Kerry’s Top Officials: We Need Another Intifada Against Israel for Progress

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


John Kerry, Chuck Hagel

How much do Obama and Kerry hate Israel? The answer should surprise no one. These “anonymous” quotes from top officials place all the blame on Israel while giving a blank check to the other side. They claim that the peace process collapsed because of Israeli “settlements”, rather than Abbas’ repeated sabotage and demands.

It’s the same old lies but without any padding. And top officials at the State Department don’t give anonymous quotes unless they serve the larger agenda. These aren’t rogue officials. They represent Obama’s anti-Israel policy.

The American team will be disbanded in the coming days – most of it, or all of it. Kerry has yet to decide what he is going to do – whether he will wait several months and then try to renew his effort, or release the principles of an agreement formulated by the Americans.

Which is exactly what it was promised he wouldn’t do, but this was always the endgame. Release the Kerry/Obama plan that calls for carving up Israel and Jerusalem.

The officials keep ranting about Israeli “settlements”, by which they include Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, even though those were never conditions of the negotiations. Meanwhile they dismiss Abbas’ violations of the actual conditions.

“At this point, it’s very hard to see how the negotiations could be renewed, let alone lead to an agreement. Towards the end, Abbas demanded a three-month freeze on settlement construction.”

After demanding and getting the release of numerous terrorists… without actually conceding anything.

But Team Kerry presents Abbas’ demand no. 20 as entirely reasonable. And that says a lot about why the negotiations failed.

Asked about whether Obama should have been more involved…

“No. Usually, the president’s involvement is very important… But this case is different. Kerry has invested a lot in his personal relationship with Netanyahu. They talked on the phone three times a week and sometimes three times a day. There were video conference calls and close to 70 meetings.”

“The relationship of trust between Kerry and Netanyahu was crucial to ensure that Netanyahu tempered his positions and moved forward. The president does not have the time for such a long-term effort – and besides, there are many rifts between Obama and Netanyahu.”

So Obama is very busy… doing what? Playing golf? Fundraisers? White House concerts? Say what you will about Carter and Clinton, they did actually put in a lot of hours.

Obama can’t be bothered to work, but his creepy minions always find the time for smear campaigns like these.

“At the end of a war there is a sense of urgency,” they said. And then one of them added bitterly: “I guess we need another intifada to create the circumstances that would allow progress.”

Team Kerry sure do like to propose intifadas… It’s almost as if they think like terrorists.

“In the 21st century, the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation.”

Yet of course they will go on tolerating every occupation out there…

The world is being self-righteous. It closes its eyes to China’s takeover of Tibet, it stutters at what Russia’s doing to Ukraine.

“Israel is not China. It was founded by a UN resolution. Its prosperity depends on the way it is viewed by the international community.”

To sum up, the world will ignore occupations when the countries are determined to perpetuate them.

“But while we were focusing on efforts to soften the Israeli side, announcements of new housing tenders in settlements limited Abbas’ ability to show flexibility.”

What flexibility did Abbas show? He continued escalating his demands and disruptions.

“Abbas went into these talks a skeptic. Actually, they were all skeptics, but his doubts focused on Netanyahu. The Oslo Accords were Netanyahu’s creation.”

The Oslo Accords were the work of Peres and Rabin. So we can assume these top US officials have no clue about basic facts involving the peace process… and yet they were responsible for the negotiations.

“In February, Abbas arrived at a Paris hotel for a meeting with Kerry. He had a lingering serious cold. ‘I’m under a lot of pressure,’ he complained. ‘I’m sick of this.’ He rejected all of Kerry’s ideas. A month later, in March, he was invited to the White House. Obama presented the American-formulated principles verbally – not in writing. Abbas refused.

“The claim on your side that Abbas was avoiding making decisions is not true. He wasn’t running away, he was just stuck.”

Sure.

When Netanyahu doesn’t agree to the latest proposal, he’s destroying the peace process with his refusal to make concessions. When Abbas doesn’t agree, he’s just stuck.

Honest broker. No bias to see here.

Predictably they praise Livni while bashing Netanyahu indicating that these quotes are an attempt at moving a left-wing government into power.

“Perhaps someone in Israel will reconsider their positions? Why is a three-month settlement construction freeze such a big deal? Why not draw a map? You have a great interest in an accord reached by mutual consent, rather than one reached as a result of external pressures. Drawing a map should’ve been stage one.”

Israel already did a 9 month settlement freeze to no avail. Abbas still wouldn’t talk. It still got blamed.

And drawing a map at Stage One means that by the end, the map will cover all of Israel since Team Kerry enthusiastically embraces every Abbas demand while bashing Israel for not going along.

Will Kerry present the principles you formulated; the map, the security arrangements, the agreement’s components?

“It’s still a possibility.”

  • WillielomanIII

    When I read this I was surprised…not because I have any illusions that the US State Dept is not a Jew hating racists den of bastards, they are, but because really this is even over that line. Basically, this is the US State Dept saying that “we” need to murder a lot of Jews to get what “we” want. And the “we” are the islamists who are planning and desiring the genocide of the Jews

    • lizwagner2

      That is EXACTLY what they are saying but people, particularly Jews, refuse to believe it. The most infuriating thing about this is how Jews still remain silent, instead of getting up in arms. Anyone think the black community would sit by quietly if the State Dept. threatened it with KKK riots and violence, if it didn’t give in to State Dept demands? What are we waiting for?

      • Justice Not Propaganda

        It’s because we’ve got too many ultra-liberal Jewish morons who ignore the way the democrats they elect keep stabbing israel in the back and keep sending their money to help get these anti-Semitic, P.C. so-called “progressives” elected. Nothing more pathetic than a Jew who turns his back on his entire people so that he can appear to be “enlightened”, while most of the world is really mocking him as being a clueless moron.

  • SoCalMike

    Obama and Kerry are foul souls. The US State Department is occupied by Ivy League academic bimbos brain washed on Marx and Multiculturalism.
    When New York or Washington takes a WMD compliments of Obama and Kerry appeasing Iran, Israel won’t have to worry about pressure from Washington anymore.
    At that point we will have entered a post American world thanks to Obama and Kerry’s malignancy.
    And for this you can thank everyone who voted for appeasement TWICE.
    Everyone from the cool chic coastal hipsters to the folks who got their “free” Obama phone.
    Although to be fair, I’m not sure Romney could have reined in the State Department tumors either.

  • Habbgun

    A Navy Seal who was an American spokesman for the North Vietnamese communists is pro-terror and anti-American. Just think how shocking this isn’t. Maybe Tokyo Rose was pro Japanese and not an advocate of worldwide cultural inclusiveness. You just never know.

    • Gee

      Kerry was never a Navy Seal

      • Cynicalone

        He’s thinking of the other Kerrey, the senator from Nebraska who dated Debra Winger….

      • Larry Larkin

        Yes he was, just ask him. That’s why he was in Cambodia at Christmas. If the evul rethuglicans hadn’t yanked him out of Vietnam when they did he would have had more medals than Audie Murphy, and in less time.

  • dirtysteve

    I still have relatives who think Obama is a Christian.

    • herb benty

      Obama is the opposite of a Christian.

  • Gee

    Since the US State Department keeps on threatening Israel with another intifada let them come on to the front lines. I need the target practice.

    If the US dreams that Israel cannot crush the PLO/Hamas/Islamic Jihad in a matter of hours – then they are seriously deluded. Israel has never used even 1% of the forces available.

    Let’s have an intifada and then we will dictate the Arab surrender terms

    • TheOrdinaryMan

      But you’ve got to remember that there’s no death penalty in Israel. If the Jihadists that the IDF pursues aren’t all killed, they’ll wind up being coddled in Israeli jails, and being released by agreements described above, free to take potshots at upstanding Israeli citizens, like Mr. Mizrahi. So Israel will stop any Intifada launched against her; but the nonsense will continue; until the Israelis decide to stop being so nice to their enemies.

      • TeachESL

        A number of citizens castigated the Prime Minister before he was about to speak at a Yom HaZikaron (Memorial Day) ceremony about the release of terrorists!

    • Drakken

      You Israeli’s have to quit doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, to put a stop to the muslim, you have to step on them like you would a cockroach, make Gaza a modern day Carthage as an example to the rest of them, when the muslim fears you, he respects you.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The people who will suffer most from an “intifada” are the so called pal-e-SWINIANS.

  • Ricardo

    The World waits for no one.
    Obama, Kerry et al will be mono-maniacally fixated on Mideast peace and blaming Israel. In the meantime everything else around the world will fall apart.
    The Lord Resistance army should have been toast a long time ago. There is only one reason it ain’t so. It is for Uganda to have the honors and America to be the side kick and say it is all you. But Uganda and the U.S,. are not 2 people spotting for each other at the gym. Uganda can’t take care of it. They should be able to but they can’t. We should the out the LRA, train the Ugandan army and let them do the next ones hereafter.
    If Obama was not so busy being a dictator at home he could have went to South Sudan and maybe solved the civil war with his “star power” and a lot of diplomatic work.
    Obama could have been doing something about Boko Haram last year. Finally I am hearing that people in the States care about it. It was surprising and it is damn well time.
    Ukraine what has Obama done well there?

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    The US State Department hasn’t changed since the days when it co-opted Ralph Bunche in favor of Gunnar Myrdal: see http://clarespark.com/2011/08/04/carnegie-corp-and-the-negro-problem/. “Carnegie Corporation and “the Negro problem.”

  • oneman

    U.S. cahoots with the Islamists to conquer and destroy the State of Israel.

    The U.S. does the same thing as the Islamists, just in a different way, with money and with a smile and a “peace talks” …

    God sees everything. And punishment will come. You can be sure of that.

  • Mark

    Israel will have to actually shoot to kill those that seek it’s destruction. I suggest if the Palestinians start another war? Expel them from the west bank and gaza to Jordan and the Sinai. Then they can be refugees.

  • Hakol Beseder B’Eli Haseder

    Just
    remember this guy ran once for the White House and thank God he failed.

  • Ken Kelso

    It was probably Martin Indyk.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180216#.U2ZpJvldXls
    Indyk Named as ‘Unnamed Source’ Blaming Israel For Failed Talks
    Officials in Jerusalem claim Indyk tendering resignation following peace talks’ collapse, strongly criticized Israeli government.
    Tova Dvorin
    5/4/2014

    • Ken Kelso

      Read this article which talks in detail how Indyk did everything to appease this mass murderer Arafat and how Indyk was trying to get Israel to give away Jerusalem and surrender to the Terrorstinians.

      http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/martin-indyk-the-objective-mediator/
      MARTIN INDYK: THE “OBJECTIVE MEDIATOR” ?
      David Bedein
      July 23, 2013,

      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.

      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

        Isi Leibler destroys the lies of these radical nutjob Indyk.
        Indyk is so insane he was blaming Israel for American soldiers dying in Afghanistan.
        Even Neville Chamberlain would call him an appeaser

        http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4748&cpage=1#comment-49
        Indyk: a Disastrous Choice for Mediator
        Isi Leibler
        July 26, 2013

        The US State Department has floated a trial balloon to test the idea of former US Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, serving as mediator in the forthcoming peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It is not surprising that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has signaled his approval. What is incomprehensible is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has done likewise.

        Unfortunately the prospect of genuine progress in the negotiations is extraordinarily slim. There is no evidence that the Palestinian Authority will compromise on a single issue. In the unlikely event that the weak, corrupt President Abbas does make even a single concession, his Fatah supporters will immediately topple him.

        Nonetheless, an “honest broker” is essential to the process. However, Martin Indyk is not that broker. His track record in presiding over previous peace negotiations indicates that if re-appointed, he will, in all probability, direct negotiations in a manner to ensure that Israel will be blamed for their failure.

        Indyk has had an impressive political career. Educated in Australia, he moved to the US where he joined AIPAC and subsequently held executive positions at prestigious Washington, DC think-tanks (Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution). He also has assumed key political positions (Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs in the Clinton administration). After becoming a naturalized US citizen, President Clinton appointed him US Ambassador to Israel – the first foreign born and first Jew to hold the position. He served two terms, from April 1995 to September 1997 and from January 2000 to July 2001.

        Indyk’s rise in the political arena has been ascribed to his talent of adjusting to the prevailing political climate of the Democratic leadership. When President Obama was elected, Indyk aligned himself with the new leader, and enthusiastically participated in Obama’s Israel-bashing and Netanyahu-snubbing. He was unsparing and, at times, vicious in his criticism of our Prime Minister, and laid the bulk of the blame on Netanyahu for the breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

        He has moved further and further to the left as his career unfolded. He served as International Chair of the New Israel Fund, an organization that has repeatedly been castigated for funding rabid anti-Zionist and anti-Israel NGOs, including several organizations that compiled distorted and false information for the notorious Goldstone Report accusing the IDF of engaging in war crimes.

        Aside from occasional lip service to their failings, Indyk became an aggressive apologist for the Palestinians and at one stage even identified himself with those defending Arafat’s rebuff of Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s extreme concessions at Camp David.

        Indyk has made outrageous claims about Israel’s de-stabilizing effect on the Middle East, and the need for Israel’s to bend to the will of the United States, threatening, “If Israel is a superpower and does not need $3 billion in military assistance and protection, and [does not require] the efforts of the US to isolate and pressure Iran, then go ahead and do what you like. If you need the US, then you need to take American interests into account… Israel has to adjust its policy to the interest of the United States or there will be serious consequences.”

        He has also made the obscene charge that it was Israeli intransigence that contributed to US military casualties in Afghanistan, accusing Israel of endangering “a vital security interest of the United States.” The “intransigence” he was alluding to was the settlement construction then taking place in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

        He stooped even lower when he stated that Prime Minister Netanyahu should take into account that President Obama was obliged to write 30-40 condolence letters a week. To climax his antagonistic attitude towards Israel, in 2010 Indyk publicly urged Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government to cede the Golan Heights to Syria.

        Indyk frequently invokes the memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who he refers to as “Israel’s greatest strategic thinker.” But Rabin would have undoubtedly rejected an American spokesman or diplomat with the chutzpah to make the demands on Israel as made by Indyk. He would have dismissed him for his lack of respect for Israel’s sovereignty and his treatment of it as a vassal state. Certainly, Rabin would never have endorsed Indyk’s calls to divide Jerusalem and to make unilateral territorial concessions.

        Most of us continue to dream of peace. However, we recognize that with the current chaos and violence in the region, the likelihood of moving forward with a peace “partner” who sanctifies murder and engages in vicious incitement is almost a mirage. Yet to demonstrate our commitment to leave no stone unturned in our desire for peace, we have succumbed to pressure and unfortunately compromised the rights of terror victims and their families, by releasing hundreds of mass murderers as a “goodwill gesture” to sit at the negotiating table.

        Yet the extraordinary lengths to which we will go for the sake of peace will not move us forward if the US mediator is an American Jew, whose recent track record is indistinguishable from that of J Street in seeking to pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions. That such a politically jaundiced Jew is being proposed for this role is cause for grave concern.

        Prime Minister Netanyahu would be well advised to bite the bullet now and resist pressure to accept Indyk as mediator. Otherwise, we will once again be accused of intransigency and inflexibility, if not the cause of an upsurge in violence that President Abbas has already threatened should his demands go unmet.

        • Ken Kelso

          http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2010-12-fdr-had-his-kissinger.php

          FDR had his Kissinger, too

          Henry Kissinger was not the first Jewish adviser to an American president who urged his boss to refrain from rescuing Jews.
          By Rafael Medoff Dec. 17, 2010 | 1:46 AM | 9
          Text size

          Comments (9)
          Print Page
          Send to friend
          Share on Facebook
          Share on Twitter
          Share
          Henry Kissinger was not the first Jewish adviser to an American president who urged his boss to refrain from rescuing Jews.
          According to transcripts of Oval Office tapes recently released by the Nixon Presidential Library, Secretary of State Kissinger told the president, in 1973, that even “if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern.” Kissinger’s remark is obviously apalling. But it’s equally disturbing to recall that when Soviet Jews were being shipped off to gas chambers – during the Holocaust – two prominent Jews gave then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt similar advice.
          More than 1.5 million Jews living in German-occupied portions of the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine, Lithuania and Latvia, were murdered by the Nazis. Many of them were lined up in front of huge pits and shot; many others were shipped to German death camps in Poland.
          But when Jewish organizations urged President Roosevelt to rescue Jews from the Nazis, FDR’s Jewish advisers gave him Kissinger-style advice.
          One of FDR’s top advisers and speechwriters was Samuel Rosenman, a leading member of the American Jewish Committee. Rosenman, a deeply assimilated Jew, was uncomfortable calling attention to Jewish concerns. After the 1938 Kristallnacht pogroms, he warned FDR that admitting German Jewish refugees to America would “create a Jewish problem in the U.S.” In 1943, when 400 rabbis marched to the White House to plead for a rescue effort, Rosenman counseled Roosevelt to snub “the medieval horde.” Rosenman also tried to undermine the 1943 campaign by rescue advocates and Treasury Department officials for creation of a government agency to save Jewish refugees. The agency, called the War Refugee Board, was eventually established despite his opposition.
          In 1944, the leaders of the board asked FDR to issue a statement threatening to prosecute anyone involved in persecuting Jews, and pledging to provide havens for Jewish refugees. Rosenman watered down the declaration, for fear that giving the Jews attention “would intensify anti-Semitism in the United States.” He deleted three of the six references to Jews, removed the offer to shelter refugees in America, and added three opening paragraphs about the Nazis’ mistreatment of “Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Dutch, Danes, French, Greeks, Russians, Chinese Filipinos – and many others.”
          Another prominent Jewish defender of FDR’s policy toward European Jewry was Congressman Sol Bloom, a Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Roosevelt administration chose him as a U.S. delegate to its sham refugee conference in Evian, France, in 1938, and to its equally farcical refugee conference in Bermuda five years later. Afterward, Bloom declared, “I as a Jew am perfectly satisfied with the results” – prompting one Jewish periodical to charge that Bloom had been “used as a stooge to impede Jewish protests against the nothing-doers of the Bermuda conference…”
          Bloom worked closely with the administration to block congressional resolutions supporting rescue and Jewish statehood. He even backed the State Department’s proposal to ban all public discussion of the Palestine issue for the duration of World War II.
          Jewish leaders were furious over Bloom’s actions. A document I recently discovered in the Central Zionist Archives, in Jerusalem, quotes Synagogue Council of America president Dr. Israel Goldstein as saying that “no Jew should ever occupy the position of chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”
          The problem was not that a Jew who reached such a position of power might turn against his people. The problem was that in those years, and even in more recent times, the only kind of Jew who could rise to such a powerful post in the first place was one who was willing to cast aside Jewish concerns. The only kind of Jew whom Roosevelt – or Nixon – would take into his inner circle was one who would tell him what he wanted to hear when it came to Jewish issues. Indeed, one State Department official privately referred to Sol Bloom as “easy to handle” – a way of saying he could be trusted never to make trouble on Jewish matters.
          On the newly released Nixon-Kissinger tapes, Kissinger remarks that the genocide of Soviet Jewry would be “maybe a humanitarian concern,” but certainly “not an American concern.” Samuel Rosenman and Sol Bloom likewise believed that humanitarian concerns such as rescuing Jews contradicted, or might be seen as contradicting, America’s true interests.
          Not everyone saw it that way. A few years ago, my Wyman Institute colleagues interviewed former senator and presidential nominee George McGovern about his experiences as a pilot who flew over Auschwitz in 1944 to bomb German oil plants nearby. McGovern said that if his commanders had told the pilots about the death camp and offered them the option of undertaking a bombing raid strictly for humanitarian (rather than military ) purposes, “whole crews would have volunteered.” They understood, he said, that the war against the Nazis was not just a military struggle, but also a fight for principles and values such as basic human decency and concern for the persecuted.
          Likewise in Kissinger’s time, there was strong public support for U.S. intervention on behalf of Soviet Jewry. The truth is that the American public has often been much more humanitarian-minded than some of its presidents – and their nervous Jewish advisers – ever recognized.
          Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, in Washington, D.C. His latest book (with Rabbi Prof. David Golinkin ) is “The Student Struggle Against the Holocaust” (Schechter Institute and Wyman Institute ).

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Indyk is a real piece of work but Barnea seems to say there were multiple officials.

      • Ken Kelso

        I think possibly Robert Malley who’s a known Israel hater
        Malley and Malley’s father were big time Arafat apologists.
        But Malley is working in the state department regarding Iran and Saudi Arabia.

        Camera wrote a great article regarding Malley’s appeasement of Arafat.
        http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=8&x_nameinnews=88&x_article=1437
        The Robert Malley – Arafat Connection
        Alex Safian,
        February 2, 2008

        • Daniel Greenfield

          entirely possible

          • Ken Kelso

            John Oneill in an interview with Sean Hannity about John Kerry from 2012.

            This is a must read. It describes Kerry perfectly.

            http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/11/16/will-swift-boat-vets-resurface-protest-kerry-cabinet-nomination
            Will Swift Boat Vets resurface to protest a Kerry Cabinet nomination?

            Published November 15, 2012 | Hannity
            With: John O’Neill

            (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “FACE THE NATION”/CBS, DEC. 4, 2005)

            SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-MASS.: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to go into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids

            and children, you know, women –

            (END VIDEO CLIP)

            SEAN HANNITY, HOST: That was Senator John Kerry — who is rumored to be a candidate for defense secretary — trash-talking our troops in 2005. But that wasn’t the first time that he has done that.

            Now listen to what he said back in 1971 while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Vietnam War.

            (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, APRIL 22, 1971)

            KERRY: They relive the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war.

            (END AUDIO CLIP)

            HANNITY: Joining me now with reaction is the co-founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O’Neill. John, good to see you. Thanks for being with us.

            JOHN O’NEILL, SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH: Thank you. Thank you, Sean.

            HANNITY: Go ahead?

            O’NEILL: Sean, the — you know, the Kerry quote you put out is typical of Kerry. He was quoting people, many of whom were later proved never to have been in Vietnam or in the military. You know, Sean, we lost 58,000 people in Vietnam. I knew a fair number of them, a lot of them from my class at the naval academy. They were the best people we ever had. To describe them as the army of Genghis Khan for political advancement is typical of Kerry’s whole career and it didn’t stop.

            As you know in 1972, Kerry wrote a book called “The New Soldier” that I beg everybody to read, it’s right on the Internet. It starts with a caricature of the Marines on Iwo Jima, raising the flag, describes what Kerry hopes the military will be. It’s a frightening picture, Sean.

            Remember 2006 when, you — you know, when he said, if you didn’t study hard you would end up stuck in Iraq, right when our troops were fighting. He was a hawk in Iraq and a surrender guy at the end, as he has been over and over again. He would be much better at hauling a white flag than a secretary of defense, anywhere.

            HANNITY: Well, it’s amazing, even in 2005, after he had been through all of this, was accusing our troops on Bob Schieffer’s program of going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing children and kids and women.

            Let me ask this, if in fact, Barack Obama wants to nominate him for secretary of defense or state, will the Swift Boat Vets for Truth come back?

            O’NEILL: We will do the very best we can, Sean. I was contacted today, I spoke today with three people that won the Congressional Medal of Honor, who will do the very best we can. We’ve got kids — heck, I mean, we have hundreds of thousands of kids who have been engaged in combat or in the armed forces, can you imagine them counting on John Kerry to protect their back? We’ve already got a problem.

            HANNITY: I know with the left, they give and you your fellow veterans — by the way, war heroes, people who served their country honorably that challenged lies he told about other Vietnam vets — they use it as a pejorative. But this ad that you guys ran was very effective.

            (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, OCT. 13, 2004)

            UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They served their country with courage and distinction. They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. They’re his entire chain of command. Most of the officers in Kerry’s unit, even the gunner from his own boat and the men who spent years in North Vietnamese prison camps, tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of, of being war criminals.

            They were also decorated, many very highly, but they kept their medals. Today, they are teachers, farmers, businessmen, ministers and community leaders. And of course, fathers and grandfathers.

            With nothing to gain for themselves, except the satisfaction that comes with telling the truth, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know. Because to them, honesty and character still matter, especially in a time of war.

            (END VIDEO CLIP)

            HANNITY: That was pretty powerful. So you would do this again?

            O’NEILL: Can I tell — let me tell you the story about that ad, Sean. We decided to make the ad. In Houston, there was a fellow who had been a prisoner of war, Air Force Academy graduate, a prisoner of war for eight years of the North Vietnamese.He was dying of pancreatic cancer, Sean. We didn’t call him to be in the ad. He called me on the telephone and he said, John, why didn’t you call me to be this in ad? I said, we knew you were really, really sick. He flew himself at his own expense up there, was in the ad, he died about a month later, Sean.

            That’s how strongly all of us felt, what he did was unbelievable, in ’71, ’72. It was unbelievable what he did to our own troops in the war in Iraq. To make him it is secretary of defense or the secretary of state would be a disaster for our national security. It really would be a total forfeiture of the loyalty that we owe the troops in the field.

            HANNITY: John, we will continue to follow the story. I know the left is having a collective meltdown at this moment. Too bad they don’t like to hear John Kerry in his own words. It’s a stark reminder for the American people. Thank you for being with us.

            O’NEILL: Thank you, my friend.

          • Ken Kelso

            Daniel i’m looking at the people who work for Kerry at the state dept for Mideast affairs.
            You think it could be David Makovsky?
            He’s the senior adviser to Martin Indyk in the state department.
            I’m thinking its got to be him.

  • Diana

    Look at his eyes. They look demonic.
    Father, destroy and divide the tongues of those who would incite violence against Israel. (Psalm 55:9) In the name of Jesus, we bind every false religion and false doctrine that does not acknowledge Your eternal plan for the land and people of Israel. In Jesus name, Amen.

  • kkk

    Jews want peace with all peoples .. but the Palestinians do not want peace..Jews are very good people… And do harm to anyone