John Kerry: Hero or Backstabber?

What just happened?  Did the feckless John Kerry, the sidekick of the vainglorious Barack Hussein Obama, just become a hero of epic proportion?

John Kerry: Hero or Backstabber?. 59549.jpeg

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? ... [W]e have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country." So, he had goodness in him. It perhaps got lost amidst money and power.  And, now again, here he is speaking truth to the American establishment.

Kerry is renewing the call for a two-state solution that will be acceptable to Israel and Palestine.

Of course, nothing will be acceptable to Netanyahu, as he and the extreme elements of Likud Party types are committed to what is known as "Greater Israel". "Greater Israel" includes, for instance, parts of Iraq, Iran and Egypt.

The construct of Greater Israel

"Greater Israel" is a construct based on the Old Testament. Many Zionists, both Jewish and Christian, believe that the modern day Jewish people have a theological right to Jerusalem and the land around it. They view it as a land given to them by God forever, as forthrightly enunciated by Daniella Weiss, close associate of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in the youtube video, " 'There shall be No Palestinian State' said Ariel Sharon - Daniella Weiss."

According to the founding father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, circa 1897, the area of the Jewish State should stretch: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates."  And according to Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, in his 1947 testimony before a UN special committee, "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon." These quotes and much more are found in a very recent thorough treatment of this subject in an article on www.globalresearch.ca, "Greater Israel: The Zionist Plan for the Mideast". Some credibly charge that the 10 agorot coin, issued by the Bank of Israel in 1985, is a crude map of "Greater Israel" behind a Menorah. To add fuel to this fire, the design was adopted as the symbol of the Bank of Israel.

The Christian Zionists in the USA alone constitute a political force of at least 40 million citizens, according to reliable estimates. While the overwhelming majority of Jewish Zionists do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, most Christian Zionists believe that modern day Israel is a key element in catapulting the world towards Armageddon -- to be followed by the Second Coming of Christ and the mass conversion of the Jews to Christianity.

Atheists and agnostics

Atheists and agnostics in general, and less extreme religious believers of all kinds, view deliberately perpetuating conflict in the Mideast for any reason as reckless and crazy. Even some analysts who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, such as Dr. Robert Sungenis Ph.D., insist that all God's promises to Israel regarding land were fulfilled and completed at least as far back as 1900 years before Christ, and are not relevant today. This argumentation, including three verses from the Old Testament, is found in Sungenis' presentation, "Jews, Gentiles, and the End of the World."

Regardless of the fulfillment of prophesies (which is highly speculative and hotly debated), we, as human beings, cannot excuse ourselves from trying our best to apply the Golden Rule in the present. We cannot use prophecy, or anything else, as an excuse to classify this or that group as less than others, as not entitled to the same human dignity and human rights that all of us should be accorded in the here and now.

As one more prelude to analyzing the recent John Kerry address, this writer believes we must take note of the terror attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York City of 9-11-2001. Unless one has been blocking a certain category of emails since those 9-11 attacks, everybody who does any research on current events knows that there is an intense debate over whether elements in the US government "let it happen" or "made it happen." Whatever the case - even if the terror attacks of 9-11 had been a total surprise to the west -- it is clear that powerful forces in the United States establishment, in league with Netanyahu's faction in Israel, have used that event to begin wars of choice in the Mideast against Arab and Muslim countries as well as to initiate attempted police state measures in the USA and beyond.

Two documentaries worth viewing in this regard are "9-11 Mysteries" by Sofia Smallstorm and "Behind the Smoke Curtain" by former top personal research assistant to President Ronald Reagan (1981 to 1985), Barbara Honegger. "9-11 Mysteries" makes it difficult, if not impossible, to believe in the official cover story promoted by the W. Bush and Obama administrations, to say nothing of Big Media in the United States. The first 30 minutes of "Behind the Smoke Curtain" makes a persuasive case that the agenda of PNAC (Project for the New American Century), founded in 1997, was implemented by the W. Bush administration immediately after the terror attacks of 9-11-01. In fact, Honegger proves that the PNAC membership virtually BECAME the W. Bush administration during that period.

At two hours and 24 minutes in the "Behind the Smoke Curtain" documentary, there is live footage of retired Four Star General, and top NATO commander, Wesley Clark, explaining that he was told by a top Pentagon official on September 20^th, 2001 - nine days after 9-11: that the W. Bush administration had decided to go to war with Iraq. When re-visiting the same Pentagon official a short time later, Clark was informed that things had gotten much worse: that in the years ahead plans had been expanded to topple seven countries, including Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran.

This astounding address was given by Clark at the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on the October 3, 2007. (It was at this same Club on April 19, 2002 that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller made the shocking statement that the FBI had not uncovered any paper evidence to tie the alleged 19 Muslim hi-jackers to the September 11 terror attacks, further stating the we may never know who was on those planes.)

In any case, it seems clear to this writer, together with many other serious investigators, that the 9-11 attacks were at least used, if not designed, to goad the United States into the Mideast to "fight Muslim terrorists",  when really the primary purpose was to enable the behind-the-scenes pro-Israeli power brokers in the US government, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Donald Rumsfeld, to direct the US military in toppling one Arab and/or Muslim government after another to eventually make way for the expanded borders of "Greater Israel." Iraq and Libya are down. Syria and Iran are next on the list, if Netanyahu gets his way.

If President-elect Trump does not realize the somewhat hidden agenda of "Greater Israel", then Netanyahu's faction will ruin Trump legacy on trying to fashion a deal between the Palestinians and modern day Israel.

Jews against Zionism

I should note here that many Jewish people inside Israel, in the United States, and elsewhere, are uncomfortable, or outright opposed, to the Sharon-Netanyahu-Likud policies over the years.  

Retired General Clark, quoted above, is of Jewish descent. In 2004, Patrick J. Buchanan interviewed Ralph Nader, both former US Presidential candidates, in the June 21edition of the "American Conservative" magazine. Nader related that there had recently been a demonstration in Tel Aviv, Israel, 120,000 strong, against the Sharon-Netanyahu-Likud policies in Israel. In 2002, 25,000 fully garbed Rabbis marched in protest of Likud Party policies through downtown New York City, right past ABC, CBS, and NBC et al - one of the greatest photo-ops in history. Coverage in the US mainstream electronic media? Zero, as far as I know. Thus, the overwhelming majority of Americans have these events and realities censored from their view, if they are relying on the US Big Media.

A quote from that Nader interview in that 2004 "American Conservative" article is worth reproducing here:  

Pat Buchanan: "Why do both sets of puppets [Democrats & Republicans], support the Sharon/Likud policies in the Middle East rather than the peace movement candidates and leaders in Israel?"

Ralph Nader: "That is a good question because the peace movement is broad indeed. They just put 120,000 people in a square in Tel Aviv. They are composed of former government ministers, existing and former members of the Knesset, former generals, former combat veterans, former heads of internal security, people from all backgrounds. It is not any fringe movement."

All of which cues us up to analyze the address by US Secretary of State John Kerry given before a worldwide audience on Wednesday, December 28, 2016.

Kerry condemned the "settlements", which basically means Israel bull-dozing Palestinian homes and replacing them with Illegal Israeli housing enclaves against International law. This has been against UN international law for years. Often you will hear pro-Israeli apologists cavalierly disregard this portion of UN international law, while in the next breath citing with approval the UN resolution of 1948 creating modern day Israel in the first place.

In another event, still unbeknownst to Americans, 23-year old American, Rachel Corrie, was bulldozed down and killed by a still unknown Israeli Soldier while trying to block the demolition of a Palestinian Doctor's home. (See "The Death of Rachel Corrie", Mother Jones magazine, Sept-Oct issue, 2003.)  No congressman spoke out for Rachel Corey in any way, and, of course, the US media covered it up from the American people. In this case, the state of Israel murdered one of our best and brightest, a human-rights activist of college age, with impunity. And such extrajudicial killings continue unabated to this day.

Back to his speech, Kerry further pointed out that US policy has been AGAINST the continued Israeli settlements since as far back as the 1980s when Reagan condemned them. President Bush the Elder and James Baker spoke out against the settlements in 1991, shortly after Israel had been given another big load of money after promising to halt the settlements - of course, ignoring their pledge once they got the money.

By the way, Tucker Carlson also pointed out just last week on his new show on Fox Cable that US official policy has long been AGAINST any further settlements by Israel.

Former President Jimmy Carter wrote a book published in 2006 on the subject: "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".  In this book, Carter argues that Israel's continued control and colonization of Gaza have been the primary roadblocks to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East.

In light of the fact that all these Israeli settlements are against official US foreign policy, one might ask, why do we keep giving Israel at least $3 billion a year, and in the last few months a $38 billion aid package to stretch over ten years?

It is much debated in numerous circles as to why the United States seems so beholden to Israel.  It is almost like Tel Aviv is a second capital of the United States dictating policy.  Sometimes it feels like US politicians are almost owned by Netanyahu's faction in Israel. This is what makes Kerry's speech so remarkable. One CNN commentator called it the most significant foreign policy address in decades.

Kerry went on to add that Israel gets more than half of the foreign aid doled out by the USA every year. The $38 billion package over the next ten years, passed by Congress, and signed by Obama, is the largest single foreign aid package ever.  It should be noted that the US has a crushing debt load, and that we have to borrow money, and pay interest, to give these billions to Israel.  One could perhaps understand if Israel was a third world country, with starving children, why Americans might want to use their tax dollars to help out.  But, to give billions to a country that is prosperous and armed to the teeth? 

Next: Kerry called for clearly and precisely defined borders between Israel and Palestine to be recorded at the UN and made part of International law. It's astonishing that there have never been defined borders for Israel at the United Nations or anywhere else. Critics say that this is because Israel's leaders want to have the total freedom to EXPAND Israel's borders to so-called "Greater Israel", as soon as they think they can dare to get away with it.

It was probably news to most of the world that modern day Israel has never had clearly defined borders. What country doesn't have exact borders? Kerry must have outraged hardline Israeli leaders by bringing this up on world television. Defined borders will likely be TOTALLY opposed, at least behind the scenes, by the Netanyahu/Likud Party, who many insist are determined to make sure every peace plan fails.

In other words, it looks like the reason it is so "hard" to get a peace agreement in the Middle East is because the dominant Likud Party in Israel is determined NOT to cooperate with any realistic plan, and INSISTS on constantly building MORE settlements, i.e., stealing more Palestinian land until the Palestinians disappear from that land mass, a goal that is already far along towards accomplishment. Just compare maps of Palestinian land in the region from 1948 until 2016.

Kerry included a lesson on the history of Zionism starting with Theodore Herzl in 1897, then pointing out that Palestine was partitioned in 1948 by the United Nations -some argue without any legal authority to do so whatsoever, i.e., it would be as if the UN gave half of San Francisco to Red China. (The partitioning of Palestine was the first major act of the United Nations, which was founded in October 1945, immediately after World War II.)

As part of numerous assertions in his speech designed to emphasize the USA's and the Obama administration's ongoing strong and continuing support for Israel since 1948, Kerry also recalled for the worldwide TV audience that the USA recognized Israel seven minutes after the invasion of Palestine began in May of 1948. (Not mentioned by Kerry was that Stalin's Russia/Soviet Union recognized Israel eight hours later. Wow, is that power, or what?)

The Palestinians didn't know what hit them. The first thing the Israeli invaders did was murder 200 men, women, and children in a village called Deir Yassin, and then went around in jeeps with loud speakers telling all the other Palestinians to abandon their homes and flee - or they would be killed also. Israel was born in what Palestinians understandably view as a horrific power grab of land that was arguably not theirs to take.  Bloodshed and tyranny have been the legacy of this UN sanctioned malfeasance ever since. 

In what seemed to be beyond hardhitting in terms of rhetoric, Kerry also proposed that Palestine must have a permanent capital in Jerusalem, along with the Israelis.  This would seem to be another condition the Netanyahu/Likud will never countenance, and another reason why this faction must be replaced with Jewish leaders who will take a more reasonable approach to the future of the Mideast.

And Kerry added that all the Holy Sites of the major religions must remain open to everyone.

Kerry insisted Palestine must have security even without an army. (Without an army?)

And Kerry revealed for the first time on worldwide media that Israel has worked hard to divide Palestinian land by planting little pod-like settlements within current Palestinian territory, so that the Palestinians can never have a contiguous, continuous state. The youtube video with Daniella Weiss, referred to earlier in this article, explains how and why this has been done, deliberately and with much forethought.

Despite all the usual back-peddling at times, and the recurring insistence of how great a friend of Israel the US is - this speech is remarkable in that it is in total opposition to the concept of Netanyahu's hoped-for "Greater Israel". This is Obama's and Kerry's attempt to have a legacy as peacemakers in the Mideast, and not let Netanyahu's treachery completely bring all their efforts over the last few years to naught.

The Israel-Firster, former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, stated hours after Kerry's speech that there should be no settlement or agreement imposed on Israel and Palestine from the outside, but that basically we must let these two adversaries settle things all by themselves. This is like telling Abraham Lincoln that everyone must step back and let the two parties, the slaves and the slave owners, settle things all by themselves; that is would be wrong for an outside force to dictate terms or impose a settlement on the slave-owners and their slaves. Bolton and his ilk know that this approach leaves the Israelis in total control of the Palestinian situation, and allows them to continue apace with their crimes and slow-motion genocide.

With billions of dollars in every type of the most sophisticated police and military equipment, Israel runs Palestine like a virtual concentration camp, controlling water, food, electrical power, and movement within Palestine via numerous check points, while simultaneously killing any Palestinians they want with no consequences, and stealing Palestinian land as fast as they can. In this regard, here is one report by Jewish journalist Glenn Greenwald: https://theintercept.com/2015/05/04/samples-israeli-horrific-brutality-war-criminality-gaza/ -- there are plenty of others.

What does one think when one's political foe does a remarkably brilliant and brave thing?  Does it change the dynamic of one's paradigm?  Is it an anomaly in the big picture?  Hard to tell.  However, this is certain: what John Kerry did took courage.  It was defiant, brilliant and gutsy.  Google, "John Kerry's speech" and five pages of negative hits will appear. Hits from NYT, CNN, Fox, Washington Post, Daily Beast, you name it.  Kerry went out on a political limb for Palestine and alienated all the power brokers of the earth, maybe Trump included. (Some claim Trump is playing poker with the extreme Likud factions; a hint of this was when, in one of his first campaign appearances in early December, 2015, Trump told the Republican Jewish Coalition that he wasn't sure if Israel really wanted peace with the Palestinians. Time will tell.) 

Here were Secretary of State John Kerry's parting words to his worldwide audience, words that have meaning for all of us: 

"But we cannot - in good conscience - do nothing, and say nothing, when we see the hope of peace slipping away. This is a time to stand up for what is right. We have long known what two-states, living side by side, in peace and security looks like. We should not be afraid to say so. I really began to reflect on what we have learned -- and the way ahead -- when I recently joined President Obama in Jerusalem for the state funeral for Shimon Peres. Shimon was one of the founding fathers of Israel who became one of the world's great elder-statesmen. I was proud to call him my friend, and I know President Obama was as well. I remembered the first time I saw Shimon in person -- standing on the White House lawn for the signing the historic Oslo Accords. And I thought about the last time, at an intimate Shabbat dinner just a few months before he died when we toasted to the future of Israel and to the peace he still so passionately believed in for his people. He summed it up simply and eloquently, as only Shimon could: 'The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48%, now it's down to 22%. I think 78% is enough for us. As we laid Shimon to rest that day, many of us couldn't help but wonder if peace between Israelis and Palestinians was also being buried along with one of its most eloquent champions."

Nancy O'Brien Simpson
Ms. Simpson was a radio personality in New York.  She was a staff writer for The Liberty Report.  A PBS documentary was done on her activism for human rights.  She is a psychotherapist and political commentator.