I have decided to answer Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech – “Remarks on Middle East Peace” made at the State Department in Washington, D.C., on December 28, 2016. The full official text of the over 70-minute speech is here.
Mr. Secretary of State, let us have a dialogue.
Kerry:
“Today, I want to share candid thoughts about an issue which for decades has animated the foreign policy dialogue here and around the world – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Throughout his Administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which, all of you know, I have worked on intensively during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing United States interests in the region.”
Ofir:
OK, it’s a ‘conflict’, so that suggests two more-or-less equal parties. So, from an ‘honest broker’, I would expect an ‘equal commitment’ to both sides, and if not equal, a balancing of power.
You say “President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East” – but you do not mention the same concerning Palestine or Palestinians. So, the commitment is first and foremost to ISRAEL. We might have a problem there.
You say “because the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians”. Well, let’s say it’s an option. Why is it the only solution? Why is one democratic state not a solution? Because you assume that Israel HAS TO BE a Jewish State. By this logic, if it’s not – there cannot be ‘just and lasting peace’. That’s a Zionist approach, but there are certainly other approaches.
You say “it is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state” – Jewish I get. But democratic? Regardless of the institutionalized discrimination of non-Jews in ‘Israel proper’, which would be unaffected and possibly even worsened under such a ‘solution’, the issue of a democracy conditioned by ethnic cleansing so as to ensure its ‘demography’ for Jewish control – is hardly considered by me ‘democratic’. You refer much later to Palestinian refugees in rather vague language, even more vague than in the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 which you also refer to – and it seems to leave the option that that they would not actually return to Israel. Indeed, such conditionings are at the core of protectionism of the Jewish State. It simply relies, historically and principally upon ethnic cleansing and ‘demographic control’ as part of its raison d’etre.
This aspect of the state is also a major cause for discrimination, as well as the repeated warnings about this ‘sector’ of society and its inherent ‘demographic threat’. The Party Law prohibits a party from advocating against the principle of Jewish State, thus institutionally entrenching this discriminatory aspect.
So, sorry, but I see Jewish – I just don’t see democratic. If you’re talking about a democracy in the FUTURE, then I’m afraid we will have to drop the ‘Jewish’. Either or. History has not proven both to be possible.
You say “it is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.” But I have mentioned another possibility, as well as, that Jewish State seems to ensure the curtailment of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. So, I just don’t agree. I don’t agree that it is the ONLY way, nor that it is a way at all.
“And it is an important way of advancing United States interests in the region”, you say.
Ah, that comes in at the end of the introductory paragraph. Very interesting. This is perhaps the most interesting sentence in the whole paragraph. These ‘United States Interests in the region’ – what are they? This is obviously a wide term containing many political, military and not least economic interests.
But these interests, you’re willing to assassinate for them. As Noam Chomsky says, you run the world’s most extreme global terrorist campaign with killer drones that kill people who can be potentially dangerous to these ‘US interests’ (and occasional bystanders). I feel I must regard those ‘interests’ with a certain skepticism, when terror is used in order to defend them – especially when we often don’t get the exact description of the ‘interests’, which are often classified.
Back to you.
Kerry:
“Now, I want to stress that there is an important point here: My job, above all, is to defend the United States of America – to stand up for and defend our values and our interests in the world. And if we were to stand idly by and know that in doing so we are allowing a dangerous dynamic to take hold which promises greater conflict and instability to a region in which we have vital interests, we would be derelict in our own responsibilities.
“Regrettably, some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the U.S. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles – even after urging again and again that the policy must change. Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect.
“Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, who does not support a two-state solution, said after the vote last week, quote, ‘It was to be expected that Israel’s greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share,’ and veto this resolution. I am compelled to respond today that the United States did, in fact, vote in accordance with our values, just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council before us.”
Ofir:
You say “my job, above all, is to defend the United States of America – to stand up for and defend our values and our interests in the world”. Yes, I got that – but I already talked about ‘interests’, and I wonder about the ‘values’ of a state that is not shy of applying such means of global terrorism – under the pretext of ‘war on terror’. It’s somewhat cynical values, I find.
“Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect”, you say. But just a few weeks ago, you were complaining that whilst Israel is the recipient of more than half of your total foreign military aid, its leaders don’t listen to you. They spit you in the face, and what do they get? A raise of 7 billion USD for the next decade – from 31 billion (last deal) to 38 billion (next deal). So, what does that say about your defiance, and what does it really mean about your telling of ‘hard truths’? How much humiliation are you willing to tolerate within this ‘special friendship’ and ‘mutual respect’? Are you telling the ‘hard truths’ now? That is, in the last month of your administration just before you go out of office?
You say that “I am compelled to respond” to Israel’s ambassador that “the United States did, in fact, vote in accordance with our values, just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council before us.”
But that is not quite true, Kerry. You did not really vote. You abstained. Whilst it is true that previous administrations had let pass many UNSC resolutions regarding Israel in the past (Reagan for example passed 21), Barack Obama has done the least of all those before him since 1967, and has arguably been the most Israel-protective President ever. Indeed, as you boast later, “this Administration has been Israel’s greatest friend and supporter, with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing Israel’s security and protecting its legitimacy”. You take pride in that. But you also take pride in ‘voting’, which you didn’t really, “in accordance with our values” – which totally makes sense, as these ‘values’ are very ambiguous, especially when it comes to Israel. You say that you ‘need to tell hard truths’, but when it came to voting, you let other countries – really, the rest of the world – tell the ‘hard truths’ in the form of the UNSC resolution, which states the obvious: that all Israeli settlements are illegal. You let them say it, whilst sitting down and being ‘neutral’.
Kerry:
“They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States of America, that has done more to support Israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize Israel, cannot be true to our own values – or even the stated democratic values of Israel – and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes.
And that’s the bottom line: the vote in the United Nations was about preserving the two-state solution. That’s what we were standing up for: Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors. That’s what we are trying to preserve for our sake and for theirs.
In fact, this Administration has been Israel’s greatest friend and supporter, with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing Israel’s security and protecting its legitimacy.
On this point, I want to be very clear: No American administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s. The Israeli prime minister himself has noted our, quote, “unprecedented” military and intelligence cooperation. Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy.
Time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel’s back. We have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions targeting Israel in international fora, whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked, and we have fought for its inclusion across the UN system. In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than one-half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic $38 billion memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the United States has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting-edge missile defense and sustain Israel’s qualitative military edge for years to come. That’s the measure of our support.
Ofir:
You say, “They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States of America, that has done more to support Israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize Israel, cannot be true to our own values – or even the stated democratic values of Israel – and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes.”
But just before the last elections, just before Netanyahu warned that “the Arabs are coming to vote in droves”, he assured the public in no uncertain terms that there will not be established a Palestinian State under his watch. It was unmistakable. And the Likud party platform of 1999, never rescinded, ‘flatly rejects a Palestinian state’, and the Likud was voted in just shortly after (2001), and again, and again, and again, and again. What is there to be in doubt about? Is this not what the ‘democratic’ Israel wants? Is this not what its public voted for? Is this not a reflection of its real ‘values’?
You say that “this Administration has been Israel’s greatest friend and supporter, with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing Israel’s security and protecting its legitimacy”. I often wonder about this ‘protection of legitimacy’. Why does it need so much protection? Is it because the world hates it? Or is it because it actually enacts illegitimate policy?
You say that “we have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy”. Oh yes. During those 51 days of death and destruction in 2014, Obama kept coming up on the lawn and emphasizing ‘Israel’s right to defend itself’, which is why it had to massacre over 500 children and bomb whole families. They were just in the way of this ‘self-defense’.
You say “time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel’s back. We have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions targeting Israel in international fora, whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked.” That’s right, you oppose the popular protest which seeks to take Israel to task for its systematic and institutionalized violations of international law, where you know that boycotts are a form of protected speech. And insidious anti-BDS laws working against the First Amendment are sweeping your country as well as other countries including Canada, UK and France. All on behalf of ‘Israeli values’. I don’t think that’s something to be proud of, but you are.
“And this fall, we concluded an historic $38 billion memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the United States has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting-edge missile defense and sustain Israel’s qualitative military edge for years to come. That’s the measure of our support”.
Yes it is, Mr. Secretary. Rather unconditional support. You admonish Israel, but you sit down when it’s time to take action, you hand it the money, and then you complain it’s not listening.
Well you know what Mr. Kerry, I’m also not listening to you any more. I can’t take any more of this.
