We have described how John Kerry supports Israel’s security fence — repudiating the opinion of the World Court. Kerry also backs the Sharon government in its effort to destroy the legitimacy of Yasser Arafat. In a March 8, 2004 interview with the Associated Press, Kerry described Yasser Arafat as an “outlaw” who “has been an impediment to the peace process.” In essence, so far as Kerry is concerned, there is no Palestinian peace partner with which the Israeli side can speak.
Given the reality of Zionist power in the US, all successful politicians must pledge a high degree of fealty to Israel. For instance, Bill Clinton, who managed to evade military service in the United States, went so far as to claim that if Saddam’s Iraq invaded Israel he “would personally get in a ditch, grab a rifle, and fight and die” defending Israel. In the case of John Kerry, we must consider an additional factor: His personal Jewish connections. If he wins the election, he will be the first US president of Jewish ancestry.
Interestingly, Kerry’s younger brother, Cameron, converted to Judaism in 1983, when he married a Jewish woman, Kathy Weinman. “Judaism is central to us,” says Kathy, who, like her parents, is active in the Jewish community.
Cameron Kerry is not just a converted Jew; he is a prominent lawyer for a major Boston law firm, Mintz Levin, which represents many high-profile Israeli business interests. Cameron is said to be John Kerry’s closest adviser. Cameron raises a lot of money for his brother, and his fellow lawyers at Mintz Levin have contributed almost a quarter million dollars for his presidential campaign.
During the Democratic Party primaries, Cameron helped arrange meetings between his brother and key Jewish leaders, and he has continued to be the campaign’s “link man” to the American Jewish community. In July 2004, Cameron was sent by his brother to Israel to meet with top Israeli officials in a trip that was arranged by the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel’s ultra-powerful lobby.
Perhaps Kerry’s ethnic connections are merely a point of interesting trivia and have nothing to do with his incessantly advertised love of Israel. But it is quite evident that if Kerry were one-half Palestinian, and proclaimed that the “cause of Palestinian freedom must be the cause of America — and the cause of people of conscience everywhere” and demanded that Sharon’s “security wall” be torn down, that ethnic connection would not be regarded as trivial. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that Kerry’s positions differ little from the Bush administration’s favorable policy toward Sharon’s Israel. As reporter Rannie Amiri correctly observes: “But regardless of whether it is George Bush or John Kerry who wins the 2004 presidential race, Israel is assured of being the ultimate winner. And that is a sure bet.”
In conclusion, what can be said about Kerry and his presidential campaign is that it is a mass of contradictions. Kerry draws support from the anti-war element, yet he acknowledges that he would have voted for the war measure in the Senate even had he been aware of the nonexistence of Iraqi WMD; and he is pledged to maintain the US occupation of Iraq. Kerry touts himself as an internationalist but he will not repudiate the war on Iraq or its strategy of pre-emptive attack, which clearly violated fundamental international law upon which a peaceful world order depends. Moreover, despite his alleged internationalism, he specifically defends Israeli policy that violates international law, and he would have the US remain isolated in its defense of Israel against world opinion. But it also should be noted that Kerry, under the guise of progressive internationalism, could more effectively intensify and widen the war in the Middle East than could the Bush administration, whose credibility is much-tarnished by lies, torture, and corruption. Those bemused Americans who somehow longingly believe that Kerry will end the war , should have a rude awakening when his policy unfolds — yet it is a war policy that has been right out in the open all along. The fact that Americans have no choice regarding the war in the Middle East or support for Israel is the greatest irony of them all. Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe the war on Iraq was a mistake. And polls also show that Americans do not support favoritism toward Israel in the Middle East. But the peoples’ will in America cannot prevail. For the American people are not given a choice. That is apparently what the American leadership class means when it blathers about the beneficence of democracy. And that is the type of democracy it intends to spread to the “liberated” Middle East and to the rest of the world.
— Stephen J. Sniegoski holds a Ph.D. in American history, specializing in American foreign policy, and is the author of several historical articles.
