keep the single state Jewish in most important respects – in the same way in which the English speakers democratically prevailed in California and (in 1879) eliminated Spanish from the list of official languages.
The only correct similar statement would be that certain people don't want to allow Israel to be both Jewish and democratic. These people include the Palestinian and other terrorists, Iranian mullahs, most other Muslims in the world, Barack Obama, and John Kerry, among others. But the existence of this unholy coalition sharing and nurturing these nasty wishes doesn't make the underlying claim true. Israel may be Jewish and democratic. In fact, Israel as it exists in the real world right now – and it's the only functional state on that territory – is both Jewish and democratic.
The claim that it cannot be both is actually a claim that it shouldn't be both – in other words, it's a call to change the status quo and destroy Israel as we know it. Just like George Soros started his political activism by helping the Nazis confiscate the Jewish assets, John Kerry wants to conclude his political career (I hope he will move to the dumping ground of the history in January 2017 and no one will dare to recycle this piece of garbage after that) by a fatal blow to the state of Israel.
With friends like Obama and Kerry, Israel doesn't really need any enemies. That's what all the anti-Israel regimes and terrorists in the region should realize – you're just Team Obama-Kerry B, irrelevant sock puppets. Obama is a clown but e.g. Mr Khamenei should realize that he's just a vice-clown.
Many U.S. and other politicians in the past tried to stand in the middle of the conflict, in efforts to receive a Nobel peace prize and things like that. But these were Bill Clinton's and other men's personal efforts. They don't represent what America stands for as a country. America is a free and democratic country whose system resembles the system of the Israel's, not Palestine's, society, and that cherishes similar values to the values cherished by Israel. So the very suggestion that the U.S. could or should stand in the middle between Israel and Palestine is a partial betrayal.
Political representatives of allied countries may be friends even if they belong to different parts of the left-to-right spectrum. After all, conservatives don't care too much when a different country is shaped by some left-wing policies and vice versa. Well, the personal chemistry of Obama and Netanyahu didn't work too well and the outcome was similar to the unsurprisingly cacophonous co-existence of a typical left-wing and a typical right-wing politician in a single country. The co-existence isn't terribly friendly.
I hope that nothing will break down and in four weeks, the American-Israeli friendly ties will get restored, much like the U.S. links to many European countries, the American-Russian relationships will be at least normalized, and the U.S. conflicts against the most sensible i.e. usually most secular politicians in the Middle East will stop, too, as America tones down its mindless support for various jihadists fraudulently re-branded as freedom warriors.
It's rather remarkable how the relationships of the U.S. with almost everyone else – perhaps except for Iran (...) – have deteriorated under the supervision of Barack Obama, a Nobel peace prize laureate. This "dove" and his comrades have greatly reduced the U.S. ties to Israel as well as countries as Czechia and Poland (by the abolished missile defense radar and other things), brought the U.S. and Russia back to a Cold War v2.0 (and we were often worried about a hotter event than just a cold war), and increased the number of Muslim countries in the state of war with the U.S. from 2 to 7. Along with men like Al Gore and Yasser Arafat, Barack Obama shows how utterly ludicrous the record of the Nobel peace prize is.
With this Gore-Obama-Arafat record, Adolf Hitler could have won the prize, too. Well, Hitler was actually nominated for the Nobel peace prize. When was it? What is the best year to show how much Hitler has done for peace in the world? Well, yes, Hitler was nominated in 1939 – when he created the greatest world war so far. Luckily, E.G.C. Brandt who nominated Hitler only wanted to show the absurdity of the nominations – especially of the fact that Neville Chamberlain who betrayed Czechoslovakia and allowed Hitler to strengthen dramatically was nominated seriously.
OK, let's hope that all these Kerries and Obamas will be gone in four weeks and what Trump will bring us won't disappoint us too much – and won't kill us, either. ;-)