Kerry was for a Jewish State as part of a peace deal before he was against it....
Or is this story even true? Is it actually one of those "good-cop/bad-cop" tales instead? It's difficult to say, but I vote ever-so-slightly for "true." My opinion of John Kerry is very low, but I think more of him than I do of Obama. The following seems...
Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement on Sunday night that blamed the Syrian government for the deadlock in peace talks but asserted that the United States remained “committed to the Geneva process.”Mr. Kerry’s statement followed two rounds of generally fruitless discussions during which the Syrian government continued its attacks on rebel-held areas with crude weapons known as barrel bombs, and came as more than 200,000 Syrians remained cut off from humanitarian assistance.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations special envoy to the negotiations, underscored the frustration when he apologized to the Syrian people over the weekend and questioned the value of continuing the talks.
The main aim of Mr. Kerry’s statement appeared to be to pressure President Bashar al-Assad and to keep alive the hope that a political settlement might be reached in Syria. He was scheduled to fly on Monday to the United Arab Emirates, which is among the Persian Gulf countries that have supported the rebels.
Kerry's optimism that Bashar Assad would talk himself out of power was naive at best, dangerous at worst. There appears to be no Plan B, as Paul Mirengoff at Power Line notes:
The Palestinian Authority has informed US Secretary of State John Kerry that it will not accept his framework peace proposal as it currently stands, PA officials told The Times of Israel.... Central clauses of the framework deal as presented by Kerry, and rejected by the PA, the Palestinian officials said, are as follows: Borders: The peace agreement is to be based on pre-1967 lines, but will take into consideration changes on the ground in the decades since. Settlements: There will be no massive evacuation of “residents.” Refugees: Palestinian refugees will be able to return to Palestine or remain where they currently live. In addition, it is possible that a limited number of refugees could be allowed into pre-1967 Israel as a humanitarian gesture, and only with Israeli acquiescence. Nowhere is it written that Israel bears responsibility for suffering caused to the refugees. Capital: The Palestinian capital will be in Jerusalem. Security: Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself. The Jordan Valley: The IDF will retain a presence in the Jordan Valley. The length of time the IDF will remain will depend on the abilities of the Palestinian security forces. Border crossings: Israel will continue to control border crossings into Jordan. Definition of the countries: Two states will result, “a national state of the Jewish people and a national state of the Palestinian people.”So what's the problem? Some of these issues probably are surmountable. But one issue probably is not, the recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland, as further reported by the Times:
I believe that – and you see for Israel there’s an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There are talk of boycotts and other kinds of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that? ... ... not to mention that today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable. It’s illusionary. There’s a momentary prosperity, there’s a momentary peace. Last year, not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank. This year, unfortunately, there’s been an uptick in some violence. But the fact is the status quo will change if there is failure. So everybody has a stake in trying to find the pathway to success.The reaction was furious, and in some cases hyperventilated, because this is not the first time Kerry has held a Palestinian protest sword over Israel's head. In November, Kerry warned Israel it faced a Third Intifada:
"The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos," Kerry said. "Does Israel want a third intifada?"This all is diplomatic foolishness. Expressing "concerns" in public has a way of creating its own reality that such expressions in private do not. Abe Foxman of the ADL was correct in this assessment:
In speaking about the price Israel will pay if the peace talks break down and Israel is blamed, you may have thought you were merely describing reality. But as the key player in the process, the impact of your comments was to create a reality of its own. Describing the potential for expanded boycotts of Israel makes it more, not less, likely that the talks will not succeed; makes it more, not less, likely that Israel will be blamed if the talks fail; and more, not less, likely that boycotts will ensue. Your comments, irrespective of your intentions, will inevitably be seen by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists as an incentive not to reach an agreement; as an indicator that if things fall apart, Israel will be blamed; and as legitimizing boycott activity.David Horovitz, founder of The Times of Israel and someone I've always viewed as a voice of moderation, calls him The petulant Secretary Kerry:
If Assad wanted to leave power, he could have done so 100,000 dead Syrians ago....
Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers are contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly acknowledged by Western officials, Iran’s chief negotiator said Monday.... A State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, denied later Monday that there was any secret agreement. "Any documentation associated with implementation tracks completely with what we've described," she said. "These are technical plans submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency," the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency. "We will make information available to Congress and the public as it becomes available," Harf said.Remember last fall when the Obama administration insisted it had not consented to Iran's right to enrich uranium, even though Rouhani was claiming we had consented? Q&A: Is there a 'right' to enrich uranium? Iran says yes, U.S. no How's that looking now? Again from the L.A. Times article:
Speaking with Benjamin Netanyahu at a joint press conference before the first of several planned meetings between the two, Kerry said leaders on both sides of the tables already knew what would be included in a US-drafted framework agreement, but added that an agreement was “not mission impossible.” “We know what the issues are and the parameters,” he said of a potential agreement. “The time is soon arriving when leaders will have to make tough decisions,” he added, and said that he would “work with both sides to narrow differences on a framework that will set guidelines for negotiations.” However, Netanyahu, recalling Palestinian celebrations over a prisoner release earlier in the week, said he was skeptical over Ramallah’s commitment to peace. “I know that you are committed to peace; I know that I am committed to peace; but, unfortunately, given the actions and words of Palestinian leaders, there’s growing doubt in Israel that the Palestinians are committed to peace,” Netanyahu said.From the transcript:
PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Welcome back to Jerusalem, John. I want to use this opportunity to express once again my personal appreciation and the appreciation of the people of Israel for your unremitting personal efforts to advance peace between us and the Palestinians. I know that you’re committed to peace, I know that I’m committed to peace, but unfortunately, given the actions and words of Palestinian leaders, there’s growing doubt in Israel that the Palestinians are committed to peace.
Seriously. https://twitter.com/DanRiehl/status/405455788228882433 From Fars News Agency, Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House: TEHRAN (FNA)- The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday called invalid a press release by the White House alleged to be the text of the nuclear agreement struck by Iran and the...
In the end, though, it was not only divisions between Iran and the major powers that prevented a deal, but fissures within the negotiating group. Earlier in the day, France objected strenuously that a proposed deal would do too little to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment or to stop the development of a nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium.“The Geneva meeting allowed us to advance, but we were not able to conclude because there are still some questions to be addressed,” the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told reporters.
The Times of Israel reports:
We are on the cusp of the most historic sell-out of Israel by any United States administration. We told you all along that in his second term Obama would impose a settlement on Israel according to what he viewed as reasonable: Obama will force his vision of a...
US Secretary of State John Kerry launched an unusually bitter public attack on Israeli policies in the West Bank Thursday, warning that if current peace talks fail, Israel could see a third intifada and growing international isolation, and that calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions would increase. Kerry made the comments during a joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2 and the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.“The alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos,” Kerry said. “I mean does Israel want a third Intifada?” he asked. “Israel says, ‘Oh we feel safe today, we have the wall. We’re not in a day to day conflict’,” said Kerry. “I’ve got news for you. Today’s status quo will not be tomorrow’s…” Israel’s neighbors, he warned, will “begin to push in a different way.”
The secretary went on: “If we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis, if we do not find a way to find peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel, there will be an increasing campaign of delegitimization of Israel that’s been taking place on an international basis.”
Turning to settlements and Israel’s presence in the West Bank, he added: “If we do not resolve the question of settlements, and the question of who lives where and how and what rights they have; if we don’t end the presence of Israeli soldiers perpetually within the West Bank, then there will be an increasing feeling that if we cannot get peace with a leadership that is committed to non-violence, you may wind up with leadership that is committed to violence.”
The highlighted words have a lot of meaning in the context of the dispute, particularly with regard to BDS and delegitimization.
Mideast Media Sampler 10/17/2013 - Secretary of State John Kerry said that "no deal is better than a bad deal." Will he follow through?...
James Rosen of Fox News sketched the image below while waiting for Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to appear before reporters. Rosen tried to parlay it into an exclusive interview, but no luck, via AP: Then Fox News television correspondent James Rosen reached over and handed Lavrov a...
Mandy covered this morning the outline of the "principles" agreed upon by the U.S. and Russia for Syria to end its possession of chemical weapons. The deal, announced as we were waking this morning, is being spun a variety of ways. It holds the promise of removing...
He just keeps saying it. “You know, Senator Chuck Hagel, when he was senator, Senator Chuck Hagel, now secretary of defense, and when I was a senator, we opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq, but we know full well how that evidence was used...
