Photo Credit:
Secretary of State Kerry and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Both Obama and Kerry suggested they understood the shift would not be welcomed by the Palestinians.

“We’re going to have to see whether the Israelis agree and whether President Abbas, then, is willing to understand that this transition period requires some restraint on the part of the Palestinians as well,” Obama said. “They don’t get everything that they want on day one. And that creates some political problems for President Abbas as well.”

Advertisement

Kerry said those who believe “there might be an unfairness” by making Israeli security a preeminent factor in advancing toward a peace deal should “look at the history and understand why that’s a fundamental reality.”

Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Israel might have demanded the shift in part because it needs strong security assurances in the wake of upheaval in neighboring Egypt and Syria. Israel also is concerned that the recent deal between world powers and Iran could spur rather than prevent the Islamic Republic’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Schanzer, who just published State of Failure, a critique of Abbas’s governance, said Kerry deserved credit for keeping the parties at the table after differences over preconditions kept them apart for almost three years.

(JTA)

Advertisement

1 COMMENT

  1. If you like your plan, you can keep it. Does this trigger some light on just how far this united states administration will go to cover what their real agenda is? If you like your state(Israel), you can kee
    p it(well, some of it) until me(us administration) says otherwise, need target practiceIt will just cost you more than just land.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...