I wanted to blog about this the other day but thought I'd take a few days to stew it over rather than write out in the midst of my heated reaction. It's still getting a lot of coverage so I don't feel late to the game here.
John Kerry has made some (infuriating) comments about the importance of the current peace talks to succeed. The transcript can be found here. I will be responding to some specific comments as he said them.
Kerry: "We, the United States, say the same thing. We do not believe the
settlements are legitimate. We think they’re illegitimate. And we
believe that the entire peace process would, in fact, be easier if these
settlements were not taking place...but we knew that there was not going to be a freeze.
We didn’t negotiate a freeze. So there’s a difference here between
knowing something may happen and objecting to it."
Couple of problems:
1) The peace process has been nonexistent/on-going/delayed since Israel became a state over 65 years ago. Settlements only became a topic that the Palestinians made any demands about once the U.S. started demanding settlement freezes around 2008. So how, when Americans made a fuss about freezes before the Palestinian Authority ever did, are they one of the biggest problems?
2) While I agree that in theory they block the peace process, (mostly because of people's confusion over their history and realities) it is mostly just another excuse used to blame Israel. There was no peace or peace process when Jordan occupied the West Bank from 1948-1967, when Jordan had kicked all of the Jews out of the area. How can they blame no peace on the existence of settlements when the lack of peace preceded settlements?
3) The white-washing over the Palestinian reaction to the announcement of settlement building is telling-Palestinians are now threatening to leave peace talks. Talks the other day turned into a screaming match when the Israelis said the Palestinians knew such an announcement would be made and Palestinians called the Israelis liars and threatened to leave talks. They are using Kerry's comments to make more pre-conditions, when all sources say no compromises have even been made yet, and if those conditions aren't met, they will leave talks-yet somehow Kerry says such an outcome would be Israel's fault.
Kerry: "Let me ask you something: How – if you say you’re working for peace and
you want peace and a Palestine that is a whole Palestinian that belongs
to the people who live there, how can you say we’re planning to build in
the place that will eventually be Palestine?"
1) Kerry can't possibly be unaware that Israel is not announcing new settlements, can he? The "settlements" Israel has been announcing are merely to allow for natural growth within settlement blocks-mostly in areas that are largely thought to be included in any land swaps. So, how is allowing new homes, in a Jewish community that will in all likelihood be annexed by Israel (according to offers made and accepted in prior peace talks) taking over a future Palestinian state?
2) You would also think that as Secretary of freaking State, Kerry would know that the announcements have thus far been largely symbolic-all reports on the ground of anyone trying to build in those communities haven't been able to get building permits and nothing is actually being built. He seems to hint that he is aware of this with the line "the planning will not translate into building and construction" but wouldn't it ease tensions over settlements a little bit, and thus make talks a tad easier, if he actually focused on that fact rather than rush over it, merely in response to another question?
(Interviewer) MR. SEGAL: "Mr. Secretary, you spoke about what signaling does
those things sent. So let me ask you that. How do you think a picture of
Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, hugging
murderers that killed children 20 or 30 years ago and say that they’re
heroes of the Palestinian people – what kind of message do you think
this is sent about peace process or peace atmosphere to the Israeli
people?"
SECRETARY KERRY: "It’s very difficult. I have no illusions. I
know that the vast majority of the people in Israel are opposed. I
understand that. Prime Minister Netanyahu understands that, and it is a
sign of his seriousness that he was willing to make this decision. The
alternative to getting back to the talks is the potential of chaos. I
mean, does Israel want a third intifada?"
There is just so much wrong here.
1) Anyone else notice how Kerry doesn't actually answer the question about the culture and intentions of Palestinians who have such values? He merely talks about how hard it is on us in Israel and how many disagree with it but it is proof Bibi is serious (so he's not serious because he announces planning for more Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods, but he is serious because he agreed to appease the PA by releasing cold-blooded murders...your logic confuses me, Mr. Kerry.)
2) Then, THEN (deep breaths here) he threatens Israel with a third intifada if Israel doesn't blindly agree to whatever the Palestinians demand in peace negotiations. So the logic is: Israel releases murderers to get the Palestinians to talk, if the two sides fail to agree on things (and they won't because Abbas has backed himself into a corner and wouldn't want to give up the millions in foreign aid he shuffles into his Swiss bank accounts) it is acceptable and understood that the Palestinians could then justify targeting the brutal murders of civilians?!
3) Kerry is aware that Arafat launched the second intifada while he was in the middle of peace talks, right?! RIGHT?! Arafat, like Abbas now, was backed into a corner with his rhetoric, he knew that he could never agree to peace without being considered a traitor and he was making literal billions by skimming off all the foreign aid people blindly feed the Palestinians with no accountability. So no, Mr. Secretary of State, a third intifada could not be launched because peace talks fail. They could be launched if they are successful, while peace talks are still on-going, or really at any point. Because an intifada is about inflicting violence fueled by hatred, not about gaining a state.
"I believe that 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 de-legitimization of Israel that’s been taking place in an
international basis, that if we don’t not resolve the question of
settlements... then there will be an increasing feeling that if
we cannot get peace with a leadership that is committed to nonviolence,
you may wind up with leadership that is committed to violence."
Sooo ISRAEL is the side that has to have a leadership committed to nonviolence...not the guy kissing a child-murderer and calling him a Palestinian hero...? Or how about assessing the fact that most of the so-called isolation of Israel is fueled by hatred and misinformation, that Kerry himself is now fueling, rather than standing up for Israel's legitimacy and expecting the Palestinians to accept it as well? I could probably rant about this long enough for it's own blog post.
"The Arab Peace Initiative, which has been restated by the entire Arab
community, says that the day that Israel makes peace with Palestine, the
day they sign that peace, all of the Arab communities – the 19, 20 that
have not made peace with Israel – will make peace immediately."
There's a lot to criticize here but I'll focus on these: that initiative also involves terms that Israel cannot safely agree to (in terms of the Golan Heights) and requires a right of return to those who wish to return and compensation for those who don't- both of which have been rejected by Israel and the Palestinians previously. Kerry also ignores the hypocrisy of these countries as some who signed it, violate Palestinian rights daily. Bombing campaigns against Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, denial of citizenship, right to higher education and representative government in Lebanon and Jordan, etc. etc. etc. I strongly encourage you to read-up on this "Peace Initiative" and the arguments Arab leaders had against it, and judge whether this is something John Kerry should be using to strong-arm Israel.
"Today’s status quo will not be tomorrow’s or next year’s. Because if we
don’t resolve this issue, the Arab world, the Palestinians, neighbors,
others are going to begin again to push in a different way. And the last
thing Israel wants to see is a return to violence."
A total ignorance of history-there has been violence against Jews here since before Israel was a state, when it became a state, before it occupied the West Bank and Gaza, while Israel was giving (commonly considered) generous offers to the Palestinians, and there has been an increase lately.
To his benefit, Kerry then proceeds to explain how the Palestinians need to understand that the West Bank cannot be turned into another Gaza, another Lebanon, another country that is ready to go to war with Israel and that that is why security is Israel's top concern but then he says this gem:
"Not one Israeli in 2012 was killed in the West
Bank. And that’s a huge step forward. And the reason I’m so urgent about
this is because the Palestinians and President Abbas have committed
themselves to nonviolence. So it is important for Israel to strengthen
them, to help provide this peace so that the nonviolence is rewarded.
Because if nonviolence is not rewarded, the alternative will be that
people go back to the other."
Maybe not in 2012 but some Israelis have been killed in 2013, that is obviously washed over though. Claiming that Abbas has committed to nonviolence would be laughable if it wasn't so false and hurtful. When a Palestinian recently shot a 9 year old girl for going to tell their parents an unknown man was in their yard, the Fatah facebook page (the political party Abbas is a part of) praised the shooting. They also sent out praise when a soldier, guarding a holy site for both Jews and Muslims, was killed by a Palestinian sniper. Can someone explain to me how that is a commitment to nonviolence when his own political party is praising violence? Then there's the whole, I don't know, kissing murderers thing....
"And the people of both places, Israel and the Palestinian Authority,
need to start to think about peace. We have to stop the incitement, stop
the language that attacks one or the other, stop the old rhetoric about
driving people into the sea or pushing people out of their cities"
Call me nit-picky for this one, but this statement implies that you will see incitement on Israeli TV and comments from Israelis about wiping out Palestinians. While Israelis are not perfect and there are some among us with opinions I find appalling (even in Knesset), our government is not funding that spewing of hatred through various media outlets and school books like the PA is. To make a statement that equates the level of incitement from the PA with that of the Israeli government is false and misleading.
The rest of the interview goes on to outline some of Kerry's economic ideas for the Palestinians (short-term construction jobs for access to tourism sites) and I can't help but wonder if the Palestinians will have to be more accountable with that money than they have been about the missing 2.5 billion euros from the Europeans...? Also discussed is a plan for the Iranians and this gem that made me laugh out loud from one of the reporters:
MR. SEGAL: "So in the next spring, according to your schedule,
Syria will be stripped of its chemical weapons, Iran will have an
agreement to stop its nuclear program, and we will have a final status
agreement between Israelis and Palestinian. Could it be that you guys
maybe are slightly too optimistic?"
Can we all come back to this next spring and see how Kerry's words haunt him?
No comments:
Post a Comment