John Kerry’s Jewish Best Friends

F100301FF20-e1375046321214Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

Anti-Semitism is not a simple bigotry. It is a complex neurosis. It involves assigning malign intent to Jews where none exists on the one hand, and rejecting reason as a basis for understanding the world and operating within it on the other hand.

John Kerry’s recent use of the term “Apartheid” in reference to Israel’s future was an anti-Semitic act.

In remarks before the Trilateral Commission a few days after PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, Kerry said that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.”

Leave aside the fact that Kerry’s scenarios are based on phony demographic data. As I demonstrate in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, Israel will maintain a strong and growing Jewish majority in a “unitary state” that includes the territory within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria. But even if Kerry’s fictional data were correct, the only “Apartheid state” that has any chance of emerging is the Palestinian state that Kerry claims Israel’s survival depends on. The Palestinians demand that the territory that would comprise their state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it.

In other words, the future leaders of that state – from the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike — are so imbued with genocidal Jew hatred that they insist that all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly ejected from their homes. These Jewish towns, cities and neighborhoods must all be emptied before the Palestinians whose cause Kerry so wildly champions will even agree to set up their Apartheid state.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not of outcome. It is the malign intent of the Palestinians –across their political and ideological spectrum — to found a state predicated on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing. In stark contrast, no potential Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.

By ignoring the fact that every Palestinian leader views Jews as a contaminant that must be blotted out from the territory the Palestinians seek to control, (before they will even agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it), while attributing to Jews malicious intent towards the Palestinians that no Israeli Jewish politician with a chance of leading the country harbors, Kerry is adopting a full-throated and comprehensive anti-Semitic position.

It is both untethered from reason and libelous of Jews.

Speaking to the Daily Beast about Kerry’s remarks on Sunday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was quick to use the “some of his best friends are Jewish,” defense.

In her words, “Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister [Tzipi] Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers [Ehud] Olmert and [Ehud] Barak, was reiterating why there’s no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish state. He was talking about the kind of future Israel wants.”

So in order to justify his own anti-Semitism – and sell it to the American Jewish community – Kerry is engaging in vulgar partisan interference in the internal politics of another country. Indeed, Kerry went so far as to hint that if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is forced from power, and Kerry’s Jewish best friends replace him, then things will be wonderful.  In his words, if “there is a change of government or a change of heart, something will happen.” By inserting himself directly into the Israeli political arena, Kerry is working from his mediator Martin Indyk’s playbook.

Since his tenure as US ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, Indyk has played fast and dirty in Israeli politics, actively recruiting Israelis to influence Israeli public opinion to favor the Left while castigating non-leftist politicians and regular Israeli citizens as evil, stupid and destructive.

Livni, Olmert, Barak and others probably don’t share Kerry’s anti-Semitic sensitivities. Although their behavior enables foreigners like Kerry to embrace anti-Semitic positions, their actions are most likely informed by their egotistical obsessions with power. Livni, Olmert and Barak demonize their political opponents because the facts do not support their policies. The only card they have to play is the politics of personal destruction. And so they use it over and over again.

This worked in the past. That is why Olmert and Barak were able to form coalition governments. But the cumulative effects of the Palestinian terror war that began after Israel offered the PLO statehood at Camp David in 2000, the failure of the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, and the 2006 war with Lebanon have brought about a situation where the Israeli public is no longer willing to buy what the Left is selling.

Realizing this, Barak, Livni and others have based their claim to political power on their favored status in the US. In Netanyahu’s previous government, Barak parlayed the support he received from the Obama administration into his senior position as Defense Minister. Today, Livni’s position as Justice Minister and chief negotiator with the PLO owes entirely to the support she receives from the Obama administration.

Neither Barak nor Livni ever lost sight of the cause for their political elevation, despite their electoral defeats.

Like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government, today Livni provides Kerry and Indyk with “Israeli” cover for their anti-Israeli policies. And working with Kerry and Indyk, she is able to force herself and her popularly rejected policies on the elected government.

Livni – again, like Barak in Netanyahu’s previous government – has been able to hold her senior government position and exert influence over government policy by claiming that only her presence in the government is keeping the US at bay. According to this line of thinking, without her partnership, the Obama administration will turn on Israel.

Now that Kerry has given a full throated endorsement of anti-Semitic demagoguery, Livni’s leverage is vastly diminished. Since Kerry’s anti-Semitic statements show that Livni has failed to shield Israel from the Obama administration’s hostility, the rationale for her continued inclusion in the government has disappeared.

The same goes for the Obama administration’s favorite American Jewish group J Street. Since its formation in the lead up to the 2008 Presidential elections, J Street has served as the Obama administration’s chief supporter in the US Jewish community. J Street uses rhetorical devices that were relevant to the political realities of the 1990s to claim that it is both “pro-peace and pro-Israel.” Twenty years into the failed peace process, for Israeli ears at least, these slogans ring hollow.

But the real problem with J Street’s claim isn’t that its rhetoric is irrelevant. The real problem is that its rhetoric is deceptive.

J Street’s record has nothing to do with either supporting Israel or peace. Rather it has a record of continuous anti-Israel agitation. J Street has continuously provided American Jewish cover for the administration’s anti-Israel actions by calling for it to take even more extreme actions. These have included calling for the administration to support an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council, and opposing sanctions against Iran for its illicit nuclear weapons program. J Street has embraced the PLO’s newest unity pact with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And now it is defending Kerry for engaging in rank anti-Semitism with his “Apartheid” remarks.

J Street’s political action committee campaigns to defeat pro-Israel members of Congress. And its campus operation brings speakers to US university campuses that slander Israel and the IDF and call for the divestment of university campuses from businesses owned by Israelis.

On Wednesday, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is set to vote on J Street’s application to join the umbrella group as a “pro-peace, pro-Israel” organization.

Kerry’s “Apartheid” remarks are a watershed event. They represent the first time a sitting US Secretary of State has publically endorsed an anti-Semitic caricature of Jews and the Jewish state.

The best response that both the Israeli government and the Jewish community can give to Kerry’s act of unprecedented hostility and bigotry is to reject his Jewish enablers. Livni should be shown the door. And the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations should reject J Street’s bid for membership.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Chezwick

    I love Caroline, but I continue to be mystified by her assertion that Israel could absorb the Palestinians on the West Bank and retain its Jewish character. Surely she knows that the Jewish left in Israel is of sufficient size that it would combine with Arab voters to produce an Islamo-Left majority.

    • wildjew

      Dr. Martin Sherman has some good ideas I think. These two peoples will not be able to exist indefinitely in this tiny piece of land, you are correct. The Jews have no where to go.

    • Ken Kelso

      Exactly

  • SHmuel

    Enablers are well defined persons here. Peres, Livni, Netanyahu, Lapid and a few others. Alliances with Islamic cadres have been for long part of their repertoires.
    They defined the term “partners” also long ago. Since we do not know what is the west bank, I assume that being our ancestral homelands of Judea and Samaria.
    The interlopers from Islam that invaded our land have no residual rights. Not to the Land or to citizenship. Not to free services of any kind. They have no more rights here than Jews have in Saudi Arabia or other Islamic countries. Please internalize that once and for all.

  • Anukem Jihadi

    There is another kind of antisemitism – the antisemitism of convenience. Jews by their existence have a history of being inconvenient and in the way. This has always been the case for certain types of people and it remains so in this new dawn of universal understanding.
    J-street knows this and its answer is to dilute Jewish identity to the point where it becomes acceptable.
    J-street is a kind of Jewish homeopathy.

    Facts are irrelevant to people like Kerry not because of entrenched animosity but because they stand in the way of the world he would prefer to envision.
    Therefore Kerry is full of bluster like a child who cannot get what he wants and will not stop pestering for it.
    This bluster should be ridden out because Kerry is really the sorcerer’s apprentice. He may even suspect this about himself on some level but that will only make him more strident.
    One day he hopes that the facts about Israel will be as academic as the future existence of the state itself.
    They may as well already be to a certain extent since it is almost impossible gain resonance for facts that support Israel in the media unless they are compromised and diluted to an acceptable degree.

    J-street’s misinformation is crucially seductive because it doesn’t really require people to look outside themselves except superficially. It’s about self improvement and the power of perception.
    Mirrors can be dangerous if you can’t look away. There is danger here.

    • Lanna

      J Street is definitely working against Israel as a State and would have them give up more land….Dividing Jerusalem!

  • Lanna

    If people notice, the left is using Racial bigotry as a means to destroy any unity among peoples….It happened with Treyvon Martin, Cliven Bundy, and now Donald Sterling, or Occupy Wallstreet to cause chaos for peaceful Americans. (Since when does the government have a right to magnify social issues that are NONE of their business)…..(They went Rogue serving self.) The majority of the people in America are not racists and neither is Israel. Israel’s government contributes to both Arab and Israeli citizens with help, food, medical supplies and other resources, we know, we have seen the help in action…the Arabs are more free in Israel than they are in Palestine or in any other Islamic state, so the case of apartheid is a big farce, just like global warming or climate change.

  • Ken Kelso

    David Bedein wrote this great article about Indyk documenting how he tries to force Israel to give away half of Jerusalem and how indyk did everything to appease Arafat’s terror war against Israeli civilians.

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/martin-indyk-the-objective-mediator/
    MARTIN INDYK: THE “OBJECTIVE MEDIATOR” ?
    DAVID BEDEIN July 23, 2013, 6:14 am

    Martin Indyk, who served two stints as US ambassador to Israel, was reported to be the choice of Secretary of State Kerry to serve as the mediator between Israel and the PLO in negotiations that may soon commence in Washington

    Indyk’s record as an objective mediator should be examined.

    Indyk is generally looked upon as the man who planned the Oslo process that gave Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control over most of the Palestinian Arab population.

    Read more: MARTIN INDYK: THE “OBJECTIVE MEDIATOR” ? | David Bedein | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/martin-indyk-the-objective-mediator/#ixzz30NC1FyFB
    Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

    In 1994, journalist Haim Shibi of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that in 1987, Indyk had convinced more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War.

    Indyk oversaw every step of the Oslo process with that precise policy in mind – Israel giving up land that is vital to her defense.

    Indyk, during his stint as US ambassador to Israel. did not hesitate to misrepresent the intentions and policies of the PLO while doing so, obfuscating the fact that the PLO never adhered to the basic commitment it made to cancel its covenant that calls for the eradication of the Jewish state.

    In September 1995, with the signing of the second Olso interim agreement at the White House, the U.S. Congress mandated that the U.S. would only be able to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority and provide diplomatic status to Arafat if the PLO covenant was finally canceled.

    The PLO never did so, yet the foreign aid money kept rolling in to the Palestinian Authority.

    On April 24, 1996, the PLO convened a special session of its Palestine National Council (PNC) to consider the subject of the PLO covenant cancellation.

    Our news agency dispatched a Palestinian TV crew to cover that session, which turned out to be the only crew that filmed the event.

    The film crew brought back a videotape that showed a lively discussion, the conclusion of which was to ratify Arafat’s suggestion that the PNC simply create a committee to “discuss” the subject.

    At my own expense, I rushed the VHS copy to Ambassador Indyk for comment, but he did not respond to that request for comment.

    Instead, he chose to ignore the decision of the PNC and, in moment of perjury. issued a falsified report to President Clinton and to the U.S. Congress that the PLO covenant had been canceled.

    As a result of Indyk’s false report, Arafat was provided with a red carpet greeting at the White House on May 1, 1996, and the PLO was only then allowed to open an office in Washington.

    The next day, however, Hebrew University Professor Yehoshua Porat, a former leader in Peace Now who ran on slot 13 on the Meretz ticket in 1992,an expert in Palestinian studies and fluent in Arabic, convened a press conference in which he shared protocols of the PNC session and the videotape which proved Arafat never canceled the PLO covenant.

    But the damage was already done. Thanks to the obfuscations of Martin Indyk, Arafat and the PLO received United States diplomatic recognition and foreign aid from the U.S., which continues to this day.

    In December 1998, President Clinton, finally convinced that Indyk’s 1996 covenant report was wrong, arrived in Gaza, accompanied by Indyk, where they asked for a show of hands from members of the PNC as to whether they want to cancel the PLO covenant and make peace with Israel. The real answer, however, they got the next day. Arafat’s personal spokesman, Yassir Abed Abbo, told the media that the PNC had, of course, not canceled any covenant.

    Yet there is more.

    In September, 2000, Dr. Uzi Landau, now a senior minister in the Israeli government, who served then as the head of the Knesset State Control Committee (the equivalent of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs), took the unusual step of filing a formal complaint against United States Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.

    Landau quoted the September 16, 2000 report in the Guardian of London that “the U.S. Ambassador to Israel yesterday urged Israel to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians.” Mr. Indyk said: “There is no other solution but to share the holy city… ” and Landau also noted that Ambassador Indyk was similarly quoted by the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post and Ha’aretz.

    Landau went on to say that “the timing of the speech and the political context in which it was delivered leave no room for doubt that Ambassador Indyk was calling on the Government of Israel to divide Jerusalem. Indeed, the Guardian correspondent described the remarks as ‘a sharp departure from Washington orthodoxy in recent years.’”

    In addition to his remarks concerning Jerusalem, Ambassador Indyk offered his views regarding secular-religious tensions in Israel and the role of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism. He also intimated his tacit support for Prime Minister Barak’s so-called secular revolution. As a commentator in the liberal daily Ha’aretz, noted: “readers are urged to imagine what the Americans would say if the Israeli ambassador to Washington were to come to a local religious institution and say such things.”

    Landau, who has served in a ministerial post in the Israeli government that negotiated sensitive relations between the U.S. and Israel, mentioned in his letter to Clinton that he wished to “strongly protest Ambassador Indyk’s blatant interference in Israel’s internal affairs and democratic process… I am sure you would agree that it is simply unacceptable for a foreign diplomat to involve himself so provocatively in the most sensitive affairs of the country to which he is posted. If a foreign ambassador stationed in the United States were to involve himself in a domestic American policy debate regarding race relations or abortion, the subsequent outcry would not be long in coming… Ambassador Indyk’s remarks about Jerusalem are an affront to Israel, particularly since he made them in the heart of the city that he aspires to divide. By needlessly raising Arab expectations on the Jerusalem issue, rather than moderating them, Ambassador Indyk has caused inestimable damage to the peace process. It is likewise inexplicable that Ambassador Indyk would choose to interject his private religious preferences into the debate over secular-religious tensions in Israel.”

    Landau made it a point even more by stating that “this is not the first time that the American Embassy in Israel has interfered in our internal affairs. In February, I wrote to you in the wake of media reports that Embassy officials were lobbying Israeli-Arab leaders regarding a possible referendum on the Golan Heights. My fear is that such interference in Israel’s affairs is rapidly becoming routine.”

    Landau concluded his letter to Clinton with a “request that you recall Ambassador Indyk to the United States.”

    Two months later, in early November 2000, Arafat’s Second Intifada terror campaign was getting underway, Indyk was strongly condemning Israel’s military actions against Arafat’s forces. Indyk remarked that what the Israelis had to do was to get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, such as Hamas, Tanzim gangs and the Islamic Jihad diplomatically. He did not mention that Arafat’s own Force 17 bodyguard, Preventive Security and other Palestinian Authority forces were also responsible for a considerable portion of the violence. Indyk never wanted to hold Arafat responsible when Arafat’s forces carried out terrorist activities.

    In late November 2000, when Israel issued a “white paper” on intercepted intelligence from Arafat’s headquarters that showed documentary evidence that Arafat and his mainstream PLO gangs were indeed facilitating the campaign of terror, Indyk made a special trip to Jerusalem to demand that the Israeli government withdraw its report. Indyk had just reported to the U.S. Congress that the Palestinian groups organizing the terror campaign were NOT under Arafat’s control.

    Eight months later, on May 21, 2001, in an address to Ben Gurion University, Indyk stuck to his guns and continued to position that Arafat and the PLO were the “U.S. colleagues in the War on Terror by telling Israel”: “What you do is you get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, Hamas, Tanzim gangs, the Islamic Jihad and you get the Israeli government to hold back the Israeli army while he does so. But that requires a great deal of energy and commitment on Arafat’s part — in very risky circumstances to take on the very angry Palestinian street — and that requires a great deal of restraint and forbearance on the part of the government of Israel.”

    Indyk’s admonition to Israel to turn the other cheek when it came to Arafat became his mantra.

  • Ken Kelso

    Now look what Indyk is trying to do. Do these IDF generals know how radical Indyk is?

    http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2014/01/indyk-orchestrating-campaign-of-former.html#links
    Indyk orchestrating campaign of former generals to ‘convince’ Israel it can give up Jordan Valley
    January 16, 2014

  • Ken Kelso

    J Street stands for Jihad Street.

  • retired

    The commenter below by the name of Anukem Jihadi got it right on the money!
    He is correct because his ideas are conceptual & outside of the box,that’s where the basic truth lies.There is what some may call the “Shadow State”,Statists,One World Order & etc.,etc..The politicos are merely the puppets who front for these Statists.When Kerry reports his views to the Rockefeller owned forum,the Trilateral Commission,he is reporting to his real bosses,the statist oligarchs!
    Why is this prefabricated & make believe issue, the Israel/Arab peace process so important to Rockefeller & his One World Order oligarchs? The answer is that they want to destroy Israel & the Jews!Why should this be so?It is so because Judaism, the Jews,& a strong Israel are a philosophical threat to their elite life style.These feelings are even more pronounced in Brussels (EU).This is why the Europeans organized the Ghettos.This was done by the ruling elites of the times to keep Jewish ideas away from the underclasses who slaved away for the Aristocrats & High Clergy.In actuality the conflict was between a society which was subject to “The Law”,no matter who you are,as opposed to European societies which were ruled by Great Men,who were above the law!
    The Jews are a particularist nation that can’t be squeezed into a One World Order & so must be removed (Along with the American People).This is why the powers behind the scenes,in Washington & Brussels,are pushing their political puppets so hard in pursuit of an otherwise meaningless & trivial(on a global scale) goal!

    P.S.If I wanted to really get imaginative I would say that the difference between the Jews & the Anti-Semites in the western world is the same as the difference between gold & fiat paper money,created out of thin air,by Central Bankers.These paper Dollars cannot have value among people who trust in gold!

  • Habbgun

    No hope that these “Jewish leaders” will reject J-Street and its ilk. Even a negative vote would mean subsequent “outreach” and literature sympathetic to J-Street. They are inclusive to every group except any Jewish group that gets dubbed “right wing”. These groups have always responded with “dialogue” to the most ridiculous outliers in society. Think about the trolls who come here. They have been conditioned by these
    groups. They know whatever they say Jews are for some reason supposed to
    carry on a dialogue. That is the great work of the so-called Jewish leadership. They have never once shown they have any real affinity with being real Jewish leaders. I can’t name one and am no worse off for it.They represent whomever pays them. They say what they are told to say.

    Their claim to importance is who they meet among politicians, etc. They don’t get to meet anyone if they don’t show they are malleable to whatever they are told to do.

    To believe that they will reject a group beloved by the President is to believe in a fortitude and integrity they have never, ever, had. If someone in power Jewish or not wants it the so-called Jewish leadership will endorse it.

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      I was pleased that 22 members of Conference of Presidents voted to reject J Street’s application. And maybe I’m naive, but I was shocked that 17 members voted to admit them. Is there any place I can find a list of those 17? I’m betting that none of them get any donations from me now, but I want to make sure that none of them do in the future.

      • Habbgun

        You are asking the wrong guy. I’m just a commenter. Maybe you can email FPM or the Conference itself.

  • SoCalMike

    The only Apartheid State in the picture here is the one Kerry and Obama are trying to build. Obama, Kerry and the State Dept already agreed that the future Palestinian state will be judenrein or devoid of Jewish people.
    What’s more embarrassing?
    That the Palestinians demanded it or that Americans like Obama and Kerry and Hillary are all on board and down with that??

  • steve b

    YEAH, LIKE, “SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE BLACK!” KERRY SHOULD BE BANNED FOR LIFE FROM ANY CONTACT WITH GOVERNMENT AND FORCED TO SELL HIS OWNERSHIP OF IT.

  • wileyvet

    All funding to the PLO, and yes they are still the same terrorist organization they have always been regardless of what they wish to call themselves, needs to be cut off. Their claim to Jerusalem is based on the ludicrous assertion of Muhammad magically appearing there during his so called Night Flight, on a mystical and mythical animal called a Burraq, a winged animal with a womans face by some accounts, half donkey half mule by others. While there he met all the past prophets, climbed the seven heavens and met with Allah while claiming he did so from a point of departure of the Temple of Solomon, which of course is impossible since it was destroyed 1000 years earlier. The total fabrication by Muhammad was to give an alibi for his whereabouts when his companions could not find him. And where was he you ask? Sleeping with a female cousin in her house, contrary to Pagan custom of the time which would have been highly embarrassing for him and would have exposed him to harassment, ridicule and scorn from the Quraysh of Mecca.

  • truebearing

    Kerry’s use of “apartheid” sealed the tomb of the peace process. Almost immediately after he said it, Fatah and Hamas united. Coincidence? I doubt it. Kerry had just licensed jihad on Israel for being an apartheid state. He gave the Muslims a US endorsed moral grounds for escalating their genocidal apartheid agenda.

    Muslims live by delusion, so the merest hint from an American Secretary of State that Israel is verging on apartheid will be treated as verified fact. Kerry has failed miserably at bringing peace… if that was indeed his goal. His statements and actions evince nothing that suggests peace was his ever his true objective.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”

      Kerry is Nuts.

  • lostlegends

    There is nothing new in this madness. Jews have fought with Jews since whenever. With the Romans outside the walls, inside they had a three way civil war. So Rome won. Same old, same old.

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      And how did Rome get there to begin with? Because of fights between different branches of the chashmonaim.

  • ahad_ha_amoratsim

    Sorry, but reality is that there is only one way to define who is a Jew, and that is according to Torah. Which means that it does not matter whether they side with the enemy, whether they reject Torah, or how they vote — Jewish mother or valid conversion =Jew, and we’re stuck with them.

    • Hard Little Machine

      no we’re not. It you want to go the legalistic route treat them the same as Spinoza, literally kick them out.

      • ahad_ha_amoratsim

        In theory, you’re right. In practicve, putting someon in cherem is not very effective when the majority of US Jews don’t much care what the Torah authorities have to say. In Spinoza’s day, the majority of the Jewish world cared whether someone had been kicked out. And unlike now, a Jew who was kicked out but did not want to convert to another religion had no options.

    • Habbgun

      Yes I agree with the Torah too. The inclusiveness of these organizations extends to those who don’t meet the Torah standard. They need to be reminded that they should. We know the less a person is affiliated with Judaism the more likely they are to be a J-Streeter type so acknowledging that fact is important. It is also important to recognize that Torah Judaism extends to Jews without the European background that liberal Jews love so much. Inclusiveness should include recognizing the experiences of Jews from Moslem countries who clearly and fully follow the Torah and make that a factor in how we view Israel. I have far more respect for the Sephardic Jew who follows the Torah than the J-Streeter who doesn’t and that is how it should be. The J-Streeter just cares that his Leftist and European heroes don’t like Israel. That is not enough to have a voice in Jewish affairs. It simply isn’t.

  • danshanteal

    John Kerry’s mother wears combat boots. Dizzy Livni is an old lady. Bibi baby is slow as molasses. Psaki is a sad sack. Caroine is a sweetheart. Words alone won’t get us where we want to be. Just read Max Fankel’s memoir. Try it.