web analytics
January 20, 2017 / 22 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Kerry’

How John Kerry Will Make American GREAT Again

Thursday, December 29th, 2016

Did Secretary John Kerry actually think that his presentation of his vision of the parameters of how to achieve peace between Israel and her neighbors will actually lead to a peace agreement?  Of course not. President elect Trump largely ran a campaign promising to dismantle as much of Obama’s legacy as possible.  Particularly when it comes to actions by the lame-duck administration that are designed to box in the president-elect, you can bet that Trump will be ‘bigly’ focused on countering those moves.   So what could Secretary Kerry conceivably hope to accomplish with his ‘Mideast parameters’ rant?

Is it that this was Kerry’s last time to lash out at his nemesis, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?  He tried to have him defeated in the Israeli elections in 2015 (what?! a Democrat administration interfering with an election in a foreign country?).  Was he just trying to formally blame Netanyahu for being the obstacle that prevented him from winning the Nobel Peace Prize?  Maybe, but that is a bit too simplistic.

Throughout his tenure as Secretary of State, Kerry demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of international diplomacy.  He has managed to convince himself (and his cheerleaders) that every one of his colossal failures was actually a success.  All one has to do is look around at Kerry’s misadventures in the Middle East – from trying to rehabilitate Bashar Assad as an international leader in good standing (while still in the Senate), to the Iran Nuclear Deal, to the $150 Billion in ransom money handed to Iran.  Regarding Israel, his utterly predicted failure in his 2013-14 shuttle diplomacy (which quickly mutated into bullying of Israel and a pretext for the de-legitimization of Israel) was his highest profile of many failures.

Kerry’s hubris merely crystallizes his impotence on foreign policy particularly when it comes to the Middle East. I don’t think he hates Israel or is anti-Semitic. He probably feels that his actions will or would have protected Israel. Yet once again his arrogance and refusal to consider that he could be wrong got the better of him.  In his 70 minute farewell speech – not once did he acknowledge that he may have made some mistakes.  And considering neither of the parties involved (Israelis or Palestinians) have accepted his template to Middle East peace that is a remarkable amount of dissonance.

By giving his lame duck speech today he is literally baiting the new Trump administration to obliterate the Obama-Kerry-Clinton foreign policy legacy – demonstrating that his focus is been less about achieving a peaceful resolution to the conflict and more about creating the posture that he is foreign policy martyr.  There is nothing more gratifying a left=wing politician than to be targeted by Donald Trump.  And you can be sure that Kerry will draw the ire of Trump – a heartwarming development for any left winger.

However, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt.  It is possible that deep down Secretary Kerry knows how flawed his approach has been. Maybe he recognized that only Trump has the political chutzpah to uproot all the foreign policies that he had advanced.   And only by completely obliterating Kerry’s foreign policies, will Trump have the roadmap to make America great again.

Elie Pieprz

Kerry Slams Israel, Netanyahu Hits Back in Wake of UN Vote Against Settlements

Thursday, December 29th, 2016

{Written by Karen McDonough and originally posted to the JNS.org website}

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry slammed the Israeli government over settlement building, warning that the two-state solution is “in jeopardy,” in a lengthy speech Wednesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly called “almost as unbalanced” as the United Nations Security Council’s recent anti-settlement resolution.

“If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or Democratic, it cannot be both, and it won’t ever really be at peace,” Kerry said in his speech, which lasted an hour and a half and detailed the outgoing Obama administration’s vision for Middle East peace.

With less than a month left in President Barack Obama’s term, Kerry defended Obama’s decision to abstain from the vote on U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, allowing the measure to pass and breaking from the longstanding U.S. policy of vetoing one-sided U.N. resolutions targeting Israel. The secretary of state laid out the case to continue to push for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while questioning Netanyahu’s commitment to Palestinian statehood and calling the Israeli leader’s current government “the most right-wing in Israel’s history.”

The reaction from Jerusalem was immediate and searing. At a press conference, Netanyahu expressed “deep disappointment” in how Kerry blamed Israeli policy for the conflict and merely “paid lip service” to the unrelenting terrorism waged against the Jewish state since it declared independence in 1948.

“Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders,” Netanyahu said. “No one wants peace more than the people of Israel.”

The prime minister said he looks forward to working with the incoming Donald Trump administration to “mitigate” the fallout from the U.N. resolution and to “repeal” it. He predicted that stemming from next month’s international peace conference in Paris, France or Sweden could bring another devastating U.N. resolution against Israel, emphatically saying that the U.S. should not enable more harmful resolutions against the Jewish state and calling on Obama to “stop this game, the charades.”

Netanyahu went on to say, “Palestinian rejection of Israel and support for terror are what the nations of the world should focus on if they truly want to advance peace, and I can only express my regret and say that it’s a shame that Sec. Kerry does not see this simple truth.”

President-elect Trump took to social media before Kerry’s speech, tweeting, “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect.” He added, “Israel 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, Jan. 20th is fast approaching!”

Netanyahu responded by tweeting, “President-elect Trump, thank you for your warm friendship and your clear-cut support for Israel!”

On Dec. 23, the U.N. Security Council voted 14-0 to pass the resolution, which demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the ‘occupied’ Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem,” adding that the establishment of Israeli settlements has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” The measure states that the Western Wall is located in “occupied Palestinian land,” and encourages boycotts and sanctions against Israel.

The resolution was first introduced by Egypt, which backed down after Trump intervened, before New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela pushed for the eventual vote. Netanyahu said Wednesday that he has “absolutely incontestable evidence” that the Obama administration colluded against Israel prior to the U.N. vote, a claim supported by leaked documents released in the Egyptian daily newspaper Al-Youm Al-Saba’a, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Ten days before the vote, Kerry and White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice had told a Palestinian delegation in Washington, D.C., that “the U.S. would not impose a veto on such a resolution if its wording was balanced,” Haaretz reported. The White House has denied that report.

Meanwhile, Israeli media reported that British diplomats worked with the Palestinians on the wording of the resolution before it was unveiled Dec. 21, ahead of the vote two days later. The U.K. also reportedly encouraged New Zealand to be at the forefront of the vote. Hours before the Security Council voted, Netanyahu called New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully and asked him to not support the “scandalous decision,” adding that “it will be a declaration of war” if he supported the resolution, according to Haaretz.

Commenting on Kerry’s speech, Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon said the Obama Administration “acted against Israel at the U.N., and any claim to the contrary is a distortion of reality.”

“Neither speeches nor statements will bring peace to our region,” Danon said. “The only way forward is for the Palestinians to understand that they must condemn terror, end incitement and return to the negotiating table.”


JNS News Service

Russian Foreign Minister Warns Kerry: Keep your Dirty Laundry Out of UN SC

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Secretary of State John Kerry in a phone conversation Tuesday to stop trying to use the Middle East Quartet and the United Nations Security Council as a forum to reflect the bickering between the Democrats and the Republicans, TASS reported Tuesday night, stressing that “the conversation was initiated by the American side.”

The Russian foreign ministry issued a statement saying, “The two top diplomats exchanged views on the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli settlements and around it. Lavrov stressed the necessity of creating conditions for direct talks between the leaders of Israel and Palestine and warned against bringing the US domestic agenda into the work of the Middle East Quartet and the United Nations Security Council. He stressed that attempts to use these formats in bickering between the Democrats and Republicans are harmful.”

Lavrov told Kerry that President Obama’s Administration’s attempts to further wreck Russia-US cooperation were unacceptable.

“Touching on bilateral relations, the Russian minister once again stressed the inadmissibility of the Barack Obama administration’s course to further undermine the basics of normal cooperation between Russia and the United States,” the ministry said.

Lavrov also warned that “tensions could increase” should Washington ease restrictions on supplying portable air defense systems to the Syrian armed opposition groups.

“The parties discussed the ways to settle the Syrian crisis in the light of the agreements reached at the recent trilateral meeting between the Russian, Turkish and Iranian foreign ministers, aimed at ensuring ceasefire across Syria and stepping up the war on terror,” the statement continues. “Lavrov pointed out that if Washington eased restrictions on arming Syrian rebels, so that portable air defense systems could be provided to them, tensions may increase as well as the death toll.”

David Israel

Democratic Whip to Kerry: Shut Up!

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, second in ranking to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, on Tuesday released a statement calling on Secretary of State John Kerry to cancel his Middle East peace speech scheduled for Wednesday, just days after the US had allowed an anti-Israel resolution to pass in the UN Security Council.

“I urged the Administration to veto the recently passed UN Security Council resolution regarding Israel and settlements,” Hoyer, an old friend of Israel since his election in 1981, wrote, in reaction to “reports that Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama Administration intend to lay out a formulation that would disadvantage Israel in any future negotiations on a final settlement with the Palestinian Authority.”

“Unfortunately, they failed to do so, and Israel’s enemies were strengthened,” Hoyer continued.

“As Ambassador Power pointed out in her statement on the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on the situation in the Middle East, ‘…as long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations.’ 2016 was no exception, and there were more resolutions regarding Israel than there were regarding Syria, North Korea, Iran, South Sudan, and Russia combined,” Hoyer wrote.

“”Now, it is my understanding that Secretary Kerry, in the last few days of this Administration, intends to outline the parameters of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This flies in the face of the United States’ longstanding position that such a formulation should be reached only through negotiations by the parties and not by the United States, the United Nations, or any other third party.

“I urge Secretary Kerry and the Administration not to set forth a formula, which will inevitably disadvantage Israel in any negotiation. The United States must now take steps to signal unequivocally to the entire world that we will continue to stand by our ally Israel as it seeks to build a future of peace and safety as a Jewish state and an equal member of the family of nations.”

Rep. Hoyer represents Maryland’s 5th congressional district, which is 60.2% White, 30.3% Black, 3.7% Asian, and 3.5% Hispanic.

David Israel

Yesha Council Envoy Calls Kerry ‘Ignorant’

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

Yesha Council Chief Foreign Envoy and Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi called Secretary of State John Kerry “a stain on American foreign policy” and “ignorant of the issues.” Revivi spoke ahead of the much-anticipated speech Kerry plans to deliver at 11 AM DC time, Wednesday.

Oded Revivi, chief foreign envoy of the Yesha Council, made the remarks ahead of Kerry’s final policy speech on the Middle East peace Wednesday.

“John Kerry is a stain on American foreign policy who is ignorant of the issues,” Revivi said. “He has chosen to eternalize his legacy as the worst secretary of state in history that chose to stab his closest ally in the back while rivers of blood flowed like water across the Middle-East. I can personally attest to the fact that he knows very little about the realities in Judea and Samaria and instead chooses to defame us from afar by repeating fictitious mantras against us.”

“When I met with Kerry a few weeks ago, I understood that we’re talking about a person who is disconnected from reality and looking to make headlines,” the Yesha Council official explained.

“Our rights to this land are fully legal and cannot be refuted; this is the reason that proclamations are being made instead providing solid legal arguments against us,” Revivi noted. “Nearly half a million Israelis currently reside on the strategic highlands of Judea and Samaria overlooking seventy percent of Israel’s population and industrial base, no amount of speeches or resolutions can reverse this reality.”


INTO THE FRAY: John Kerry at 2016 Saban Forum—Misrepresenting Two-Statism

Sunday, December 11th, 2016

Raise your hands… how many of you believe in a two-state solution, believe two states is critical? …Okay, it’s the vast majority of people here. How many of you don’t, are willing to say so? There’s one hand up… — Secretary of State John Kerry, at the 2016 Saban Forum, asking for a show of hands from the audience in support of a two-state agreement.


Last week, the annual Saban Forum took place, as usual, in Washington in early December — albeit in what appeared to be a somewhat diminished format relative to the past two years.

Clear political slant

The two day program comprised only four items: Interviews with Israel’s Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, Egyptian foreign minister, Sameh Shoukry and (via satellite) Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, with the valedictory slot being allotted to an interview by Jeffrey Goldberg, of The Atlantic, with outgoing Secretary of State, John Kerry.

Although over the years, the Saban Forum has hosted participants with a wide range of divergent opinions, it has typically had a discernible political slant in its line-ups of speakers and moderators. This has tended to favor perspectives that reflect Democratic, rather than Republican, positions on US policy issues, and the views of two-state-proponents, rather than those of two-state opponents, with regard to the Israel-Arab conflict. Thus, even when two-state opponents have had the floor, their moderator/interviewer has invariably been a strong two-state proponent.

This distinct partisanship (pro-Democrat /pro-two-statism) was starkly on display for Kerry’s appearance at this year’s Forum (his fourth successive one since becoming Secretary of State).

Kerry himself is a dogmatic two-stater, having pursued this elusive goal despite mountains of accumulating evidence as to its practical infeasibility and moral undesirability. His interviewer, Jeffrey Goldberg, widely dubbed as Obama’s court journalist, and arguably no less a two-state enthusiastic than Kerry himself, was hardly an antagonistic interlocutor.

Jarring non sequiturs?

Kerry thus blithely brushed aside Goldberg’s observation that the 18-24 month deadline, set by Kerry himself in May 2013, had long expired — after which, he warned, it would be too late to achieve a two-state resolution.

Instead of addressing the question posed, he launched into a sweeping historical tour d’horizon of Zionism — from the first Zionist Convention in Basel, through the Balfour Declaration, and Israel’s Independence, to the Six-Day War…which, he gushed, is “the greatest story ever told.” Then, in a somewhat jarring non sequitur, he warned ominously, that, despite the stirring account of Zionist achievement he himself had just given, things were “moving in the wrong direction.”

Then, still avoiding the question as to the significance of the long-passed expiration of his own stipulated deadline for the viability of a two-state resolution of the conflict, he pivoted to the Iran deal, admitting that, although he cannot assure us that the Iranians will not violate the terms of the agreement, he can assure us that “in [this] case every option that we have today is available to us then.”

This, of course, leaves us to ponder yet another jarring non sequitur.

If the US (and the other members of the P5+1 countries) previously balked at exercising these formidable “options” against an impoverished, non-nuclearized Iran, what possible reason is there to believe that these options will be exercised later, against an Iran far more enriched economically, and empowered militarily?

‘Do you support a two-state solution?’ is merely code

This is the kind of inane intellectual licentiousness, unmoored to any semblance of disciplined thought or reasoned relationship between doctrinal tenets and observed outcomes, that has come to characterize much of the liberal Left’s political credo  in recent decades. Accordingly, the politically correct has eclipsed the factually correct, and allegedly “good intentions” override any recalcitrant realities that may cast doubt on their feasibility.

Nowhere is this unfortunate phenomenon more evident than in the discourse on the two-state approach to the Mid-East conflict. Nowhere is it given a more prestigious platform than in the Saban Forum. Nowhere was this more blatant than the manner in which Kerry addressed the issue in his Forum appearance this year.

Faced with the prospect of the rapidly diminishing – indeed, vanishing – relevance of his, and his administration’s pet project, Kerry turned to the audience for its reaffirmation. In an effort to demonstrate that all rational beings would endorse the self-evident wisdom of, and imperative for the two-state formula, he exhorted: “Raise your hands … how many of you believe in a two-state solution, believe two states is critical…?”

Unsurprisingly, given the nature of the forum and the merciless dictates of political correctness, a “vast majority” duly raised approving hands.

But this is wildly misleading — because “Do you support a two state solution” is merely code for another far more sinister question – the question Kerry should have asked.

The question Kerry should have asked

After all, the call for a two-state “solution” necessarily entails the call for the establishment of a Palestinian state. But there is little to no reason to believe that such a state will be anything other than what past precedent suggests it will be: yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny, that sooner, rather than later, will become a bastion for Islamist terror groups on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv; abutting a teetering Jordanian monarchy, menaced by ascendant Islamist elements in the east, and an increasingly jihadi-controlled Sinai in the south.

After all, when all the genteel, politically correct veiling has been torn away, endorsing a two-state formula reduces to nothing other than endorsing the establishment of an entity that, in all likelihood, will reflect the very negation of the values invoked for its inception; the very values the Saban Forum would presumably purport to cherish; an entity whose hallmarks would be religious intolerance against any non-Muslim faith; gender discrimination against women and girls; brutal persecution of homosexuals; and the ruthless prosecution of political dissidents.

So what Kerry should have asked the audience was the following: “Raise your hands …how many of you believe in the establishment of yet another homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim-majority tyranny on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv?  How many believe that the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny is critical…?”

If the question were framed that way, the way it should have been framed — to reflect political reality rather than political correctness — I venture to wager the result would not have been “a vast majority” of approving raised hands…

“…assurance West Bank won’t turn into Gaza”

Kerry does insist that he is alive to the problematic nature of the “weak and divided Palestinian entity,” and that he is not naïve as to the difficulties this poses. He asserts:

It [an Israeli turnover of power] has to happen with the assurance that you’re not turning the West Bank into Gaza…we all understand Israel’s security. I’m not suggesting that you want to have a situation like Gaza where you can dig a tunnel and you have the ability to build missiles in a fake factory and fire them against Israel. We all understand that challenge.

Sadly, conceding/acknowledging the existence of a problem, even articulating its existence, is not the same as contending with it, and certainly not solving it — even though many left-leaning Liberals appear to believe this to be the case.

Conversely, denying/ignoring the existence of a problem, even refusing to articulate its existence, is not the same as contending with it, and certainly not solving it — even though many left-leaning Liberals appear to believe this to be the case.

Regrettably, Kerry commits both these transgressions at the Saban Forum.

Indeed, apart from hinting at some wildly complex multi-lateral/multi-national security configurations (of which far simpler versions have failed miserably and regularly elsewhere) he gives no hint as to how one might provide Israel and Israelis “with the assurance that you’re not turning the West Bank into Gaza…”

Of course, it might be a smidgen more reassuring if the US showed how it might ensure that Syria would not turn into…well, Syria; or Libya not turn into Libya; or Iraq not turn into Iraq; or even Gaza not turn into Gaza, before it asks Israel/Israelis to “bet the farm” on the chance that it now has some new miracle “snake oil” that would do the trick in the“West Bank.”

“…Oslo deal didn’t happen for a number of reasons”

In trying to explain Palestinian disgruntlement with the situation that has evolved since the signing of the Oslo Accords, Kerry suggests: “When Oslo was signed in 1993, the vision was that over the next year and a half , Area C…which is 60 percent of the West Bank … would be transferred to the Palestinian control… Well, it didn’t happen for a number of different reasons. We won’t go into that now…”

“Didn’t happen for a number of reasons”??? “We won’t go into that…”???


This might be a good time to remind folks that the reason that the Oslo process came to a screeching halt was the gory Palestinian-Arab terror that ripped through Israeli cities across the length and breadth of the country…leaving thousands murdered and maimed.  It was not because Israelis built crèches, kindergartens and schools across the pre-1967 Green Line, but because the Palestinian-Arabs blew up Israeli cafes, buses and shopping malls inside the pre-1967 Green Line.

Yet Kerry insists, almost exclusively, on focusing on the former, and totally ignoring the latter — thus ensuring that his analysis will be both fatally flawed and disastrously defective. For unless one does go into the reasons for the failure — indeed, the futility — of the Oslo Process, there is little chance of addressing them…and virtually none of redressing them.

Palestinian destruction, not Israeli construction

Thus, when Kerry bewails the massive increase in the Jewish population in the “West Bank” as some sort of “mitigating factor” for Palestinian violence, he seems totally unmindful of the chronology of the events that took place.

After all, the gruesome wave of carnage instigated by the Palestinian Arabs began almost immediately after the commencement of the Oslo Process, before any significant “settlement activity” took place in its wake, clearly indicating that it was Israeli concessions, not Israeli intransigence, that ignited the violence.

It was not Israeli construction beyond the pre-1967 lines, but Palestinian destruction inside those lines that comprised the epicenter of the problem that confounded the ill- conceived Oslo Process.

Unless these inconvenient facts are confronted honestly, there is scant chance of contending with their ramifications — and for formulating policy that can contain the violence that flows from them.

Yet, rather than face the recalcitrant realities squarely, Kerry attempted, disingenuously, to sidestep or circumvent them. He thus tried to resurrect the disproved and discarded delusion of a “New Middle East,” with the promise of regional peace and prosperity being unlocked only once some agreement based on far-reaching and perilous territorial concessions by Israel is reached.

This is an absurd position to adopt. For it implies not only that the Arab world is unable avail itself of much of the benefits Israel could offer it from alternative sources, such as the US, EU, China and Korea, to name but a few, but that Arab countries would purposefully put their own development on hold for the sake of their Palestinian “kinfolk,” for whose fate they have demonstrated the most appalling indifference in the past.

The one thing about which Kerry is right

Kerry is, however, quite right about one thing. Rejection of the two-state paradigm is not a stand-alone decision.  Indeed, two-state rejectionists are morally obligated to propose a viable alternative, which not only addresses the crucial problems that two-statism inevitably entails, but also those that such rejection will equally inevitably entail.

In particular, this calls for a comprehensive approach on how to deal with the large Palestinian-Arab population, resident in the territories that the two-state paradigm would assign the envisioned Palestinian state.

As followers of this column will know, this is something I have written about extensively and regularly in the past. Accordingly I would urge readers to revisit my many references to the “Humanitarian Paradigm”, calling for the generous funding of voluntary relocation/rehabilitation of non-belligerent Palestinian families, out of harm’s way, in third party countries, free from the control of the cruel corrupt cliques who have led them from disaster to devastation for decades.

This is the only non-coercive – or at least, the only non-kinetic – policy alternative that can ensure the long-term survival of Israel as the Jewish nation-state.

As the two-state formula begins to fade into irrelevance, grasping this unavoidable truth is becoming increasingly urgent and imperative.

John Kerry Speech at Brookings Institute Saban Forum 12/5/15

John Kerry Speech at Brookings Institute Saban Forum 12/5/15

Dr. Martin Sherman

Netanyahu Asking Kerry to Avoid UN 2-State Resolution

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday night phoned Secretary of State John Kerry to tell him Israel expected the Obama Administration not to change its policy and promote or support a vote on the Israeli-PA conflict at the UN Security Council between the November 8 vote and the inauguration of the next US president in January, Ha’aretz reported citing an anonymous Israeli official.

According to the same source, Kerry responded by saying the Administration has not yet made its decision on this matter — which is probably what he would have said if he didn’t want an Obama anti-Israel move to hit the news before the election.

The chances for a hostile American move have increased following reports on the plan to relocate the Jewish residents of Amona in Judea and Samaria, which is slated for demolition on orders from the Israeli Supreme Court, to new homes that will be built for them in nearby Shilo, also in Judea and Samaria. This is because while the Supreme Court only objects to keeping Jewish residents on land whose ownership has been disputed by local Arabs, the US objects to any sign of new Jewish life in Judea and Samaria.

According to Ha’aretz, Netanyahu did not raise the issue of an anti-Israel US vote at the UNSC during his meeting with President Obama in New York in September. But following Netanyahu’s meeting with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a few days later, the latter issued a statement saying she objects to any unilateral US move against Israel at the UN. Netanyahu is hoping that, should she win—which appears to be a certainty at this point—Clinton would restrain Obama during the transition period.

Pundit Eli Lake writing for Bloomberg suggested the mildest move on Obama’s part after November 8 would be a speech in favor of the two-state solution. This approach is similar to a speech Bill Clinton gave at the end of his presidency that laid out such parameters. Lake expects Obama to disclose in such a speech the concessions Netanyahu and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas were willing to make in their negotiations that fell apart in 2014.

A second option, which Hillary Clinton has vowed to try and block, could be US support for a new Security Council resolution to replace resolution 242, which was drafted after the 1967 Israeli liberation of the territories occupied by Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1949. 242 does not mention a Palestinian State, but instead calls on Israel to return liberated territories to the Arab aggressors along its borders.

A third option would be for the Obama Administration to declare war on rightwing Israeli NGOs. Anti-Israel Jewish organizations such as J Street have suggested altering the US tax code to exclude rightwing Israeli NGOs which today frustrate Arab illegal settlement in Area C, placed under Israeli custody in the Oslo Accords. The NGO Regavim, for instance, has done an aggressive job compelling the Israeli Supreme Court as well as the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria to act against illegal Arab squatters, enraging the EU and Us which have been paying for those illegal settlements.

Finally, the Obama Administration might declare its recognition of a Palestinian State in borders that include Area C, and issue an ultimatum for Israel to withdraw its military and civilians from the new state. It’s probably the least likely option, but it’s out there, being bandied about in think tanks in Washington DC and in Jerusalem.


Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/netanyahu-asking-kerry-to-avoid-un-2-state-resolution/2016/10/11/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: