First, John Kerry invoked the “B” word against Israel. He warned the Jewish State of dire economic consequences from a boycott if it didn’t reach an accord with the Palestinians.
Now, Kerry has invoked the “A” word. He claims that Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state” in the absence of a peace deal,
Both comments, of course, drew sharp criticism. And in both cases Secretary Foghorn’s response was the same: to fall back on his record of pro-Israel votes in the U.S. Senate. But those votes, which were standard among Senators, do not entitle him to provide aid and comfort to those who want to boycott Israel or to tar it with the “apartheid” slander.
Nor do they immunize Kerry from criticism when he provides such aid and comfort. Yesterday, Kerry said, “I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes.”
Just how Mr. Pompous intends to disallow questions about his commitment to Israel is unclear. What is clear is that the questions being raised aren’t a matter of partisan politics.
Some of the criticism of Kerry comes from Republican partisans like Ted Cruz, and thank God for it. But Kerry was also taken to task by the non-partisan Anti-Defamation League through its estimable national director Abe Foxman; by the National Jewish Democratic Council, which expressed its “deep disappointment;” and by Democratic partisans like Senators Barbara Boxer and Mark Begich.
Kerry has always been prone to over-the-top expression and imagery. If he hadn’t compared American servicemen in Vietnam to “the Army of Genghis Khan,” he might have been elected president.
But Kerry craved attention when he returned from Vietnam and he still thirsts for it. Above all, I believe, he wants that Nobel Peace Prize. As he feels it slipping away, his rhetoric becomes increasingly desperate.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe his utterances are simply the product of a third-rate intellect.