Either Jewish or Democratic: Kerry on Israel


The United Nations, the non-binding world parliament of color, has denounced Israel for the 6,000,000th time. Ordinarily this is not news. See the boilerplate below for just how routine this particular resolution (2334) was:

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions

Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements… has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

Israel continues to colonize the West Bank, the third-worldist voter bloc in the UN musters more than enough support to symbolically condemn Israel because demographics can only be altered in favor of third world peoples, a maelstrom of kvetching ensues, nothing happens, etc.

What is different is that the United States, in its last days under the Obama administration, has seen fit to abandon Our Greatest Ally™ by not blocking a UN resolution. For the first time in recent diplomatic history, Israel has been deprived of its faithful golem. At least, that is how the shrieking zionist lobby and their politicians in the United States see it.

Fear not neurotic skypes, for this will pass in a couple of weeks. President-Elect Donald J. Trump made it clear in several tweets that his administration would be firmly behind Israel, and in a cringy mix of slobbering and paternalistic gaze said that the Israelis need only wait until January 20, 2017. What of America First? Trump has always made it clear that whatever Israel wants is a priority—even at the cost of an independent foreign policy.

President Trump also condemned the UN (for the wrong reasons) and suggested he would approach that body differently than his predecessor. Indeed, it is hard to imagine him being anything but hostile to the left-of-center UN, given that the international luegenpresse have anointed him an illegitimate president and Literally Hitler™. They’ve framed President Trump such that his platform would be against the UN’s charter were it carried out. The least popular man in the UN—other than Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu—I am sure will get along just fine with the General Assembly:

Resolved, that since the unlawful President of the United States has repeatedly imposed discrimination based on national origins, racism, sexism, and white supremacy on its citizens…

Hey, stranger things have happened this current year.

The other major reaction came from Obama’s Secretary of State and failed presidential candidate John Kerry (notice a pattern?). He gave a speech defending the American abstention from the vote, drawing condemnation from Israel and the kosher right. Kerry begins by outlining the basic American foreign policy, which is nominally to support both Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism:

[T]he two state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing U.S. interests in the region.

Kerry goes on to explain that the abstention was not meant to anger the Jews but a means of maintaining the two state solution that he believes is best for them:

They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States… cannot be true to our own values — or even the stated democratic values of Israel — and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel — if we allow a viable two state solution to be destroyed before our eyes. And that’s the bottom line: the vote in the UN was about preserving the two state solution. That’s what we were standing up for: Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors.

Kerry’s schizophrenic mix of byzantinism and sincerity is something to behold. He points out that America has sacrificed for Israel more than ever before under the Obama administration, in an attempt to dress up the fact that he has committed a cuck faux pas (not doing precisely what a foreign power wanted):

In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic 38 billion dollar Memorandum of Understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the U.S. has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting edge missile defense, and sustain Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge for years to come. This commitment to Israel’s security is very personal for me.

Most interesting are Kerry’s remarks on the one-state solution:

But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both… The Israeli Prime Minister publicly supports a two state solution, but his current coalition is the most right wing in Israeli history… policies of this government – which the Prime Minister himself just described as “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history” – are leading in the opposite direction, towards one state. In fact, Israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes… Let’s be clear: settlement expansion has nothing to do with Israel’s security; many settlements actually increase the security burden on the IDF. And leaders of the settler movement are motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate Palestinian aspirations… There are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier, many located in places that would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible… So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank… separate but unequal.

It is clear that under Obama-Kerry, the United States currently favors the two-state solution because it would preserve:

  1. Israel’s status as a Jewish state, that is to say the exclusive territory of an ethno-religious group which has total control over who enters and exits
  2. Democracy, which for Israel means parliamentary rule, a set of universal human rights for everyone under its flag, and normalized peaceful diplomacy with its neighbors.

The problem is that Israel wants lebensraum and that the United States is obligated to obey the zionist lobby because of the way political donations work in Washington. This causes obvious tension since the ideology of the left that permeates the still-ruling Democratic party is one of anti-nationalism and “anti-discrimination.” It is patently obvious that Israeli expansion into the West Bank consists of making the territory more Jewish and worsening the odds of a two-state solution by breaking down the ethno-geographic continuity of Palestine, a Jewish nationalist policy. Doing so privileges Jewish colonists above Arab indigenes, therefore it is clearly unacceptable. Kerry cites the American civil rights movement, calling the one-state result of the settlement policy “separate but unequal.”

The Democrats must give lip service to the Palestinian cause even while supporting Israel, because Likudnik ultra-zionism runs contrary to their third-worldism. Even when Kerry talks about the Palestinians, the creation of their state is only a means to keep Israel Jewish and democratic (i.e. Jewish-majority without discriminating too much against goyim). In that regard he is a bit like (((George Soros))), who is very much concerned with the ability of Jews to live in Europe or the United States without Israeli policies hung around their necks like an albatross. But Kerry, as the highest-ranking American diplomat, is concerned about the states themselves rather than the Jewish diaspora, and therefore wants to support Israel while having the United States be seen as supporting democracy. If Israel continues to aggressively pursue the one-state solution while saying it wants a two-state solution, an example of trademark Jewish duplicity, it damages the diplomatic capital of the United States to support it.

Put simply:

  1. Leftists interpret Israel as a White European colonial power.
  2. Colonialism is wrong because it displaces people of color.
  3. Palestinians are obviously a non-white third world population.
  4. The United States and the rest of the international community are third-worldists who view the interests of people of color as morally superior to those of White people.
  5. The UN (and the United States under Obama-Kerry) insists that Israel not pursue nationalistic policies in the Palestinian territories because that would be colonialism.

Recall that the UN labelled zionism  a form of “racism” during the Cold War, and has never failed to condemn Israel when the opportunity arises. Unironically they hold that Palestinian nationalism is not racism because Palestinians are considered people of color. Saying Israel has to choose between being Jewish and democratic is thus the parting shot of the Obama administration, the most third-worldist government the United States has had to date. Obama did not have the power to cut Israel off, but he never missed an opportunity to snub a state created by the same people (in his mind) who colonized his ancestral home of Kenya. This was his last opportunity to do so, so he took it.

As for what the United States should actually do? Defund the UN and Israel.

This entry was posted in America, Foreign Affairs, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Either Jewish or Democratic: Kerry on Israel

  1. Senatssekretär Freistaat Danzig says:

    Reblogged this on behindertvertriebentessarzblog.


  2. drexcathedra says:

    I have generally supported Israel, but for two entirely self-interested American/Western reasons and based not on how things ought to be but on how they have come to be and are. And also, not at all based on any sense of Jewish chosenness or Holocaustian debt. Just pragmatic foreign policy. Here goes. First, as you say, the Colored World (and a good chunk of the Proggy White World) see Israel as Fort Apache, a colonial outpost in Indian territory. To let it go down would be a perhaps terminal sign of weakness for an already ailing post-imperial US/West, from which we would gain nothing and which would enthuse our enemies. Second, were Israel to be overwhelmed by its savage Muzzie neighbors, both Europe and the US would be flooded with waves and waves of hysterical, angry and vengeful Sabras. Can you imagine the exponential grief of that “Holocaust 2.0” scenario for us? Too horrible to contemplate.

    It’s a mess, to be sure. So, defunding the UN? Do it yesterday. Israel? I’d love to, but consider the consequences.


    • So you’re saying we should pay the danegeld, err judengelt?

      Liked by 1 person

      • drexcathedra says:

        Unless my two assumptions are wrong, yes. It’s only money and we give away billions to hellholes like Africa. etc with really zero justification and less than zero benefit.

        On the other hand, there’s no need to provide Israel more than they actually need from us. That should be determined by us, not them. The current amounts seem outrageously high.

        Do you see an aftermath of Israel’s fall that is much different from my surmise? A plausible alternative scenario would alter my assessment of the value of the Judengelt.

        (And luckily for me, my opinions have zero effect in the world.)


      • I would imagine though that were the United States sovereign enough to end aid to Israel that the people in charge of it would also bar Israeli “refugees” from entering the country.


  3. Steel T Post says:

    The Skype tribe finally gets dished the turdworld hurt they like to serve us, from a Google they supported (Obama received 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008 and 69% in 2012 while Kerry got 76% of the Jewvote in 2004.) Funny as hell!

    To paraphrase Barbara Spectre:

    “I think there is a resurgence of Jewish Okey Doke because at this point in time Israel has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think the Magic Kenyan is going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Israel is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Hopey and Changey is going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Israel to make. They are now going into a Two State mode and Obama will be resented because of his leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Israel will not survive.”


  4. BroncoColorado says:

    Jews are a people without brakes, the concepts and words such as restraint, proportionality, and magnanimity are not part of their collective lexicon. Therefore, in a few years after they have swallowed the West Bank they will look for fresh meat. In fact they are already laying the ground work for future expansion as was Herzl’s grand plan. Two world wars got them this far, and they figure a future conflagration, probably with Iran, will get them what their desert deity promised 3000 years ago.


    • The only place they could feasibly attempt to colonize with settlers without starting another state-to-state war (which would cause a coalition war) is the Gaza Strip.


  5. John Smith says:

    Ideally, Israel would become Moscow’s problem. The Russians have the equanimity and the agency to mediate and balance between the Arabs, Jews, and Persians. Israel would survive but its unilateral foreign policy would not .


  6. King George III says:

    Israel can be our greatest ally if the nationalist jews can be fully and irrevocably cleaved from international anglojewry, but in the end we have no eternal friends or perpetual enemies, only eternal and perpetual interests.


    • I am intensely skeptic of there being anything beyond brief circumstantial cooperation with Israel on anything.


      • BroncoColorado says:

        Perhaps not even the briefest level of cooperation is advisable. Recall what happened to Aesop’s gullible frog (obviously no relation to Kek) when confronted by a smooth talking scorpion.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2017/01/01) - Social Matter

  8. jb says:

    “But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace.”

    The elites real view of multiculturalism – a police state or violent chaos. They’re conscious of the torture invaders are bringing to the West, and approve of it. It’s a feature not a regrettable consequence.


  9. suhhhh dude says:

    Just accept that Jews are generally 5 steps ahead of the rest of the world in ethno-strategy. Ashkenazis have an average IQ of ~120. Being part myself, it is so obvious to me that Jews will never totally fail, but that (((we))) are destined to repeat the same cycle in the diaspora forever. The cycle goes like this
    Phase 1:Settling
    Whether Ashkenazis immigrating to America in the late 19th-early 20th centuries or Sephardim fleeing to North Africa after the Spanish Inquisition, this is a rebuilding phase where Jews move to a new place, quickly acclimate and seem to assimilate to the host. They become upper class by the second generation and are actually a huge economic asset due to their intelligence.
    Phase 2:Hegemony and Subversion
    Take it from me, there is no explicit plan by Jews to subvert their host countries. It would be pretty absurd for a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-type scenario to actually occur. The point at which Jews go from being a great economic asset to sowing the seeds for the crumbling of their host nation can be murky, but it has much to do with how influential they are in the host society and how much the host society considers the Jews to be part of their nation. Since Jews rise to influential positions in media, banking, and politics, they move the nation’s policies towards those that benefit them, naturally. They sponsor a libertine culture and multiculturalism as a defensive mechanism because it muddies the water of an homogenous nation.
    Phase 3:Destruction
    The Jews overreach and their broad influence becomes apparent, and the host nation responds violently. Starting with the working class, a change in mindset occurs and the Jews come to be seen as social parasites. So, they are either expelled, murdered, or forced to convert.

    I could go into more detail, but I’m tired of typing. The reason to support Israel, in the end, should be to encourage Jews to have their own nation-state. As long as Jews are in the Diaspora, this this cycle will repeat over and over.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s