Wednesday, March 29th | 2 Nisan 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
December 29, 2016 7:47 am

An Open Letter to John Kerry

avatar by David Harris

Email a copy of "An Open Letter to John Kerry" to a friend
Secretary of State John Kerry. Photo: Wiki Commons.

Secretary of State John Kerry. Photo: Wiki Commons.

Dear Secretary Kerry,

I listened with rapt attention to your speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I did so as someone who has yearned for an end to this conflict for decades, who grasps that the essential Jewish mission has always been the all-too-elusive quest for peace, and whose organization, the AJC, has advocated for a two-state solution for nearly 25 years.

Related coverage

March 29, 2017 7:31 am
0

How Blind College Liberals Help Foster Antisemitism

“Ending White Privilege Starts With Ending Jewish Privilege,” screams a flyer being distributed on the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois. The...

And I did so as someone who understands that settlement-building beyond the security barrier is indeed a major impediment to the prospects for a final-status accord.

Moreover, I believe in your good will. I’ve seen it up close. I’ve heard it from you in private, not only in public. When you say you want to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, I know full well that you mean it.

When you express anguish over the dangers faced by Israeli children in Israeli border cities like Sderot and Kiryat Shmona, it comes not just from your head, but from the depths of your soul.

And I recognize the unprecedented level of bilateral cooperation between Washington and Jerusalem over the past eight years in the defense and intelligence spheres, at the UN and its specialized agencies, and elsewhere. You cited many examples, and each one rings so true.

How many Israeli lives have indeed been saved because of US-Israeli cooperation in missile defense systems? How many potentially tragic situations have been averted by bilateral intelligence sharing? And how many misguided international efforts related to Israel have been stopped in their tracks by American intervention?

And yet, as I processed every word, every idea, every facial gesture and every gesticulation in your remarks, I felt some unease. I wanted to embrace it all — the hope, the vision, the determination. And yet something was missing for me.

You said that a majority of Israelis support the idea of separation and an agreement with the Palestinians. That’s true, of course. But they also fear that the ultimate goal of their neighbors is the elimination of Israel. In other words, Israelis are schizophrenic, which, given the region in which they live, is entirely understandable.

So why should they trust the romanticized notions of well-intentioned outsiders?

After all, these outsiders haven’t exactly gotten much right in the Middle East of late — not Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran — so why should Israelis place their trust, and their destiny, in the “latest” plan?

The Israelis fear that a Palestinian state is very likely to become a failed state, joining too many others in the region. If Israel miraculously signed an agreement with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah tomorrow, for instance, who would be in charge there in a year, or five, or ten?

Mahmoud Abbas has made absolutely no provision for succession, even though he is in his eighties; a major fight is brewing in the West Bank for eventual control of the Palestinian Authority; and Hamas, which already rules Gaza, won’t sit idly by in the West Bank, either. And any instability there wouldn’t just affect Israel, of course, but also, if not more so, Jordan.

Moreover, why have Israelis moved to the right on the political spectrum, the weakening once robust left-of-center parties? Some have attributed it to immigration from the former Soviet Union and the high birthrate of Orthodox Jews. But the main reason, people on the street might say, is the accumulation of events from 2000 onward, including a determined effort by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, joined by President Bill Clinton, to pursue a two-state deal, only to be rebuffed by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, who triggered a second intifada in response; Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, which saw the space then occupied by Hezbollah and its state-within-a-state army; Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, with Hamas then quickly expelling the PA and seizing the reins of power; and Abbas himself, often described as a man with whom to make peace, largely AWOL from the negotiating table, all the while stoking the fires of incitement, martyrdom and delegitimization of Israel.

And that brings me to Friday’s UN Security Council resolution (2334). The real question ought to be whether or not it brings us closer to a resumption of peace talks. For now, it seems pretty clear that its consequence has been negative — emboldening Abbas in his strategy of internationalizing the conflict and trying to corner Israel, while prompting Netanyahu to declare that Israel can’t get a fair hearing from the global community.

So why the resolution on Friday, with a US abstention, and why the speech yesterday, just 24 days before the Obama Administration relinquishes power to a new US administration, whose views, as you noted, are quite different from those you voiced?

Could it be to set the stage for more action by the UN Security Council in the coming days, and empower the French-initiated conference in Paris in mid-January? Could it be to create facts on the ground that no future administration could easily ignore or sidestep?

As I said at the outset, I don’t doubt your commitment to Israel, but I can’t help but wonder what exactly is going on here.

Unless we can expect major pronouncements from you between now and January 20th about the unparalleled carnage in Syria, the unraveling of Libya, Iran’s destabilizing role in the Middle East, and Russia’s continued occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine — all of which touch on fundamental American interests and may not be handled in the same way by President Trump and his team — then why all the focus on this one issue?

Before closing, let me cite just one more theme — in the interests of historical accuracy and justice.

One of your six principles was the resolution of the Palestinian refugee question. I waited for you to add in that section some reference to the Jewish refugee question, but, alas, there was none.

Mr. Secretary, as you know, there were two, not one, refugee populations created by the Arab-Israeli conflict, and they were of roughly equal size. Just because one has been kept alive by UNRWA and the absence of any mandate to resettle refugees, while the other has been dealt with by people who refused to be instrumentalized and chose to move on with their lives, the tragedy — and the claims –– of both populations require attention.

Finally, like you and the late Shimon Peres, I refuse to give up on the future. I’ve seen enough political miracles in my lifetime to convince me that historic change is possible — for starters, the end of the apartheid regime in South Africa; Israeli peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan; French-German reconciliation; the collapse of the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain; democracy restored in Argentina, Brazil and Chile; and the rescue of millions of Jews from the USSR.

But coming from a family that experienced directly the scourges of Communism, Nazism and jihadism, I know that we must have the capacity not only to imagine the best, but also to fear the worst.

Many Israelis and their supporters have similar family backgrounds. When developments warrant it, the Israelis act. They have in the past. They will again. Enduring peace is, and always has been, their highest priority.

For that to happen, however, they need to believe that there are committed leaders on the other side of the bargaining table who are prepared to negotiate in good faith. Alas, sadly, it remains to be seen if that will prove to be the case anytime soon.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • DT

    A two-state solution is not gerrymandering. It’s a separation. Two separate sovereign countries.

    As a sovereign state, Palestine would be free to control its immigration policy. It’ll likely change over time. Why is that an issue?

    Abbas and Olmert were close to a deal in 2008.

    Israel already withdrew from Area A of the West Bank. Palestinian security forces maintain control now. They can expand their jurisdiction to Area B of the West Bank and eventually to most of Area C.

  • Lin Olson

    Maybe it is me, but the Palestinians have had so may opportunities to come to the table for a two state solution. I am sorry, but Abbas, Arafat, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran , etc don’t want a solution.. they want the total destruction of Israel and her people. The land belongs to Israel… So says Adonia.

  • DT

    The question isn’t whether this UN resolution brings us closer to a peace deal. It’s whether illegal settlements move us further away from it. I understand why Israel is wary of the Palestinians. I understand why Palestinians are wary of Israel. All the more reason why both sides should separate. I personally am biased towards Israel, and doing some back-of-the envelope math, can see that a one-state solution means Jewish voters would no longer be the majority in Israel. A two-state solution is not an option anymore, it’s the only way to preserve a democratic Jewish state.

    • ArnoldLayne

      Unless the ‘Palestinians’ are pushed out into surrounding countries, where they belong. Israel shouldn’t have to wait forever for a legitimate negotiating partner.

      • DT

        You want to ethnically cleanse 4 million Palestinians? Really?

Algemeiner.com