Tag Archives: John Kerry

Uncategorized

Make peace or deal with Hamas?

Put yourself in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s shoes.

You govern a country of some 8,000 square miles surrounded by nations that at one time or another vowed to exterminate you and your constituents. Yes, you’ve made peace with a couple of those nations — Jordan and Egypt. The rest of the region remains iffy.

You’re in the middle of peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and then you learn that the leader of that government has brokered a deal with one of the world’s most ferocious terrorist organizations, Hamas. That organization has orchestrated terrorist attacks on your country from the Gaza Strip, which the Palestinian Authority governs.

The PA now wants to form a “unity government” that includes Hamas.

Do they want peace with Israel or not? Netanyahu has called off peace talks because the PA has formed that arrangement with Hamas, which still vows to exterminate Israel.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-calls-peace-talks-after-palestinian-deal-n88726

Can you really blame the Israeli prime minister? I cannot.

Netanyahu is furious with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for agreeing to the Hamas deal.

Having seen some of the damage that Hamas has inflicted on southern Israel myself, I understand fully why Netanyahu has called off the peace talks. I was part of a group that toured Israel in the spring of 2009 and we saw damage done by rocket fire in Sderot and Ashkelon, near the border with Gaza, which had erupted in violence prior to our arrival in Israel.

It’s a blow to Secretary of State John Kerry, who persuaded the sides to talk to each other after they didn’t speak for five years. Kerry still believes a path to peace is still open, but it’s now been littered by the presence of Hamas in this arrangement with one of the principals in the talks.

“He can’t have it both ways,” Netanyahu said of Abbas. “He has to choose: Peace with Israel or a pact with Hamas.”

Netanyahu is right to be angry.

Uncategorized

Deal struck in Ukraine?

Winston Churchill once said it was better to “jaw, jaw than to war, war.”

The great British statesman was right then, and he would be right now. Ukraine and Russian diplomats today announced a potential breakthrough in the standoff between the countries that well could have led to open warfare in eastern Europe.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/203788-kerry-says-deal-reached-on-ukraine-violence

The Hill reports, “Secretary of State John Kerry said the framework hashed out by foreign ministers meeting in Geneva would disarm separatist militants in eastern Ukraine and have them vacate the government buildings, streets and squares they have occupied. In return, the Ukrainian government has offered amnesty to all pro-Russian militants who lay down their arms, with the exception of those who committed capital crimes.”

The agreement comes after diplomats from the European Union, NATO, the United States, Russia and Ukraine haggled over a way out of the standoff that seemed to bring Russia and Ukraine to the brink of war.

Will it be implemented? Will the deal hold? Will both sides back off? Will there be an end to what’s been called the worst crisis since the end of the Cold War?

This is a potentially huge deal that strikes a blow for the power of diplomacy.

It remains to be determined what impact the economic sanctions may have played in bringing the Russians to the bargaining table.

The United States doesn’t want war. The Russians don’t want it. All that’s left is to talk to each other … and to keep talking until you get a deal done.

Uncategorized

Vlad calls Barack to talk diplomacy

Why do you suppose Vladimir Putin called Barack Obama today to talk about diplomacy?

As in finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, the one instigated when Russia sent troops to Crimea and massed tens of thousands of troops on its border with Ukraine — after Ukraine ousted its pro-Russian president?

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-calls-obama-discuss-u-proposal-ukraine-212358384.html

What do you suppose is going on here?

It might be that those economic sanctions, the ones that President Obama’s critics said were mere pin pricks in the hide of the old Russian bear are beginning to take their toll. It also might be that the European Union’s threat of political isolation and NATO’s insistence that any further military action will not be tolerated by the Western European alliance.

Tough guy Vladimir Putin, the former KGB spook in chief turned Russian president, called the president of the United States today to talk about a diplomatic solution to this crisis. The two leaders agreed to have their countries’ chief foreign emissaries — Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — meet soon to begin hammering out a solution.

The targeted sanctions have begun taking a serious bite out of some key Russian backsides. President Obama has vowed deeper, more sweeping measures if the Russians escalated their encroachment even more. To date, the sanctions have involved freezing access to cash for some of Russia’s key money men and political insiders.

Obama has made the point repeatedly in recent days that Russia has acted against Ukraine out of weakness, not strength. He’s insulted Putin by referring to Russia as a “regional power” not worthy of consideration by this country as a major geopolitical foe. Russia has been kicked out of the G-8 conference of industrialized nations and has seen the next economic summit pulled from Sochi, Russia and relocated to Brussels, Belgium.

He’s now willing to talk about a diplomatic solution.

Methinks those “toothless sanctions” have grown some fangs.

Uncategorized

Russians might pull their envoy to the U.S.?

So, let me see if I have this correct.

Ukrainian insurgents have driven that country’s president out; he’s holed up in Moscow; Russia is threatening to intervene in another sovereign country’s affairs; Russia is mobilizing its armed forces; President Obama has warned Russia that any outside interference in Ukrainian affairs will have “costs.”

And the Russians are threatening to pull their ambassador to the United States?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/01/russia-moves-to-bring-back-ambassador-from-us-amid-ukraine-crisis/

Shouldn’t the United States pull its ambassador to Moscow?

Secretary of State John Kerry has said U.S.-Russia relations are at stake. It’s not entirely clear what precisely he means by the stakes involved.

There cannot be a severing of diplomatic relations between the nations. This gamesmanship over who pulls their ambassador first, though, cannot continue.

The best solution from the U.S. and European standpoint would be for the Russians to butt out, to let Ukraine decide who will govern the country without outside interference.

If the Russians are intent on honoring international law, then they’ll back off and let their neighbors in Ukraine settle this dispute on their own.

Uncategorized

‘This isn’t Rocky IV’

The last time Secretary of State John Kerry used a “Rocky IV” reference in public was at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Then, he was poking fun at Republican presidential nominee’s assertion that Russia was this nation’s most dangerous “geopolitical foe.” Kerry, then a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, declared that Romney’s view of Russia was more like the “Rocky IV” film that became a silly metaphor for the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

It drew huge applause and laughter at the DNC’s final night in September 2012.

It’s not a laugh line in today’s context.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/kerry-russia-must-be-very-careful-judgments-ukraine-n39236

Kerry has warned Russian President Vladimir Putin about rekindling the Cold War by threatening Ukraine, a neighboring country — and former Soviet state — with military exercises.

Ukraine has just ousted its Russia-friendly president amid terrible street violence in cities throughout that country. Putin’s decision to activate the military has forced Kerry to issue some stern warnings on behalf of the United States.

He told NBC News: “I think Russia needs to be very careful in the judgments that it makes going forward here. We are not looking for confrontation. But we are making it clear that every country should respect the territorial integrity here, the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia has said it would do that and we think it’s important that Russia keeps its word.”

According to NBC.com, Kerry also said that “Russian President Vladimir Putin should ‘listen carefully to Ukrainians who have voiced their desire for change,’ repeating that the United States does not view its relationship with Russia as a ‘sort of continuation of the Cold War.’”

Are we going to war with Russia if the Russians intervene militarily? Of course not. However, memories of the long-simmering rivalry between the nations ought to be as long in Russia as they are in this country.

We won the Cold War. Putin ought to think carefully about how it turned out for his side if he intends to start a new one.

Uncategorized

Kerry cannot possibly be an anti-Semite

An interesting development has emerged in Secretary of State John Kerry’s difficult struggle to find peace in the Middle East.

It turns out that the angry charges leveled at him by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet members — that Kerry’s promoting “anti-Semitic” notions — cannot possibly be true. Kerry’s family name originally was Kohn and that Kerry’s family has Jewish origins.

Grandpa Kerry/Kohn changed his name and his religion, from Jewish to Catholic, which John Kerry learned shortly before announcing his presidential candidacy in 2003.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kerrys-brother-johns-not-anti-semitic-were-jewish-n30576

In fact, Cameron Kerry — the secretary of state’s brother — is a practicing Jew to this day, having married a Jewish woman.

Israeli foreign ministry officials, of course, are quite sensitive to any comments they construe to be against their interests. John Kerry said recently that “The risks are very high for Israel” after meeting with Iranian officials about plans to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli officials took that to mean Israel needed to watch its step if it continued to threaten Iran with military action.

Naftali Bennett, an industry minister, said, “We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece.”

I understand fully the Israelis’ angst over negotiating with a country that has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Let us take care, though, to avoid throwing around pejorative terms like “anti-Semitic” where it regards someone whose family roots run deep in the Holy Land.

Uncategorized

Good bye, Mr. Simmons … and good riddance

Harold Simmons is dead at age 82.

His death has drawn a lot of attention in political circles. The billionaire Texan was a big contributor to Republican candidates and causes. That’s fine. I don’t begrudge that one bit.

What I do begrudge, though, is the $4 million he gave to a particular GOP effort.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/29/harold-simmons-gop-mega-donor-dead-82/

It occurred during the 2004 presidential campaign between President George W. Bush and U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry. Simmons kicked in the big dough to a group dedicated to smearing Kerry’s reputation, which he earned while serving in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth thought it would smear Kerry’s war record with lies, suggesting he didn’t really earn the medals for valor while serving during that long-ago war.

It was a disgraceful display of rotten politics — which can be pretty rotten even without this kind of defamation.

Simmons played a hand in that slander, which must not go unnoticed as the political world bids good bye to 2013 and to this individual.

I’m quite aware that both parties are awash in lots of money, much of which is used as ammo to smear candidates from the other side. None of it is appealing. None of it is fair.

The “swift boating,” of John Kerry, though, will stand for a long time as an example of how politics can stink to high heaven.

Uncategorized

Iran must pay huge price for non-compliance

Congress is going to step into the Iranian nuclear program dismantling discussion if the need arises.

Go for it, lawmakers.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-eastnorth-africa/191416-congress-prepares-to-punish-tehran

The deal hammered out over the weekend between several of the great powers and Iran calls for the mullahs to take down its nuclear program over time. They must not develop a nuclear weapon. In return Iran will see a partial lifting of economic sanctions that have punished that country’s economy — and which, in my view, have helped bring the Iranians to the negotiating table after years of refusing to discuss their nuclear development program.

Iran has six months to make good on its promises. If it doesn’t, or if it reneges on any element of the agreement, then Congress is going to take action to clamp down even tighter on the Islamic Republic.

The decision to take action if Iran doesn’t comply forestalls any effort to derail the agreement brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry and the Iranian foreign minister. Yes, the agreement has drawn heavy fire from congressional Republicans and Democrats, not to mention from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who calls the agreement a “historic mistake.”

Israel remains prepared to take unilateral military action against Iran if it feels threatened. Who can blame the Israelis, given the constant battles they fight with many of their neighbors who are intent on destroying Israel?

The agreement might not be perfect, but Iran has paid a heavy price already for its refusal to talk — until now — with the rest of the world about its nuclear intentions. As for Israel’s security, Kerry says our nation’s key Middle East ally will remain secure and that the United States will continue to stand foursquare behind it.

Meanwhile, Congress is right to prepare a punishment option to have ready in the event Iran doesn’t comply with the agreement.

The task now is to persuade the Iranians that additional suffering makes it necessary for them to follow through.

Uncategorized

Iran nuke deal: mistake or triumph?

Here is what I understand about the deal brokered in the wee hours today to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear development program.

* For the next six months, United States and other nations will be allowed daily access to Iran’s agreement to dismantle some of its nuclear enrichment program.

* There will be a lifting of a tiny fraction of the sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

* The six-month interim agreement will enable the great powers and Iran to continue negotiating toward a comprehensive long-term agreement aimed at eliminating the threat that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

* If the Iranians do not comply with all the elements of this agreement, the sanctions will be restored and Iran will continue to pay a huge price as a rogue nation.

And this, according to Republicans in Congress and our friends in Israel is a “historic mistake”?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/24/21591860-historic-mistake-israelis-republicans-condemn-iran-nuclear-deal?lite

I happen to have great sympathy for the Israeli point of view here. I got to spend five weeks in Israel in 2009 and saw first hand the damage that has been inflicted on that country by forces dedicated to Israel’s elimination. Iran is one of Israel’s sworn enemies.

However, let’s look at a bigger picture here.

Iran has returned to the negotiating table with much of the rest of the civilized world. That, by itself, must be considered a positive development. Iranians say their nuke program is intended for peaceful purposes. No one believes that contention. I surely don’t.

However, the Iranians understand the price they are paying — through the sanctions imposed by the world — is too great a burden for their people. It is surely plausible for them to want to restore some semblance of normalcy in their dealings with the rest of the world, and agreeing to work toward the end of its nuclear development program is one avenue toward that restoration.

The newly elected Iranian president has declared his intention to change Iran’s relationship with the rest of the world. Is he to be believed? Well, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a “wolf in wolf’s clothing.”

Netanyahu’s view of this agreement is stained by the blood that has been shed already in his country. I get that. However, from my perch many thousands of miles away, I am interested to see how stern the United States and our allies will be in holding Iran accountable for following through on this huge agreement.

Secretary of State John Kerry says there is “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israeli positions regarding the end of Iran’s nuclear program. Kerry says the United States stands foursquare with Israel.

Let us now move forward on this agreement — and make damn sure Iran complies.

Uncategorized

‘Not appropriate’ to explain JFK death theory?

Secretary of State John Kerry needs a lesson in real-world journalism.

He told NBC News that he believes Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone when he shot President John F. Kennedy to death on Nov. 22, 1963. But when he asked to expand on those remarks, he sought to diminish the question by calling the issue “not worthy” of further discussion.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/189798-kerry-%E2%80%98inappropriate%E2%80%99-to-discuss-his-jfk-assassination-theory

By my reckoning, “Meet the Press” host David Gregory posed a perfectly appropriate question to a leading American official on a topic that continues to roil in the hearts of many Americans.

It might be that Secretary Kerry felt he didn’t have enough time to explain what he meant. It also might be that someone in the Kennedy family asked him to clam up. Kerry, who hails from the same Massachusetts political factory that produced the Kennedy dynasty, no doubt would heed such a request — if it came to him.

Still, the secretary of state has opened up yet another discussion topic on what some have described as the Crime of the 20th Century.

He ought to explain himself.