Why Kerry Let the 'Palestinians' Make a Fool Out of Him
By Larry Elder
Maybe it's something akin to discovering that ultimate, clean-burning, renewable source of energy. Then when the talks collapse, an inevitability as long as one side refuses to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, Israel gets blamed.
Secretary of State John Kerry, weeks ago, boldly announced his trip to the Middle East where he would shuttle between the parties, applying his decades of foreign policy experience and skill to at last resolve the conflict. Then came the reality check. "There are limits to the amount of time the president and myself can put into this," said the exhausted and frustrated Kerry, "considering the other challenges around the world, especially if the parties can't commit to being there in a serious way." A recent Times of Israel headline said: "Kerry Focuses Blame On Israel For Collapse Of Talks."
And it all began with such promise.
Presidential candidate Obama sympathized with the Palestinians. He said, "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." Obama considered Israeli "intransigence" the real obstacle to a two-state solution — as opposed to the fear of a bordering Palestinian terror state full of suicide bombers committed to Israel's destruction.
Vice President Joe Biden set the tone early. He publicly condemned Israel's construction of so-called "settlements" — and pointedly showed up 90 minutes late to a dinner hosted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Two weeks later, Obama delivered another diplomatic face slap to the visiting Netanyahu by abruptly interrupting their White House meeting for over an hour. Obama told the PM that he was leaving to have dinner with "Michelle and the girls."
Obama, and before him Presidents Carter and Clinton, convinced themselves that the road — to not just Middle East peace but worldwide peace itself — goes through Jerusalem. To this end, they believe that Israeli "settlements," not Palestinian homicide bombers, pose the true "obstacle to peace."
Polls do indeed say Palestinians just want a state called Palestine. Trouble is, they define a "return to historic Palestine" as a state that runs from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea — leaving zero room for Israel, let alone an Israel recognized as a Jewish state.
In the waning days of his administration, President Bill Clinton pulled out all the stops to "resolve" this dispute — once and for all. U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, who ably served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, said that negotiations ended with PLO leader Yasser Arafat getting the best deal ever offered: an independent Palestinian state that included all of Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, an unlimited "right of return" to the new state for Palestinian refugees, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem and a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This deal would mean, of course, that conflict would be over.
Arafat walked away.
An exasperated Ross explained: "Arafat is a revolutionary by nature, basically socialized in the 1950s and '60s, a product of that era, someone who has defined himself by the cause, someone who has defined himself by struggle, someone who has defined himself by conflict. ... For him to end the conflict meant he had to give up his claims, he had to give up his grievance. ... Arafat has never done anything irrevocable in his life. And I think the concept that governs him is, live by the moment, never foreclose an option, never close the door. We asked him to close the door. ... And the fact is, I believe that he couldn't make the transition from revolutionary to statesman."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder041014.php3#.U0aQsq21Z6F
By Larry Elder
Maybe it's something akin to discovering that ultimate, clean-burning, renewable source of energy. Then when the talks collapse, an inevitability as long as one side refuses to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, Israel gets blamed.
Secretary of State John Kerry, weeks ago, boldly announced his trip to the Middle East where he would shuttle between the parties, applying his decades of foreign policy experience and skill to at last resolve the conflict. Then came the reality check. "There are limits to the amount of time the president and myself can put into this," said the exhausted and frustrated Kerry, "considering the other challenges around the world, especially if the parties can't commit to being there in a serious way." A recent Times of Israel headline said: "Kerry Focuses Blame On Israel For Collapse Of Talks."
And it all began with such promise.
Presidential candidate Obama sympathized with the Palestinians. He said, "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." Obama considered Israeli "intransigence" the real obstacle to a two-state solution — as opposed to the fear of a bordering Palestinian terror state full of suicide bombers committed to Israel's destruction.
Vice President Joe Biden set the tone early. He publicly condemned Israel's construction of so-called "settlements" — and pointedly showed up 90 minutes late to a dinner hosted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Two weeks later, Obama delivered another diplomatic face slap to the visiting Netanyahu by abruptly interrupting their White House meeting for over an hour. Obama told the PM that he was leaving to have dinner with "Michelle and the girls."
Obama, and before him Presidents Carter and Clinton, convinced themselves that the road — to not just Middle East peace but worldwide peace itself — goes through Jerusalem. To this end, they believe that Israeli "settlements," not Palestinian homicide bombers, pose the true "obstacle to peace."
Polls do indeed say Palestinians just want a state called Palestine. Trouble is, they define a "return to historic Palestine" as a state that runs from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea — leaving zero room for Israel, let alone an Israel recognized as a Jewish state.
In the waning days of his administration, President Bill Clinton pulled out all the stops to "resolve" this dispute — once and for all. U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, who ably served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, said that negotiations ended with PLO leader Yasser Arafat getting the best deal ever offered: an independent Palestinian state that included all of Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, an unlimited "right of return" to the new state for Palestinian refugees, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem and a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This deal would mean, of course, that conflict would be over.
Arafat walked away.
An exasperated Ross explained: "Arafat is a revolutionary by nature, basically socialized in the 1950s and '60s, a product of that era, someone who has defined himself by the cause, someone who has defined himself by struggle, someone who has defined himself by conflict. ... For him to end the conflict meant he had to give up his claims, he had to give up his grievance. ... Arafat has never done anything irrevocable in his life. And I think the concept that governs him is, live by the moment, never foreclose an option, never close the door. We asked him to close the door. ... And the fact is, I believe that he couldn't make the transition from revolutionary to statesman."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder041014.php3#.U0aQsq21Z6F
No comments:
Post a Comment