With murder, it’s always puzzling to have a culprit without motive. And UNSCR 2334 was a character assassination of Israel. How can we understand murderer Kerry if he was a solid friend to the Jews? But now we found the reason here: Did Kerry offer Netanyahu regional peace plan? and here: Kerry’s two-state peace proposal, the secret meeting.
In my take, Israel had spoiled Kerry’s chance to enter the big picture history books as the architect of Successful Peace in the Middle East. His chance to acquire eternal fame was, in his opinion, dashed by stubborn Netanyahu – if we may believe this report stemming from Haaretz. After that, he related to Israel’s Prime-Minister like the disillusioned spouse, once head-over-heels in love, but after the love turned sour, now passionately hating him. What had happened?
Kerry had secretly presented what seems to me an absolutely reasonable peace plan, that was immediately embraced by the King of Jordan and the President of Egypt, but not by the Premier of Israel. The Arab Palestinian President was absent from the meeting, of course.
It was an act for four men. Like the four sons at the Seder Pesach:
- The Ruler of Egypt has consistently been constructive towards peace in the region, so he must be the wise son
- The Monarch of Jordan I never caught being our friend, so he must be the rebellious son
- The US Secretary of State is lovely and his own true self, unaware of any disturbing complications, so he must be the simple child
- The Leader of Israel is painted (by Haaretz!) as evasive, and so he has to be the child too shy to ask
- And then, last but least, in accordance with the Rebbi of Lubavitch, there is the fifth son who is absent, and that must be Arab Palestinian President Abbas.
The real issue was of course not that Netanyahu was dismissive of the plan. The true issue is that he could not sell pipedreams.
When I lived in Amsterdam, I was a paying member of Peace Now and a participant in a Palestinian-Jewish discussion group (led by a Christian priest!) and it was all very well meant. However, I must say to my credit that it took me less than a week in Israel to discover that the nice ideas from there do not work in this rough neighborhood.
The first Arab from the West Bank whom I spoke with explained to me that 80% of his villagers wanted peace just like the two of us. Then I realized that I don’t want to meet the other 20% in a dark ally. He said: When we’ll have peace, please to come to my house. The sad truth was that he couldn’t see me there for now.
The problem was not Netanyahu saying no. The problem lies in why Netanyahu cannot say yes. It’s called Jews-hatred – one of the oldest games in the world. In Palestine, it’s virulent ever since we started returning in big numbers. The Jews were ready for a bi-national state – the Arab leaders (and the Arab masses) were never, kept playing all-or-nothing – and got nothing. Until Arab Jews-hatred in the Middle East is addressed, no progress will be made.
I’m afraid that the present Israeli government does not think too much about the misfortunes of the Jews-haters. It is more connected to the good fortunes of the Jews – and those Gentiles who want to be close to us. And the left-wing do-gooders have too little Jewish pride or historical awareness to insist on Arab Palestinians to clean up their anti-Jewish act. So everyone lets them wallow in their own hatred.
The truth doesn’t set us free but is still important information. And it is awareness of reality that has always done it for us Jews.
Let us compare the Six Point Plan presented at that secret meeting, now reported here and here, with the Six Principles that SoS Kerry presented at his State Department Speech after the fatal UNSCR 2334 (towards the end):
What do these two list of Ideas have in common and how are they different?
They both have Six Principles that have their main issues in common.
However, there are differences that are telling.
In the public speech was left out that solving the problem of Arab Palestinian refugees should not affect Israel’s fundamental nature. Why was this important point for Israel skipped?
New in the public speech were lots of points, all in favor of Arab Palestinians, and none for the good of Jews in the State of Israel [I added my comments]:
- Palestine should be viable and contiguous [which is impossible without incorporating Jordan].
- The two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, should mutually recognition each other [as if this would be a mutual difficulty of both sides].
- The two states should have full equal rights for all their respective citizens [all returning Arab Palestinian refugees in Israel and Jewish settlers in Palestine – as if from the latter one person could stay there].
- The solution to the Palestinian refugee issue should not be only just, agreed, and realistic but also fair, and with international assistance include compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples [and no word about fair compensation for the Jewish refugees from Arab countries – equivalence is only done when it works against the Zionists].
- This all should not only satisfy Israel’s security needs but also bring a full end to the occupation [- the Arafat program: give us Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights and then the rest].
- This should, besides ending the conflict also end all outstanding claims [which seems a repetitious and meaningless addition].
My theory is that Kerry was so disillusioned that he said to the always anti-Zionist State Department (You remember, this great institution that didn’t want too many refugees fleeing Hitler, that didn’t want to bother the US President with details about the unfolding Holocaust and that more recently would add to every condemnation of Arab Palestinian terrorism against the Israeli population (a war crime) that the circle of violence should stop and that “both parties” should show restraint.): Do with it whatever you want. And it did.
What happened before and after the secret summit, we may learn from the Arutz Sheva reporting.
There is one final problem: The news was broken by Haaretz. That’s an outlet that on the peace process often does more than reporting – it violates one of the basics of good journalism: it time and again creates news, becoming part of the story, while not separating facts from analysis.
Be as that may, what was reported gives a plausible explanation to the about face of John Kerry, so we should go with their scoop as long as we have nothing more reliable. Any description of Netanyahu’s positions by Haaretz though should be taken with 1000 grains of salt.