Kerry's Israel Speech : A Hodgepodge of Fantasy, Obfuscation and Avoidance

We knew this Kerry speech was coming. And today we got it -- 1 hour and 10 minutes of fantasy, obfuscation and avoidance. • • • FANTASY. Secretary of State John Kerry defended the US decision allowing the United Nations to condemn Israeli settlements last week, saying the administration did so in the interest of preserving a “just and lasting peace,” which he claimed is now threatened – Israeli officials have already described the UN move by the US as a betrayal. Kerry said the US could not “in good conscience” stand in the way of a resolution that he said makes clear “both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace. "We did not take this decision lightly,” Kerry said. In fact, the US abstention on the UN Security Council resolution calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem a violation of international law allowed the measure to pass -- and sent the relationship between the Obama and Netanyahu governments into its greatest heights of animosity yet. Kerry said Wednesday the decision was about preserving a two-state solution, which he called the only way to a “just and lasting peace.” But he added : “That future is now in jeopardy,“ saying "Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect." He said the US “did in fact vote in accordance with our values.” • In his speech, Kerry also vehemently denied claims that the US was the “driving force” behind the UN measure : “The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward. It was drafted and...introduced by Egypt...in coordination with the Palestinians and others.“ The White House on Wednesday also denied a report in Egyptian media claiming Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice discussed the UN resolution with a top Palestinian official nearly two weeks before last Friday’s Security Council vote. Ned Price, spokesman for the US National Security Council, called the reports a “fabrication” and said the “meeting never occurred.” BUT, The State Department’s own website reflects that Kerry was scheduled for a meeting with the Palestinian official at the State Department on December 12, around the time of the reported discussions. The official website, however, offers no details on what was discussed. Netanyahu says he has "irrefutable" evidence of US collusion with Palestine and will pass it on to the Trump administration. • The facts do not represent Kerry's speech. A two-state solution requires two parties to negotiate it. Michael Curtis, Distinguished Professor Emeritis at Rutgers University, wrote for American Thinker in September : "Objective analysis should take account both of the different nature of the settlements and the various reasons for them. Following the 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli government authorized military settlements for security reasons. At that time the government was willing to return all captured territory with only minor modifications, but Arab states and Palestinians refused to negotiate. In September 1967, Kfar Etzion was set up, the first civilian settlement in the West Bank. Later, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in September 2008 proposed the creation of a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal from 94% of the West Bank. In November 2015, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority confirmed he had rejected the proposal. At present, there are 330,000 settlers in the West Bank, 200,000 in East Jerusalem, and 20,000 in the Golan Heights. They live in 314 authorized settlements and in 102 unauthorized settlements." • A Reuters article recently reported that about 36,000 Palestinians work in settlements in the West Bank, many in construction, earning up to three times as much as the average Palestinian wage. Many of the jobs are in large settlement blocs built close to the frontier with Israel, in areas Israel intends to keep in any final peace agreement with the Palestinians. Reuters says : "It is here that Israel has established one of several industrial zones, comprising around 1,000 businesses in all, many of which benefit from tax breaks and other business concessions, including access to cheaper Palestinian labor. In a report released last month, Human Rights Watch labeled the zones 'Occupation, Inc.,' pointing out that they are in violation of international law because they are built on land Israel seized in the 1967 Middle East war." This despite the fact that the Palestinian economy is struggling, with unemployment at 27%. While settlement jobs may offer no overtime, pension or work insurance, the higher wages offset the shortfall. One Palestinian West Bank worker told Reuters : "Palestinians pay only 70 or 80 shekels a day for work in Palestinian areas...a kilo of meat...costs 70 shekels. Shaher Saed, the general secretary of the Palestinian Workers Union opposes Palestinian West Bank work : "In principle, we would prefer to stop people working in settlements...What reinforces the situation is the trade between settlements and the private sector. Even in some settlement industrial zones, there are partnerships with Palestinian (businessmen)." Israelis frequently point out that settlement businesses benefit Palestinians by paying them more. But Saed said that excuses the 'occupation' and undermines the ability of Palestinians to develop their own economy. • This seems to be an inaccurate reflection of what is going on economically -- on November 16, the Wall Street Journal wrote an article on the Palestinian Authority's economic and budget troubles. The WSJ said : "Faced with increasingly dire economic conditions in the Palestinian territories, Israel is trying to keep the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority afloat, even if it indirectly helps Hamas, its longtime enemy. The Authority, based in the West Bank city of Ramallah, lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas in 2007, but more than a third of its annual budget still goes to the coastal enclave. But that arrangement, which helped keep Gaza functioning, is faltering, as the donor aid upon which the Authority depends plummets. That assistance is forecast to fall to $600 million this year, less than half the amount three years ago, according to the World Bank. Gulf benefactors such as Saudi Arabia...are redirecting funds their allies in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. US funding, which goes straight to the Authority’s creditors, has dropped from about $100 million in 2014 to roughly $75 million last year, according to a US official. With wars and humanitarian crises roiling the region, that figure is expected to tumble even further this year. Worse yet for the Authority, local banks are no longer lending it money and it can no longer borrow from its public pension fund, its previous answer to short-term budget shortfalls." According to the WSJ : "With evidence already accumulating months ago that the Authority was facing economic collapse, however, Israel didn’t wait for the outcome of US elections. To stave off fresh unrest and violence in Gaza -- and the growth of even more radical Palestinian political factions on its doorstep -- it entered the breach. Under the internationally backed Oslo Accords reached in the 1990s, Israel levies taxes on goods and services imported into the territories. It collects health, social security and other benefits from firms in Israel that employ Palestinians, and then transfers these taxes and revenues to the Palestinian Authority each month, taking a fee for doing so [why do Palestinian workers in the West Bank not get their benefits from these Israeli payments to Palestine?]. Using that mechanism, Israel so far this year has transferred about one billion shekels ($262 million) -- or nearly 8% of total Palestinian revenues -- in one-off payments to the Authority, according to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and a person familiar with the transfers. The two sides also agreed in September to restructure $500 million in debts that the Authority owed to the state-owned Israel Electric Corporation for power supplied to the West Bank, another indication of their deeply intertwined economies. Meanwhile, to boost the Authority’s tax revenue, Israel has issued work permits to Palestinians to work in Israel. Israeli authorities say the prospect of the Authority’s economic breakdown and even more tumult in Gaza is worse than the risk of indirectly sustaining Hamas, the Islamist military and political movement that has vowed for Israel’s destruction and fought Israel in three wars in the past eight years. The IMF and World Bank predict that to reduce the $500 million deficit this year, the PA will likely be forced to cut the salaries and benefits of civil servants at a time of weak economic growth and high unemployment, but the World Bank says that any cuts to wages or social welfare programs would come at a tense time in Gaza. Unemployment is hovering at 40% and half of territory’s 1.7 million inhabitants receive some form of humanitarian aid, the World Bank says." Hamas reportedly 'takes' international funding to use in terrorist and military activities and has recently arrested journalists for attacking its policies. In the West Bank, students, security forces and members of Abbas’s own Fatah faction have been arrested or questioned for allegedly criticizing the Authority in posts on social media and in public. This fuels Palestinians criticism of their leaders is the absence of any prospect of a peace deal, as well as failed reconciliation attempts by Fatah and Hamas, according to Ahmad Harb, commissioner of the Ramallah-based Independent Commission for Human Rights, who told the WSJ : “People are expressing their views very aggressively. We’re in very dangerous stagnation.” • We may well ask if John Kerry took any of this into account as he and Barack Obama lined up against Isrqel and for Hamas and Fatah -- two recognized terrorist regimes -- in deciding to allow the UN resolution to pass and then attacking Israel for not negotiating with the "absent" Palestinians, who rely on Israel for jobs and budget balancing but refuse to recognize Israel as a state or negotiate the peace all Isaelis and many Palestinians deeply desire. • • • OBFUSCATION. Kerry blasted what he called the “settler agenda” pushing Israel toward seeking one state -- which he asserted could not be both Jewish and democratic. He called the current government the "most right-wing" in Israel's history and claimed its agenda is "driven by the most extreme elements. The status quo is leading toward one state and perpetual occupation,” Kerry said, adding that this would entail “separate” but “unequal” treatment for Palestinians. Kerry condemned Palestinian violence, including hundreds of terror attacks in the last year, and said Palestinian leaders do not do enough to speak out against specific attacks. But the bulk of his address dealt with Israeli settlement expansion, largely in the West Bank, as he outlined "principles" for future peace talks. Kerry spoke of the two-state solution as if the Palestinian leaders actually want it : “In the end, we could not in good conscience protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two-state solution. We could not in good conscience turn a blind eye to Palestinian actions that fan hatred and violence," but he added that Israel's "permanent settlement construction," not the resolution, is risking peace. • The attack on the West Bank settlements by Kerry, calling them the one item that prevents peace is so far from reality that it would be comic in less serious circumstances. UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, states the two principles necessary for peace in the Middle East -- withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories, though not all territories, occupied as a result of the 1967 Six Day War; and, termination of all claims, and the right of every State in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. It said nothing about settlements. The call for negotiations to start was declared in UNSC Resolution 338 of October 22, 1973. Michael Curtis wrote in September : "Though criticism of the existence and expansion of settlements is widespread and many international bodies regard them as 'illegal,' a number of points are relevant. The first is that settlements are not in themselves an obstacle, let alone the main obstacle to peace. Secondly they are not a violation of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention that forbids a state from 'deporting or transferring' part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, since neither term is applicable to voluntary settlement. The Geneva Convention is not applicable to disputed territory. Thirdly, honest, objective analysis would indicate that the main obstacle to peace, and to a Palestinian state is Palestinian intransigence and resort to violence. Fourthly, it is an international understanding that the settlement question is one of the issues to be resolved in the negotiations for a final status agreement. Already, Israel has shown its understanding of the issue by evacuating or dismantling settlements, 18 in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005. Fifthly, the very terminology is open to dispute. Since there has never been any internationally recognized legal sovereign in the West Bank before the 1967 War, it is arguable that the area is 'disputed' territory, not 'occupied' territory." • The Israel Supreme Court has declared that the fundamental principles of international law are incorporated in Israel's legal system, affirming that the Israeli presence in the West Bank is not an “occupation,” but a supervision of settlement activity, and that Israel upholds the distinction between authorized settlements that it considers legal and consistent with international law, and unauthorized settlements. Several times, the Court has ruled that settlements cannot be built on Palestinian private lands. In 2011, it ordered the razing of Migron, the largest hilltop outpost with 50 families, because it had been built on Palestinian land. In December 2014 it ordered the destruction of Amona that had been set up in the West Bank in 1995 as an unauthorized outpost without government permission and built on private land. On September 1, 2016 the Court ordered 17 unauthorized homes in the Derech Ha’avot outpost of 40 families in the West Bank be removed. The Court held they were built illegally, were not authorized as an outpost and were built without permission. The Israeli government has respected the court’s rulings. And, this has not been easy because West Bank settlers are more religious and Orthodox than other Jews, and less likely than other Israeli Jews to believe the Palestinian leadership is sincere in its efforts for peace, while they are more likely than other Jews to believe the Israeli government is making a sincere effort to reach peace. Curtis says : "It is futile for international organizations and critics of Israel to continue to insist that the settlements are the obstacle to peace. The settlement issue, like all the other disputed issues can only be resolved by peaceful negotiations. The US administration should seek to induce the Palestinian leadership to come to the negotiating table." • • • AVOIDANCE. Kerry outlined in his speech what he described as “principles” that could provide the basis for new talks. This included a return to borders negotiated based on the 1967 lines “with mutually agreed equivalent swaps” -- a position similar to President Obama’s stated position several years ago [are we surprised?]. He called for “two states for two peoples” with “equal rights for all” and a resolution for Jerusalem as the capital of the two states. He said the US acknowledges Israel’s “profound historic and religious ties to [East Jerusalem] and its holy sites.” He further said he understands some settlements would become part of Israel in a future two-state solution. Kerry thus offered no new ideas for solving the peace negotiation knots. He spoke in generalities that everyone has heard for decades. • Israel interprets Resolution 242 as calling for withdrawal from territories as part of a negotiated peace and full diplomatic recognition. The extent of withdrawal would come as a result of comprehensive negotiations leading to durable peace -- not before Arabs start to meet their own obligations under Resolution 242. Initially, the resolution was accepted by Egypt, Jordan and Israel but not by the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Arab position was initially that the Resolution called for Israel to withdraw from all the territory it occupied during the Six-Day War prior to peace agreements. Israel and the Arab states have negotiated in the past without including the Israeli withdrawal -- Israel and Jordan made peace without Israel withdrawing from the West Bank, since Jordan had already renounced its claims and recognized the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Egypt began negotiations before Israel withdrew from the Sinai. Negotiations ended without Egypt ever resuming control of the Gaza Strip, which Egypt held until 1967. • Supporters of the "Palestinian viewpoint" focus on the phrase in the resolution's preamble emphasizing the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," and note that the French version called for withdrawal from "des territoires occupés" - "the territories occupied". The French UN delegation insisted on this interpretation at the time, but both English and French are the Secretariat's working languages. Supporters of the "Israeli viewpoint" note that the second part of that same sentence in the preamble explicitly recognizes the need of existing states to live in security. They focus on the operative phrase calling for "secure and recognized boundaries" and note that the resolution calls for a withdrawal "from territories" rather than "from the territories" [that is, "from all territories"], as the Arabs and others proposed. The French version of the term were rejected from the final draft of Resolution 242. • DEAR READERS, Netanyahu got it right : "Secretary Kerry paid lip service to the unremitting campaign of terrorism that has been waged by the Palestinians. I want young Palestinian children to be educated like our children, for peace. But they aren't. They're taught to lionize and idolize terrorists....I don't seek applause. I seek the security, peace, and prosperity and the future of the Jewish state. Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace. We pray for peace, we work for it every day." Then, Netanyahu used Obama's own words against him, quoting his 2011 UN speech, where Obama said : “Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations.” • And, years ago, US Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg, another of the Resolution 242's drafters, stated that the resolution does not dictate the extent of the withdrawal, and added that this matter should be negotiated between the parties : "Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal. If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations." • So, whatever Kerry and Obama try to shove down the throat of Benjamin Netantahu as payment for his being unwilling to cede all to the Palestinians, they have failed and are now showing just how spiteful they are, making the two-state issue the centerpiece of their angry parting shot at both Netanyahu and Trump. • But, as both Kerry and Obama well know, the person who will have the next meaningful word is President-elect Donald Trump, who on Wednesday urged Israel to “stay strong” until he moves into the White House, signaling that US policy toward the Jewish nation would be shifting under his administration. Hours before Kerry’s speech, Trump made his thoughts on the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel clear : “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the US, but … not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (UN)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!”