Parting Shots 2
Three articles, 1) Washington Post’s Right Turn, 2) JPost, 3) Ynet
Good Ol’ Boys Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu at Trump Tower, September 25, 2016. Photo by GPO
How awful was John Kerry’s speech on Israel?
By Jennifer Rubin, Right Turn, Washington Post
December 28, 2016
Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s dreadfully long and condescending speech rationalizing the U.S. decision to abstain from a one-sided vote casting Israel as an international law breaker will convince no one not already in agreement with the Obama administration’s Israel-bashing posture. It will fortify the new Congress, the president-elect (who tweeted before the speech: “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but . . . not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching”) and pro-Israel groups to make a definitive break with this administration’s rhetoric and policy. How bad was it? Here are 10 reasons it was among the very worst foreign policy addresses in U.S. history (the others being some of President Obama’s and Kerry’s previous harangues):
1. Kerry continued to insist the explosion of settlement activity necessitated the action. Administration officials cite a “100,000” person increase in population beyond the 1949 armistice lines. Rick Richman ably responds:
The figure of 100,000 sounds significant until you realize that 80 percent of it has been in the settlement blocs “everyone knows” Israel will retain in any conceivable peace agreement. The 20,000 person increase east of the separation barrier, established to stop the wave of Palestinian mass murders against Israelis, translates into less than one percent of the population in the disputed territories, over a period of eight years.
It is ludicrous to argue that the settlements are an “obstacle to peace,” because they were not an obstacle to offering the Palestinians a state on three separate occasions: (a) in July 2000 at Camp David; (b) in the Clinton Parameters six months later; and (c) in the Olmert offer at the end of the one-year Annapolis Process in 2008. Each time, the Palestinians rejected a state on substantially all of the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem. Since then–as Rhodes’ numbers show–the vast majority of Israeli settlement activity has been within settlement blocs that no one can realistically expect Israel to dismantle.
Israel already committed to a 10-month settlement freeze with no reciprocal move by the Palestinians. Moreover, the vast number of additional units are within the confines of existing blocs pursuant to an agreement memorialized in an exchange of letters between President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004.
2. There is genocide occurring in Syria. Russia has invaded multiple countries. Iran is chiseling away on the JCPOA and seeking to destabilize multiple countries. Egypt and Turkey are engaged is an unprecedented crackdown on civil liberties. But in the final days of the administration, Kerry chose to single out our ally Israel. No wonder our friends do not trust us.
3. He revealed that the United States didn’t have the courage to vote for the resolution although it had a hand in it. He acknowledged telling other countries the United States would not block it if it was “balanced and fair.” The resolution, incidentally, never required the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
4. Kerry never addressed the role of Iran, Syria and others who fund Hamas and its attacks on civilians.
5. He blatantly cast Hamas (terrorism) as equivalent to home building for Jews, much of it in Israel and in Jewish blocs elsewhere “The truth is that trends on the ground — violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation — are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides, and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want.” This is moral idiocy.
6. He asserted that the Palestinian state must be contiguous. This raises the question whether he is demanding some connective corridor between Gaza and the West Bank. This would be a new demand.
7. He hypocritically acknowledged only direct negotiations can solve the crisis. He and the resolution, however, do not demand, for example, Palestinians give up the right of return. He is either intentionally obtuse or lying about the resolution’s predetermination of key issues between the parties.
8. Kerry neglects to mention that Palestinians are not supportive according to recent polling of the steps needed to achieve peace: “A deal that would mark a final end to the conflict and an end to claims was supported by 64 percent of Israeli Jews, but only 40 percent of Palestinians. Making the new Palestinian state entirely demilitarized gets the backing of 61 percent of Israeli Jews but only 20 percent of Palestinians.” The speech was designed to hold one party, Israel, responsible for the conflict.
9. The speech was pointless, simply an empty rhetorical jab designed to respond to criticism of the administration.
10. Kerry is very concerned about Israel’s democracy. If only he would spend as much time criticizing the Palestinian Authority for lack of elections, massive corruption and failure to establish viable civil institutions.
Analysis: Kerry leaves stage locked into failed assumptions
The six principles that Kerry set down as the way to move forward were predictable, and not much different from the parameters President Bill Clinton issued before he left office 16 years ago.
By Herb Keinon, JPost
December 28, 2016
Long.
That is likely how many will remember US Secretary of State John Kerry’s more than hour-long speech on the Middle East delivered Wednesday, less than a month before he leaves the world’s stage.
Long, and without many new elements in it. What a tired-looking, hoarse Kerry did for more than an hour was pretty much compile the “greatest hits” from numerous speeches he and US President Barack Obama have given over the last number of years on the Mideast.
He talked about the detrimental effects of the settlements; how Israel needs to chose whether it wants two states or one state, meaning it can either be a Jewish state or a democratic one, but not both; and how the settlements are making a two state-solution impossible.
All of this has been said multiple times before by the Administration, no surprises there. A good part of the speech, however, was devoted to defending the US’ abstention at the UN last week – a sign that the harsh criticism by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s, ambassador to the US Ron Dermer and other government ministers had unnerved him a bit.
Kerry’s speech is a momentary snapshot of where the world stands on the issue right now, because just as the Security Council hall erupted in applause after Friday’s resolution was passed, so too it is fair to say that the vast majority of the international community agrees wholeheartedly with the sentiments Kerry expressed about the settlements.
That is now. But things may change. If President-elect Trump comes into office and questions the two-state orthodoxy that Kerry pledged allegiance to, that could have a trickle down effect to other countries as well.
The six principles that Kerry set down as the way to move forward were predictable, and not much different from the parameters President Bill Clinton issued before he left office 16 years ago.
Nevertheless, two elements of the speech were striking.
The first was the insistence that the only solution to the conflict is either two-states, or one. This is the mantra that has been repeated for so long, that it has become axiomatic. But it also drowns out any possibility of creatively looking at other options, a different way.
If the efforts to negotiate two states has failed for so long, perhaps it is time to consider whether there may be other options that might bring Egypt and Jordan into the equation. Perhaps what is needed is a reassessment of all the the assumptions over the last 23 years that have ended in the current stalemate — first and foremost that the only option is two states from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.
For instance, in 2010 former National Security Council Giora Eiland spelled out a plan for a Jordanian-Palestinian federation, in which the West Bank and Gaza would be states in an expanded Jordanian kingdom.
Another idea would see the establishment of a Palestinian state, but it would be based on land swaps between Egypt, Israel and a future Palestinian entity that would significantly expand the size of Gaza, allow Israel to retain a good percentage of the the West Bank, and provide Egypt with a land link to Jordan.
These ideas are too often dismissed as unrealistic, something that the Palestinians would never accept. Kerry reinforces that way of thinking with his stating as truth that it is either two states or one state.
The Kerry speech was also telling in that it included a call for Israel to withdraw from the territories and uproot settlements. This is a demand for Israel to make huge compromises. There was, however, no comparable demand for compromise on the Palestinian side.
Kerry called, and says that the US has done so on innumerable occasions, for the Palestinians to stop the terrorism and the incitement, and to build up good governing institutions. But those are not compromises.
A Palestinian compromise would be to recognize that — given everything going on in the Middle East — Israel must retain security control of the Jordan Valley. A compromise would be for the Palestinians to state that they are giving up on the “right of return,” and that they recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish state.
“Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the US position for years,” Kerry said. “And based on my conversations in these last months, I am absolutely convinced that many others are prepared to accept it as well, provided as well that the need for a Palestinian state is also addressed.”
So there’s the deal: Israel withdraws, uproots settlements, and then based on Kerry’s conversation in recent weeks, “many others” may be prepared to recognize Israel as a Jewish state that has the right to exist as well.
That type of gamble is not going to find much resonance with Israelis, who have to live with the consequences.
Throughout his career, both in the senate and as secretary of state, Kerry’s speeches on Israel give the listener a sense that he knows what is better for Israel, its future, and security than the Israelis themselves. His speech Wednesday night was true to that rather patronizing form.
Danny Danon, Israel’s UN envoy, illustrates his point at a Security Council session on anti-Jewish violence in Israel. Screenshot.
Netanyahu tells Kerry: Israel doesn’t need to be lectured about peace by foreign leaders
Speaking in both Hebrew and English, the PM fiercely criticizes the outgoing US secretary of state’s speech, saying he ‘attacked the only democracy in the Middle East’ with UN resolution he accused the US of being responsible for; ‘I look forward to working with President Trump and the US Congress, Republicans and Democrats, to mitigate the damage of this resolution.’
By Gahl Becker and Andrew Friedman/TPS, Ynet
December 28, 2016
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a fiery retort, both in Hebrew and in English, to US State Secretary John Kerry’s speech on Wednesday, telling the American diplomat: “Israel does not need to be lectured about peace by foreign leaders.”
Kerry laid out the Obama administration’s parameters for peace between Israel and the Palestinians during a speech at the State Department. He unveiled a six-part outline of what a future peace deal could look like. The outline tracked closely with principles long assumed to be part of an eventual deal, and Kerry insisted he was merely describing what’s emerged as points of general agreement.
Netanyahu expressed his “deep disappointment” with the speech. “For a full hour, the secretary of state attacked the only democracy in the Middle East,” he added.
The prime minister accused the outgoing US Secretary of state for “Blaming Israel for the lack of peace by condemning a policy that lets Jews live in their eternal homeland,” adding that “Secretary Kerry paid lip service” to Palestinian narrative that is fundamentally anti-Israeli.
“I don’t seek applause. I seek the security, peace, and prosperity of the Jewish people and the Jewish state,” added Netanyahu. “We are not about to be swayed by mistaken policies that have caused great damage.”
He insisted that “No one wants peace more than the people of Israel,” but such peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations, “This is how we made peace with Egypt. This is how we made peace with Jordan. It’s the only way we’re going to make peace with the Palestinians.”
Quoting from a speech outgoing President Barack Obama made at the UN in which he claimed that “Peace is hard and cannot be accomplished by speeches at the UN. If it could, it would have been done by now,” Netanyahu stressed that “Until last week, this was exactly what the US has done.”
During his speech, Kerry staunchly defended the Obama administration’s decision to allow the UN Security Council to declare Israeli settlements illegal, rejecting accusations that the White House was the driving force behind the resolution and stressing that Washington “did not draft or originate” the wording of the resolution.
But Netanyahu was unconvinced. “The US organized, advanced and brought this resolution to the UN Security Council,” the prime minister insisted. “We will share this information with the incoming administration.”
He added that “I look forward to working with President Trump and the US Congress—Republicans and Democrats—to mitigate the damage of this resolution.”
Netanyahu called for a change in US policy, cementing its support of Israel in absolute terms. “If the US is true to its words, it should say ‘We will not allow any more resolutions in the UN Security Council against Israel.'”
“I personally know the pain, loss and suffering of war. That’s why I’m so committed to peace,” said Netanyahu. “I want young Palestinian children to be educated like our children.”
This conflict is about Israel’s right to exist.It’s a shame that Secretary Kerry does not see this simple truth.
PM Netanyahu
Instead of this vision, however, Netanyahu said that “The Palestinian Authority educates them to lionize terrorists.”
“The Palestinian Authority tells them they should never accept the existence of a Jewish state,” he added, asking: “How can you make peace with someone who rejects your very existence?”
“This conflict is not about houses,” reassured Netanyahu. “This conflict is about Israel’s right to exist.” He ended his speech by lamenting that “It’s a shame that Secretary Kerry does not see this simple truth.”
Education Minister Naftali Bennett asserts, disingenuously, ‘There already is a Palestinian state in Gaza’. Photo by Miriam Alster /Flash90
Additional Israeli leaders wholly reject Kerry peace plan
Education Minister Naftali Bennett also responded to Kerry speech, saying that “Secretary Kerry’s speech was like his policy—with good intention, but divorced from reality.”
“This policy has left the Middle East in flames,” added Bennett. “A Syrian genocide, Iran racing towards a nuclear bomb, and abandoning of the only free democracy in the Middle East, Israel.”
“There already is a Palestinian state in Gaza and it turned into a terror state. We’re not prepared to allow a second terror state in the heart of Israel,” said Bennett.
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely called the principles for peace that Kerry outlined in his speech “impossible,” adding that “We have 25 years of experience with similar ‘outlines for peace,’ but instead of peace they gave rise to the threat of terrorism. At the end of the day, no speech or unilateral move at the United Nations will lead to an agreement.”
“The Jewish People will not withdraw from our land in order to create a terror state,” said Hotovely.
Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon similarly rejected Kerry’s claims that the administration of outgoing US President Barack Obama had Israel’s back” vis-à-vis Israel’s standing in the world and the UN.
“Coordinating anti-Israeli moves with the Palestinians and making a unilateral decision in the Security Council is not supporting Israel, it’s the exact opposite,”said Danon. “The Obama administration has acted against the State of Israel at the UN, and any statement saying otherwise is a distortion of reality.” He added that “Speeches, statements or unilateral decisions will not promote peace in our area, only the objection to terrorism, the ending of incitement and the return to direct negotiations. The Palestinians must realize this.”
Danon then responded to President-elect Donald Trump’s tweet from earlier Wednesday, which expressed his unequivocal support of Israel and encouraged Israel to “stand strong.” Showing appreciation for the tweet, Danon said, “We welcome the clear-cut support of President-elect Trump, who declared he will stand by Israel and not join in the continued attempt to harm Israel at the UN.”
Head of Samaria Regional Council Yossi Dagan also issued a response to Kerry’s speech:
I want to congratulate the American people for choosing a different path during the last election. It’s clear to any intelligent person that the ideas of the ridiculous outgoing secretary general [sic] are not founded in reality. The American people recognized this disconnect, characterizing the Obama administration not just with foreign policy, and it chose a different way that is due to begin in about 20 days. I have no doubt that this is a new age for the US and especially in regard to it relation to Israel, a relation the old administration chose to decimate. I wish John Kerry Luck on his way.