During his term at Foggy Bottom John Kerry has become an expert in “covering up” his aversion to the Jewish State of Israel by covering it up in his “worry” for the American ally. Take for example his July 24th speech at the Council of Foreign Relations where he discussed the P5+1 deal. Kerry said he was worried that if congress overturned the deal, Israel will be blamed by other countries.

So folks, I’ve got to tell you if this continues, what I’m witnessing where there’s this fear that is governing the – and emotion that is governing people’s thinking about this program, I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed, and we would lose Europe and China and Russia with respect to whatever military action we might have to take because we will have turned our backs on a very legitimate program that allows us to put their program to the test over these next years.

Time and again, Secretary Kerry’s erroneous declarations have suggested that anti-Israel propaganda and actions were justified, all in the name of friendship.

Most famous was John Kerry’s statement about Israel becoming an apartheid state made in an off-the-record speech at the Trilateral Commission.

If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday.

Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state. Kerry’s use of the loaded term is already rankling Jewish leaders in America—and it could attract unwanted attention in Israel, as well.

Not as well known was a recent interview senior member of the State Department, now thought to be Clinton confidante Martin Indyk who acted as Kerry’s chief negotiator. The interview was given to Ynet News’ Nahum Barnea (on the condition of anonymity) where he suggests Israel may have earned a third intifada, echoing a previous Kerry statement.

Time and again, Secretary Kerry’s erroneous declarations have suggested moral equivalency between Israel and its adversaries. With the possible exception of agreeing to negotiate, Kerry has never announced any concession by the Palestinian side. The reason for that is there hasn’t been any. It is clear that to the Obama administration it was up to Israel to make all the concessions. Just like today where Kerry is suggesting that it is up to Israel to accept the existential threat of a nuclear Iran.

Three months after Kerry began his 2013/14 push for an Israel-Palestinian peace he participated in a joint interview hosted by Israeli and Palestinian reporters. When asked by an Israeli reporter why the peace talks were important, Kerry answered, “Does Israel want a third intifada?”

Kerry’s stance was clear–if Israel doesn’t make one-sided concessions to every Palestinian demand (the way Kerry himself made concessions to Iran), the Jewish State will return to the era of suicide bombers murdering hundreds of civilians in Israeli city center.

While addressing a February 2014 conference in Munich, Kerry seemed to give support to the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction) movement, saying,  

“The risks are very high for Israel. People are talking about boycott. That will intensify in the case of failure.”

John Kerry’s passive-aggressive statement about the flawed Iran deal is no different from the statements he has made throughout is tenure at State, oh I love Israel, but if they don’t submit to the will of the Obama administration the will suffer for it.  The  problem is Mr. Kerry, if they submit to the wrong-headed policies of your Iran capitulation or any of the other lame schemes of the Obama administration, the people of Israel will suffer a lot more than you have threatened. Innocent Israelis will suffer from, rocket attacks, homicide bombing, and an Iranian nuclear nuclear threat.