The_Guardian_-_2016-12-29

unusually blunt language to describe the nature of the present Israeli government and referred to the
Arab perception of the impact of Israel’s creation on Palestinian lives, the nakba – the catastrophe.
The most significant differences between Kerry’s message and Clinton’s are that Israel is explicitly
accepted by its neighbours as a Jewish state in Kerry’s solution, and Jerusalem is to be shared but not
divided.
But the most important difference is the context in which the two frameworks are being proposed. At
Camp David in July 2000 Clinton had come closer than any US president to brokering a
comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and a deal between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat was
still possible five months later. The two sides came close again at the Taba summit in January 2001.
By striking contrast, Kerry made his speech at a time when a two-state solution has been corroded
into an almost abstract concept and is no longer a shared destination for both parties. As the secretary
of the state noted, Netanyahu continues to pay lip service to two states, but sits at the head of a
government that Kerry described as the “most right wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by
its most extreme elements,” with an aggressive settlement-building approach that leads in the other
direction – to a one-state solution.
According to the New York Times, Kerry had wanted to deliver a speech like this some two years
ago but was blocked by the White House, which saw little value in enraging Netanyahu. The Israeli
prime minister had already shown himself willing and capable of inflicting political damage on
Obama and the Democrats on their home ground.
Netanyahu was indeed enraged by the speech – his office was quick to dismiss it as “biased against
Israel” but he was clearly not worried. He has his eye on the near horizon.
As Kerry was preparing to make the speech, the administration’s Middle East policy was trolled on
Twitter by the next president.
“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect,” Donald Trump
tweeted. “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!”
The president-elect’s message to the Israeli government was clear: ignore Kerry’s words. The next
US administration will lift any pressure over settlements. The designated US ambassador, David
Friedman, Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer, is vowing to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem, has a record of funding settlements and advocates the annexation of parts of the West Bank,
aligning himself with the far right elements in the Netanyahu cabinet.
Given these circumstances, the Kerry speech raises questions about what purpose it serves 23 days
before he leaves his job, other than a cri de coeur at the end of long and abortive effort to make an
impact on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, and a desire perhaps to put his own imprimatur on a formal
blueprint for peace.
Ilan Goldenberg, a former state department official, argued the speech had a value beyond such vain