Excellent Boston Globe oped on Kerry and Israel/Palestine

[karynnj]

Hillary Clinton traveled to Israel just twice in her four years as secretary of state. Instead, special envoy George Mitchell did most of the hands-on work of trying to restart the Middle East peace process. But near the end of his first year in the post, John Kerry is on his 10th trip to Israel in the most intense initiative in years to resolve a poisonous conflict. The vigor, tenacity, and specificity of his efforts offer a measure of hope after years of little progress.

There is plenty of skepticism about Kerry’s chances for success. Some have called him “Captain Ahab.” Others have called his quest a “fool’s errand.” But he has already achieved some modest success. This summer, he convinced the Arab League to renew its 2002 offer to recognize Israel after the creation of a Palestinian state. Most significantly, he persuaded the league to strip away a previous requirement that Israel allow tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees to return to homes inside Israel. To get talks restarted in August, Kerry pushed for Israel to agree to the phased release of 104 Palestinian prisoners, which the Palestinian Authority had required for the resumption of talks.
<snip>
Despite all these obstacles, Kerry continues to push forward. Unlike Clinton, who may yet run for president, Kerry sees that his tenure as secretary of state will define his legacy forever. At a speech at the United Nations earlier this year, he said he is pushing so hard for peace because the status quo is becoming too dangerous. He’s right. Violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians is at a boiling point. So are threats against Israel from non-state actors. A breakthrough won’t just happen by itself. Progress towards peaceful coexistence requires creative, aggressive diplomacy. Kerry, thankfully, is doing just that.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/01/03/john-kerry-tenacious-diplomacy-offers-hope-for-mideast-peace/L35tIZoYp92e8eCwe6dNVO/story.html

My first comment is that it is silly to repeat the stock meme that he is doing this because it is the end of his career before stating a far more serious reason - that not doing so is dangerous. We in this group likely hear echoes in Kerry's reason of many past decisions (impolitic or not) - that it's the right thing to do. (Did I write that I am beyond sick of it being added largely to give an explanation of why Clinton did not do this? The fact is Kerry in 1971 spoke before the SFRC against the war and as a Senator investigated BCCI and headed the POW/MIA committee when doing so was absolutely not likely to help politically - in these cases because he thought it important and the right thing to do. He was not at the end of his career then. Second, it is not a zero sum game - Kerry succeeding on something does not diminish Hillary. As the Democrat, she will do BETTER if foreign policy succeeds over the 8 Obama years.)

A second comment is that the opinion that Netanyahu may not "want to give Kerry what he wants" because of Kerry's work on Iran is silly. Netanyahu - or Abbas for that matter - will not and should not do something because Kerry wants him to. His actions should be based on what he sees as good for his country. A peace deal will change the future of both countries. It is the most serious decision that any leader could make. The decision will be made on the merits of the deal and possibly internal political ramifications for him personally.

This does not diminish what Kerry has achieved to date. Kerry has worked to get each side to talk about a deal. Neither side did this lightly and both agreed to do things they did not want to do before starting. The only reason they did this was because both have concerns about the future of the status quo. There will be a deal ONLY if the parties find one that to both sides looks better than where the status quo is going and both see it as the best deal they are going to get from the other.

From my perspective, these negotiations really will lead to a two state solution or be a conclusive test of whether a two state solution can happen. If they fail, it is very likely that that possibility is dead. Many people, including Tom Friedman have long written that Israel can be two of three things - democratic, Jewish and controlling all the land it controls now. Three is impossible. If the two state solution is impossible - splitting the land is impossible meaning that the choice is losing either being majority Jewish or not really being a democracy for all the people in the country.

The death of the two state solution, by definition leads to a one state solution. The question then is which of the other characteristics is dropped. Will Israel evolve to be:

- Give up being majority Jewish - A democracy where everyone in the entire area including the West Bank and Gaza have equal rights including the right to vote. This is what many people, including many young American Jews, think the best solution. This fits with American values, but it is hard to see Netanyahu moving to change Israel in that direction.

- A country claiming to be a democracy, but disenfranchising everyone living in the occupied territories (as now, but with no future goal of two states.) I think the goal of a two state solution has acted as a veil that allows Jews and other Americans to support Israel without apply their normal (Jewish and/or American) values to the plight of the people in Gaza and the West Bank.

[BeyondGeography]

1. He's a heroic figure

Truly.

[karynnj]

2. He really is

It reminds me of the what Alexandra Kerry said in her personal. beautiful convention speech.

To every little girl her father is a hero. It’s taken some getting used to, that my father actually is one. And not just in the obvious ways. Because he likes to listen as much as he likes to talk; because he’s studious in the way someone is when everything in the whole world interests them; because he leads by example; because he trusts people with the truth and doesn’t pander or play to our baser instincts.

And let me tell you this, when he loves you as he loves me and my sister and his family, as he loves the men who fought beside him there is no sacrifice too great. When he cares for you, as he cares for this country, there are no surer hands, and no wiser heart.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/politics/campaign/29TEXT-ALEXANDRA.html

I followed John Kerry more AFTER the election than anyone else. Over the last decade, the more I have read of him, the more dead on his daughter's words seem. In 2004, I paid more attention to to wonderful story of him rescuing the hamster, but I remembered her comment on him being a hero and how she said it. Still, when I googled to find the text, I realized that the rest of that paragraph IS the John Kerry I have watched when he is at his best.

[BeyondGeography]

3. This present and possibly last chapter reminds me of the "leave nothing on the field" phrase

Which is saying something because he has so much to offer. He has always struck me as the kind of guy who knows when (and how) to relax but, when there's something worth fighting for, you're not going to find a more intense or committed leader. But that's just behavioral; he's also immensely talented and personally appealing to those he works with (i.e. McCain and how he turned him around 180 degrees on the POW-MIA project), not least because he is so human(e). These people are very rare.