They must lead, says the guy who sits in the Secretary of State’s chair, regarding the Palestinian attacks on Israelis in Jerusalem—although Kerry was referring to the Israeli government, too, as though the Palestinian Authority is on the same moral plane as the Israelis who are victims of the PA’s incitement.
Still, Kerry is right. All we need now is for the motorboat skipper to go back to his yacht, sit down, and be silent, so the Israeli leadership can lead unhindered.
That’s what President Barack Obama’s and Secretary of State John Kerry’s favorite peacemaker is saying about the Palestinian knife and gun attacks against Jewish citizens currently going on in Jerusalem.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was talking about Palestinian blood spilled as Israeli police and soldiers defended those citizens; he had not a word about the Jewish blood shed—that’s beneath his notice. Jews, after all, in Abbas’ terrorist mind, are but “barbaric monkeys” and “wretched pigs.” Abbas went on:
This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah. With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.
This is what those two American administration persons say must be balanced by Israeli efforts to tamp down their own “violence.”
This is what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry say is the moral equivalent of Israel defending itself against such terrorists.
President Obama on Friday stood by his administration’s approach to the unrest in Israel, again urging both sides to “tamp down rhetoric” fueling the violence[.]
Because when the victim demurs from being attacked, he’s feeding the violence. Sure.
Because there’s an essential moral equivalence between the terrorist and his victim when the two are on a national or quasi-national level. That’s the Progressive position.
Or moral equivalence sewage? Of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive….
…Secretary of State John Kerry called Thursday for all claimants to disputed territories in the South China to Sea immediately halt provocative activities that have ratcheted up tensions in some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. He also said the United States would not accept restrictions on navigation or overflights of the disputed territories
In remarks to East Asian officials in Malaysia, Kerry proposed a joint commitment from all involved….
Because the nations defending themselves and their territories from PRC aggression are being every bit as provocative as the PRC.
Too, what action does Kerry propose if the PRC doesn’t go along with this?
Anybody? Bueller?
David Brooks had an interesting piece in Friday’s New York Times concerning our defeat at the “negotiating” table with Iran regarding the latter’s nuclear weapons program. RTWT, but a couple of comments of his really jumped out at me as he explored how this administration’s failure came about.
The big question is, Why did we lose? Why did the combined powers of the Western world lose to a ragtag regime with a crippled economy and without much popular support?
The first big answer is that the Iranians just wanted victory more than we did. They were willing to withstand the kind of punishment we were prepared to mete out.
Further, the Iranians were confident in their power, while the Obama administration emphasized the limits of America’s ability to influence other nations.
As an aside, I say “this administration’s failure” when it was the “combined powers of the Western world” because we’re the big dog in that pack, or we used to be, and on top of that, French dissatisfaction with the way things were going was palpable. Had we actually been interested in a serious outcome, they could have brought the Germans along, and that would have left the Russians and Chinese having either to admit that they wanted a nuclear-armed Iran or to go along with us.
More important, though, is that mindset. President Barack Obama and his motorboat skipper SecState didn’t want to mete out sufficient pain to force Iran’s acquiescence to our nominal going-in position because those two gentlemen didn’t think that was an appropriate use of our ability to influence other nations. Even terrorist supporting rogue nations.