Kerry's clichés
Op-ed: US secretary of state has failed in his mission, mainly due to the fact that both sides did not desire its success. But he also did not dare to really push them to succeed.
Nothing is more fitting to illustrate and summarize the wretchedness of US Secretary of State John Kerry's mission - that some term as "negotiations" - than its final note.
Among all the facts, and all the fundamental differences between the two sides, Kerry chosen to blame the crisis in talks - seemingly just to spite - on Uri Ariel's announcement of further construction in Jerusalem. This he did after delivering the cliché that Americans cannot want peace more than the sides themselves do.
The fact that Kerry chose these two excuses illustrates the extremely modest purpose of his mission. The secretary of state of a super-power has begun and ended his efforts at a great distance from the gaps in Palestinian Authority President Abbas and former prime minister Olmert's positions in Annapolis in 2008 – without a framework for negotiations, without clear principles, and without defining parameters that could have turned the fruitless meetings into effective negotiations in which the differences could consistently lessen.
Kerry needed only to ask for data regarding construction in Judea and Samaria in the past year. He would have discovered what is already known – that Israel has increased, right under his nose, settlement construction by 123 percent.
No, this was not a national trend or an answer to the social protest, since in the same year, for example, there was a dramatic 19 percent drop in the number of housing units built in the Tel Aviv area.
This data coincides with countless others to show that the current government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, and its predecessor, are doing everything in their power to fulfill Naftali Benett and Ariel's ideology – a complete negation of the two-state solution.
Kerry cannot but regret the manner in which he chose to conduct his efforts. He began his arduous journey with an Israeli demand to release Palestinian prisoners instead of insisting on the 1967 borders as a basis, a natural continuation to the UN's decision in November 2012 to recognize Palestine as a state along the 1967 borders. He refrained from pressing the two sides on the core issues, which guaranteed the lack of clear answers that could have illustrated Israel and the Palestinians' basic and practical position.
Those who call his mission "mediation efforts" would have to demand that basic positions be presented. At one end of his policy, Kerry preferred to extend imaginary "bridges", mainly through the media, that seemingly connected between the vague positions that both sides presented, and were in effect nothing more than hollow slogans as those in Netanyahu's famous Bar-Ilan speech.
At the other end, Kerry dealt with trifles such as Palestinian construction in area C, which is not even relevant to the sought-after permanent agreement.
There is no place for the American cliché any longer. Did Kerry really believe that the Netanyahu government wanted a permanent agreement based on international decisions? Did he not believe the Bayit Yehudi MKs who had announced in their party platform that "we oppose the establishment of any kind of Palestinian state west of Jordan"? Did he not understand that that this was the moment the Likud party was aiming for when it wrote in its platform: "When the time for final negotiations for peace comes, Likud will present a clear red line"? Did he not comprehend that Netanyahu is signed on a platform that includes within it statements such as "perseverance in population and development of all parts of the State of Israel and the imposition of the state's sovereignty on them"? Was he simply beguiled by Foreign Minister Lieberman's sweet talk that included his belief that "the demand for the establishment of a Palestinian state and the right of return are intended to disguise the true purpose, which is to eliminate the State of Israel as a Jewish and Zionist State"?
Kerry has failed in his mission at this stage, mainly due to the fact that both sides did not desire its success. But he also did not dare to really push them to succeed. Unfortunately, even if Kerry leaves now, we will have to return to our meetings. We can only hope that they will not be under more difficult conditions and circumstances, and especially hope that Kerry will draw the right conclusions.
Shaul Arieli is a retired IDF colonel, member of the Council for Peace and Security and a Geneva Initiative member.
