Kerry's Trip to Israel will only bring more problems! Kerry is clueless!

US Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) this week will only heighten tensions - not calm terrorism, former Israeli ambassador to the US Dr. Yoram Ettinger opined Tuesday. 

"This visit unfortunately will not not mitigate terrorism, but on the contrary, pour oil on the fire of terrorism," he stated, in a special Arutz Sheva interview. "Why reward and meet Mahmoud Abbas, the chief instigator?"

Washington continues to remain disconnected from reality, he said. 

"The former senator met with Assad, both the father and the son, and ate dinner with their wives," he noted. "The senator refers to the Golan Heights as 'trivial' and pressured Israel to give up the Golan. He used to hold [PLO archterrorist Yasser] Arafat in high regard and referred to him as a 'statesman of peace'; as Secretary of State he still maintains that the Arab Spring is leading Arab countries to democracy." 

Ettinger added that Kerry's career is characterized by 
'erroneous assessments," - "so surely, again, he will call on Israel to make gestures [toward the Palestinians] and give over the immoral equivalence comparing terrorist to victim." 
"Experience shows that all the attempts and plans the US have made [regarding Israel] have failed one by one, due to lack of understanding of the complexity of the Middle East," 

He concluded. "Both the peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan were the result of Israeli initiatives and direct negotiations - not indirect negotiations and not through middlemen."

Knesset Memeber Yoav Kish tells Kerry to Stay Home!

John Kerry announces that he’s coming to save the day as Israel grapples with escalating jihadist violence. Israel says Kerry can keep himself and his terror-supporting views back in America.

Speaking at Harvard University on Tuesday, Kerry suggested that “a massive increase in [Jewish] settlements over the course of the last years” was the cause of the current wave of Palestinian terrorist violence “because there’s a frustration that is growing.”

It needs to be noted that the various signed peace agreements do not prohibit Israel from building new homes inside the boundaries of existing settlements, which is all that has been happening.

Kerry went on to state that he would soon visit Israel to help put a stop to what he called a “revolving cycle” of provocation and violence.

Israeli Member of Knesset Yoav Kish (Likud) said Kerry can stay home if he is going to insist on such tremendous naivete.

“Unfortunately, we have again witnessed that the Secretary of State is disconnected and lacks a basic understanding of the situation in our region,” Kish told Israeli media. 

“This American government has made so many foreign policy mistakes in such a short time. Kerry ignores Palestinian Authority incitement and distorts Israel’s justified war on terror. If this is his worldview, it’s better he not come.”

Yoav Kish (Hebrew: יואב קיש‎; born 6 December 1968) is an Israeli pilot and politician.

Biography[edit]

Kish was born and raised in Tel Aviv, to a family of British-Jewish origin. His grandfather was Frederick Kisch, the highest-ranking Jew ever to serve in the British Army, and he held British citizenship until having to renounce it in 2015 as a condition of being allowed to take his Knesset seat.^[1] He holds an MBA from INSEAD. He was on the Likud Yisrael Beiteinu list for the 2013 Knesset elections, but failed to win a seat.

Prior to the 2015 elections he was placed 19th on the Likud list,^[2] a slot reserved for the Tel Aviv region.^[3] He was elected to the Knesset as Likud won 30 seats.^[4]

Kish is married with three children and lives in Ramat Gan.

Kerry to Congress: Don’t ‘Screw’ Ayatollah

Instead of sitting down the Iranians and telling them, bluntly, it looks like Congress is not going for the deal, so we will have reinstate the sanctions, freeze every single penny thatyou  have in any bank in the world ..... until we Americans can go in anytime to inspect, .....this moron Kerry, is terrified that if Congress rejects the deal the "ayatollah will never come back." Crazy incompetent ketchup meshugener!

In an interview with The Atlantic on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry warned Congress in personal terms not to reject the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said of the country’s supreme leader, adding that rejection would be “the ultimate screwing.”

Congress has several weeks left to review and potentially reject the deal. Kerry said if that happens, the ayatollah will never come back to the negotiating table with the U.S. Read more at The Atlantic.

"Baal" Kerry will ignore Iran Leader's Nuke Comments and continue with the deal to destroy the world!

Here is a guy that takes every word of Netanyahu literally, but wont take the word of a monster at his word ..... sick sick people

Nuclear negotiations between world powers and Iran will not be affected by recent comments from Iran’s supreme leader who appeared to backtrack on key points of an emerging deal, Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday.

Kerry, who will leave Friday to rejoin the talks in Vienna as negotiators race to meet a June 30 deadline to complete an agreement, said this week’s speech by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would not deter the talks. Kerry said the speech, along with highlights on Khamenei’s official Twitter feed, were for “domestic political consumption.” And he said that if Iran did backtrack on commitments made in an April outline there would be no deal.

“This is something that’s been going on throughout the negotiations,” Kerry said of the Iranian leader’s remarks. “It is not new. We are not going to be guided by or conditioned by or affected or deterred by some tweet that is for public consumption or domestic political consumption. What matters to us is what is agreed upon within the four corners of a document and that is what is yet to be determined.”

“It may be that the Iranians will not fill out the full measure of what was agreed at Lausanne and, in that case, there will not be an agreement,” he said, referring to the framework reached on April 2 in Lausanne, Switzerland.

In a speech Tuesday, Khamenei rejected a long-term freeze on nuclear research and insisted that Iran will only sign a deal if international sanctions are lifted first.

Kerry said neither he nor President Barack Obama would negotiate in public.

“I am not tweeting,” he said. “I am not making speeches, neither is President Obama.”

Earlier, the State Department announced in a one-sentence statement that Kerry would depart for Vienna on Friday on his first overseas trip since breaking his leg in a bicycle accident earlier this month after a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Geneva.

Diplomats from the United States, the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany have been in intense discussions with Iranian officials in Vienna as the end-of-month deadline for a deal looms.

The Kerry Guarantee

John Forbes Kerry is the 68th secretary of state of the United States of America. 

If you’re ever tempted to ponder American decline, or for that matter the decline of the West, you might pause to reflect that John Kerry was preceded in his august office by, among others, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, John Hay, Elihu Root, Charles Evans Hughes, Henry Stimson, George Marshall, Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz.

But leave aside such melancholy thoughts of the glories of the past. Let’s focus instead on the (admittedly grim) present. Let’s focus on something John Kerry said early last week. It is, even in light of his own sad record and by his own low standards, startlingly foolish. Here’s Kerry, in Jerusalem, attempting to reassure Israelis about Iran’s nuclear program:

I say to every Israeli that today we have the ability to stop [the Iranians] if they decided to move quickly to a bomb and I absolutely guarantee that in the future we will have the ability to know what they are doing so that we can still stop them if they decided to move to a bomb.

This Kerry guarantee is ludicrous. History shows, and every serious expert understands, that there can be no guarantee—let alone an absolute guarantee—that we will know everything the Iranian regime is doing in its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons technology. This would be the case even if Kerry were able, in the current negotiations, to secure a thoroughgoing and intrusive inspections regime, which he is not. With the inspections regime the Obama administration looks likely to settle for, we won’t be able to guarantee, we won’t even be able to have much confidence, that we’ll know what Iran is doing

To get a sense of how farcical Kerry’s “absolute guarantee” is, here’s what two of his illustrious predecessors, Kis-singer and Shultz, have to say about the prospective deal:

Negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years. .  .  . Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer. .  .  . In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. .  .  . Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging.

Now, one could imagine a sophisticated case for a not-fully-reassuring deal, made by a more sophisticated negotiator than John Kerry: It’s not perfect, but some visibility into the program is better than none; we’ll probably pick up cheating once it’s been going on for a while; and, as Clint Eastwood put it, “If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.” But we don’t have a serious or sophisticated negotiator. We have John Kerry. So the deal will be catastrophic. And the defense of it will be dishonest.

That’s why a group of senators fought over the last couple of weeks to strengthen the Corker-Cardin legislation—seeking to add to it standards that would make clear what an acceptable deal would be, and to create a process that would establish a fair playing field for debate and votes on the deal. The junior senators did their best. We salute them for struggling against the odds. But they could not overcome Corker’s resistance to modifying what he’d negotiated with the Democrats, other senior Republicans’ unwillingness to challenge a committee chairman’s work, the pro-Israel establishment’s commitment to bipartisanship, and a general lack of urgency about acting now to stop a bad Iran deal.

The effort was not entirely in vain. These senators at least began to educate their colleagues and the country in the many ways in which the deal toward which the Obama administration is hurtling is a very bad one. And perhaps the House will improve the legislation as it comes over to that body. 

What is crucial now is that the broader anti-nuclear Iran effort not take the next two months off while Kerry negotiates. What is crucial now is that opponents of a nuclear Iran put aside tactical differences to focus on the fundamental task: preventing—or laying the groundwork for defeating—a deal that paves the way toward a Middle East dominated and intimidated by a terror-sponsoring, America-hating, Israel-denying, nuclear-weapons-capable Iran, whose economy will be strengthened with sanctions removed and whose nuclear weapons infrastructure the “international community” will have blessed.

For our part, we “absolutely guarantee” that if there is no further effort to rally opposition to this deal until after it’s signed, it will be too late. That’s why some senators had a sense of urgency about shaping the debate now. They were rebuffed by their elders in the Senate. But the fight goes on. It is a fight against strengthening the Iranian regime at home and abroad, a fight against a nuclear shield for Iranian terror, a fight against a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a fight for a strong America and for a secure Israel.

The battle over Corker-Cardin may be over. The fight to stop the Iran deal has just begun.

Obama's shameless Jewish cheerleaders

Obama's shameless Jewish cheerleaders by Issi Leibler While U.S. President Barack Obama determinedly pursues his policy of appeasement, which may enable the world's most dangerous terrorist state to become a nuclear threshold power, some Israelis and American Jews have initiated a campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The campaign calling for the maintenance of bipartisanship toward Israel is in reality undermining the hitherto strong bipartisan congressional opposition to the catastrophic U.S. policy on Iran. Israeli opposition groups and the anti-Netanyahu media are now concentrating their efforts on discrediting and calling on the prime minister to cancel his address to the joint session of Congress scheduled for March 3. Disregarding the gravity of the negotiations with Iran -- the underlying reason for the invitation -- they accuse Netanyahu of destroying the U.S.-Israeli relationship by failing to obtain Obama's advance approval to address Congress (which would never have been forthcoming). The White House even falsely alleged that Netanyahu accepted the invitation before they were aware of it. Labor leader Isaac Herzog, in an irresponsible breach of propriety while attending a conference on security in Munich, slandered the prime minister, calling on "Bibi to act as a patriot … cancel his speech … which was born in sin … and not throw Israel's security under the bus of the elections." The timing of his comments were even more shameful as on that same day and in the same city U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif. Similar sentiments were echoed by other political leaders, whose primitive electioneering tactics display utter indifference and contempt for the repercussions on the greatest threat facing Israel. They warn that Israel would suffer serious ramifications if Netanyahu persisted in addressing Congress and demand that he postpone his address until after the elections -- when the "negotiations" will be over. They also accuse him of forcing Democrats to choose between supporting their president or undermining his policies, and thus destroying bipartisanship. That surely sends the wrong message to Congress about limiting Obama's actions. Worse still, it sends bad vibes to American Jews, reinforcing their inability to stand up and protest against Obama's hostile policies.  The White House, of course, uses this to discredit Netanyahu on the grounds that he is merely engaged in an electoral stunt. Truth be told, a failure by Netanyahu in this area could cost him the election. But Iran has genuinely been Netanyahu's greatest concern and without his intervention would already be a nuclear state. Israel remains the target for annihilation by the Holocaust-denying Iranians who brazenly repeat their determination to eradicate the "cancerous" Israel from the map. Yet Israel is marginalized by the P5+1 nations determining the outcome. Netanyahu regarded the invitation not only as a means to promote his case to Congress but also as a platform to convey his message to the entire world. But this is ignored by his Israeli political opponents who are more concerned with electoral populism than displaying a united front in the face of an existential threat. Yet Obama is on extremely shaky ground. Even the normally supportive Washington Post published an editorial warning him against presenting the world with a fait accompli over Iran's nuclear goals and granting them regional hegemony. It accused Obama of seeking "to avoid congressional review because he suspects a bipartisan majority would oppose the deal he is prepared to make." It is in fact Obama, not Netanyahu, who has made this a partisan issue, because of his fear that an effective presentation by Netanyahu at Congress could have a major impact on legislators and the public. It is this, rather than pre-election protocol, that explains the frenzied efforts and threats that the White House has engaged to discredit Netanyahu. Netanyahu's efforts are also being undermined by extreme left-wing groups like J Street, which call on congressmen to boycott his speech and launch petitions proclaiming that he does not represent the views of American Jews. This is buttressed by media court Jews like New York Times columnist Tom Friedman resurrecting the traditional anti-Semitic dual loyalties accusation, warning Jews that if they protest against Obama's policies on Iran, Americans will be convinced that Israel controls Washington, was responsible for the war in Iraq, and is now dragging the U.S. into another war. American Jews claim that they live in a unique democratic country and enjoy full equality. Yet, whereas most Americans have no hesitation in criticizing their president when they disagree with his policies, the traditionally feisty and outspoken American Jewish leaders seem fearful of criticizing their president even in the most respectful terms. This, even after Obama's repeated and crudely appalling behavior aimed at humiliating his ally, the Israeli prime minister, in direct contrast to his servility to representatives of rogue states including Iran. On this issue, most of the Jewish leadership establishment remained silent. This included the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose officials, according to the White House, privately distanced themselves from Netanyahu's visit. To his credit, Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, was one of the few mainstream leaders stressing that Netanyahu's intention was neither to personally attack the president nor become engaged in U.S. domestic politics. Rather, it was to promote Israel's concerns about developments that it considers an existential threat and great danger to the world. But shockingly, a number of Jewish leaders also publicly slammed Netanyahu. Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, went so far as to describe the issue as a "circus" and called on House Speaker John Boehner "to withdraw" the invitation and Netanyahu to rescind his acceptance. He was followed by Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Reform movement, who said Netanyahu's speech was "a bad idea" and urged him "to bite the bullet and postpone his address" or he would "turn Israel into a partisan issue." This was outrageous. Who gave Foxman and Jacobs a mandate to challenge the decision of Israel's prime minister to appeal against enabling the Iranian terrorist state to become a nuclear state -- an act of appeasement that would dwarf Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler in Munich? Foxman's subsequent effort to modify his outburst by condemning J Street's "inflammatory and repugnant campaign" against Netanyahu did not detract from the damage he caused. Jacobs and Foxman may have convinced themselves that by seeking to avoid a conflict with their president, they were acting on the side of the angels. It was left to the hawkish Zionist Organization of America to bitterly condemn their intervention and make chilling parallels between their behavior and that of Rabbi Stephen Wise, who in 1944 urged Jewish leaders to cease campaigning to pressure the White house to intervene on behalf of the Jews in Europe in order not to embarrass President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Today, Netanyahu is desperately appealing to the world to prevent an evil apocalyptic Islamic terrorist state, committed to Israel's destruction, from becoming a nuclear power. Yet Foxman and Jacobs seem more concerned to placate their president. In making such negative statements, it is they who are transforming this into a partisan issue and providing enormous satisfaction to Iranian mullahs who undoubtedly appreciate their efforts. Shame on them! Not surprisingly, the White House exploited these outbursts as a means of encouraging Democrats to boycott the address. The president even shed crocodile tears bemoaning that Israel would become a partisan issue.  Conveniently, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden announced that he would be out of the country and unable to attend. Yet very few Democrats have indicated that they would absent themselves. Indeed, while unhappy with the timing, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she would attend, and dismissed calls for a boycott. Rep. Eliot Engel, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also made it clear that he intends to hear what Netanyahu has to say. There is, in fact, a growing awareness that Obama's proposed deal represents a sellout to the Iranians. What were hitherto considered wild accusations that Obama was abandoning the traditional allies of the U.S. in order to enter into an alliance with the Iranians has now become a genuine concern. Netanyahu's speech from a U.S. Congress platform will undoubtedly enjoy massive media exposure and may bring public pressure on the P5+1 countries to refrain from committing an act that would have horrific implications not only for Israel but the entire world. Those committed to overcoming the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism and preserving the well-being of the Jewish state should pray that Netanyahu will succeed in his efforts. Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.

Palestinians angry at Kerry

Palestinian officials criticized Kerry for failing to invite representatives of Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to last weekend’s meeting in Paris to discuss a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian officials in Ramallah on Sunday launched scathing attacks on US Secretary of State John Kerry and accused him of working to “appease” Qatar and Turkey at the expense of Egypt and the Palestinian Authority.

The officials also criticized Kerry for failing to invite representatives of Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to last weekend’s meeting in Paris to discuss a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.

Protesting against the participation of Qatar and Turkey in the Paris parley, senior Palestinian officials warned against attempts to “bypass the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

Walid Assaf, a former PA minister, pointed out that “this was the first meeting to discuss a Palestinian issue without Palestinian participation.”

Qatar has become the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, Assaf said with a tone of sarcasm. “This was the conference of the friends of Israel.”

PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction said in a statement: “Those who want Qatar or Turkey to represent them should leave and go live there.” The statement is directed against Hamas.

The London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper quoted an unnamed Palestinian official as saying that Kerry was trying to sabotage the Egyptian cease-fire proposal by offering his own plan.

The official said that Kerry’s intention was to “appease” Qatar and Turkey.

The official also accused Kerry of working to “exploit the war in order to restore the influence of Muslim Brotherhood in the region.”

According to the Palestinian official, the Americans “wrongly believe that moderate political Islam, represented by Muslim Brotherhood, would be able to combat radical Islam.”

The official said that Abbas was furious with attempts to “tamper with Palestinian blood and make it hostage to regional rivalries.”

Zahira Kamal, secretary-general of the Democratic Union, one of various organizations belonging to the PLO, said that the Paris conference had “non-national goals” because of the absence of Palestinians and Egyptians.

“The PLO is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinians,” Kamal said. “The PLO is the only decision-maker that reflects the will and interests of the Palestinians.”

Another PLO figure, Ahmed Majdalani of the Front for Popular Struggle, said that the Paris meeting reminded him of meetings sponsored by the US and its allies under the title “Friends of Syria.”

Majdalani said that these meetings have only served to prolong the war and destroy Syria.

Fatah spokesman Ahmed Assaf was quoted by the PLO’s official news agency Wafa as saying that the Paris gathering was primarily directed against Egypt.

Assaf attacked Kerry’s effort to give Qatar and Turkey a role in solving the current crisis while sidelining Egypt. He also denounced Kerry’s failure to invite Palestinian representatives to the meeting.

Kayed al-Ghul, a senior representative of the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, said that what happened at the Paris conference was “very dangerous and threatens the future of the Palestinian cause, especially following the reconciliation agreement [between Hamas and Fatah].”

Referring to the participation of Qatar and Turkey, al-Ghul said that the Palestinians did not authorize anyone to speak on their behalf at the Paris conference.

Response to John Kerry's stupid statement that Judea and Samaria are illegitimate

In contrast to John Kerry's remarks, Israel has legitimate legal rights to Judea and Samaria, as summarized below.

The following points are reposted fromAmbassador Alan Baker's blog.

1. Upon Israel’s taking control of the area in 1967, the 1907 Hague Rules on Land Warfare and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) were not considered applicable to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) territory, as the Kingdom of Jordan, prior to 1967, was never the prior legal sovereign, and in any event has since renounced any claim to sovereign rights via-a-vis the territory.

2. Israel, as administering power pending a negotiated final determination as to the fate of the territory, nevertheless chose to implement the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva convention and other norms of international humanitarian law in order to ensure the basic day-to-day rights of the local population as well as Israel’s own rights to protect its forces and to utilize those parts of land that were not under local private ownership.

3. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibiting the mass transfer of population into occupied territory as practiced by Germany during the second world war, was neither relevant nor was ever intended to apply to Israelis choosing to reside in Judea and Samaria.
 4. Accordingly, claims by the UN, European capitals, organizations and individuals that Israeli settlement activity is in violation of international law therefore have no legal basis whatsoever.
5. Similarly, the oft-used term “occupied Palestinian territories” is totally inaccurate and false. The territories are neither occupied nor Palestinian. No legal instrument has ever determined that the Palestinians have sovereignty or that the territories belong to them.
6. The territories of Judea and Samaria remain in dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, subject only to the outcome of permanent status negotiations between them.
7. The legality of the presence of Israel’s communities in the area stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question.
8. The Palestinian leadership, in the still valid 1995 Interim Agreement (Oslo 2), agreed to, and accepted Israel’s continued presence in Judea and Samaria pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, without any restriction on either side regarding planning, zoning or construction of homes and communities. Hence, claims that Israel’s presence in the area is illegal have no basis.
9. The Palestinian leadership undertook in the Oslo Accords, to settle all outstanding issues, including borders, settlements, security, Jerusalem and refugees, by negotiation only and not through unilateral measures. The Palestinian call for a freeze on settlement activity as a precondition for returning to negotiation is a violation of the agreements.
10. Any attempt, through the UN or otherwise, to unilaterally change the status of the territory would violate Palestinian commitments set out in the Oslo Accords and prejudice the integrity and continued validity of the various agreements with Israel, thereby opening up the situation to possible reciprocal unilateral action by Israel.