UKs May slams Kerry for focus on settlements

[Mosby]

Source: Jerusalem Post

UK Prime Minister Theresa May came out against US Secretary of State John Kerrys address criticizing Israel, with a spokesman saying Thursday that disproportionately focusing on settlements and criticizing the composition of the Israeli government is not a constructive way to work towards solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We do not believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is so deeply complex, the spokesman said.

-snip-


Read more: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/UKs-May-slams-Kerry-for-focus-on-settlements-476942

[onecaliberal]

1. We do not believe in using our money to kill brown people at the whim of a madman

Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2016, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Because they want to rip off every parcel of dirt upon which they walk is a way to negotiate peace either.

[tenorly]

9. I think that, besides Israel, you just described the British Empire in one sentence.

No wonder Ms. May gets touchy about these things.

[geek tragedy]

2. every word Kerry said was true, but no one who can make a difference was listening or cares.

The two-state solution will be finally declared dead under Trumpenyahu.

They'll own that.

[LittleBlue]

6. Two state solution has been a walking corpse for almost 10 years

No idea why people still pretend it's feasible. The two-state solution was very popular in the 90s, but I saw a growing number of young Palestinians resigned to a one-state solution beginning in the mid 2000s. The settlement building and terrorist attacks have poisoned any chance of a settlement on that. Go look at a map of the settlements, or the criss-crossing security barriers and highways. There is literally no way to divide Israel for a two-state solution without politically unfeasible forced population transfers.

A one-state solution is the only solution at this point.

[Mosby]

8. the "one state solution" is the most unlikely outcome

Someday the Palestinians will negotiate in good faith.

Or not.

[Rustyeye77]

12. They could have had their country already.

If they want all of Israel, they have a long wait.

[karynnj]

17. What exactly do we really have until then? Israel and the territories are both controlled

by Israel. If settlements continue and then areas are annexed - then more settlements etc. When does it become a one state country?

[Mosby]

21. What we have is an agreed upon occupation per oslo.

None of the WB settlements have been annexed, and all the growth is in existing settlements near the green line, so swaps are still possible. But the two state solution is never going to happen until the Palestinians accept a Jewish state in their midst, give up the right of return and agree to share J'lem, with Jews controlling the Western Wall and the old city. Those are just the main issues, there are more.

[Rustyeye77]

24. Imagine how much better off they would be..

if they accepted the last offer.

They should demand that offer back.

[karynnj]

25. NOT true that ALL the settlements are near the border

This is why the move to legalize settlements that Israel says are illegal is so bad. Not to mention, the occupation was never intended to be a permanent state. It is now nearly 50 years.

[geek tragedy]

10. Yep. Time for Jews to learn Arabic and Arabs to learn

Hebrew.

Forever is a very long time.

[karynnj]

7. With the two state solution, liberal Zionism is very likely to die as well

To some degree, as the two state solution became less likely, it has held on as a fig leaf. Many in Israel argued that could no longer be believable given the 2014 strikes on Gaza. But, in the US, at least almost all non orthodox Jews supported the two state solution. I remember when Democrats, including Kerry, very sincerely pushed for the two state solution - commending Condi Rice when she was pushing for it at the end of the second Bush term -- always saying there was very a narrow window when it could happen.

Kerry's speech was a cri de coeur referencing what had once been a more widely shared dream. The problem is that where once the overwhelming majority of Israelis said they were for a 2 state solution, that is no longer the case. In fact, Kerry likely knows that with Trump, Netanyahu, and the settlements, that window has closed. His plea seems to focus on settlements because they will make a two state solution impossible forever as they expand. Every other factor is something that can change with the times, but once there is no possibility of creating a contiguous state without moving millions of Jews, it will not even be a possibility.

Ari Shavit, a now disgraced (sexual harrassment) Haaretz writer, wrote a book on Israel, that argued that there were only 4 paths forward. He dismissed 3 as unacceptable - they were pushing the Palestinians out (he called that ethnic cleaning), an apartheid state, and a binational state where all had equal rights. The only one he thought possible was the two state solution, but he argued that the current Israeli leadership (Netanyahu's more moderate government before re-election) was not brave enough to reach for it.

Many liberals may see the ONLY moral choice now will be the binational with equal rights - that many young Jews already support. This could really splinter the Jewish community. I would bet that within a few years, many AIPAC inspired Jews will regret that there can be no two state solution. It is also pretty clear that the Palestinians will not magically disappear.

I seriously do not understand why Prime Minister May regrets that Kerry said that the current cabinet is the most right wing in Israel's history. Is this really something that is in question? Not to mention, it is criticism ONLY if you think there is a problem with something being right wing.

[geek tragedy]

11. There's a lot of "what did you hope to accomplish"

criticisms even from those who agree with him. I suspect May is wondering just that.

I similarly suspect Zionism will one day be seen like other ideologies like Communism--made sense on paper but destined to fail as implemented by actual human beings. If history has taught us one lesson, it's that tyranny is the inevitable result of combining nationalism with religion, ethnicity or race. Some will always be more equal than others.

[karynnj]

13. My guess was that the nonsense from Netanyahu needed a response

- and large parts of the speech dealt with that. Netanyahu dishonestly attacked not just the vote - which is, of course, his right - but the character, motivation and honesty of both Kerry and Obama. Kerry defended himself.

As to what he wanted to accomplish -- I suspect he was making a last plea to stop the settlements. I assume that he knew it was not going to happen, but as he passionately felt it had to happen or a two state solution was impossible. To put it in the word's of a musical he mentions frequently - he was not "going to give up my shot" in his last chance in elected office to take a position on this. It likely will amount to nothing, but it also can not make the path Israel is on worse. (It might even be that because he feels the need to do this because he worked so hard for years to get especially Europe to weaken its actions against things Israel has done. He was not going to leave himself open to being complicit.)

Kerry has long shown the willingness to take unpopular actions and positions. When he was a very young Senator, he was willing to investigate whether the CIA was condoning drug trafficking in the US to get cash for illegal gun running for the Contras. At that point, Reagan was President and many Democrats joined the Republicans in seeing those RW nun killing thugs as heroes. This was not something that your typical promising, ambiguous, 40 something Senator would take on. Then again, someone with Presidential ambitions or even ambitions to be a Congressman or Senator would not lead an antiwar effort. Nor would they tenaciously fight the corrupt BCCI, which was used for international crime money laundering, especially after it was clear that Democratic money men were among those "bought" by the bank.

Everything he said yesterday, he has said to various audiences for the last 2 years - especially Jewish American ones. Kerry has said many times that the reason he spoke out in 1971 was that he felt conscience bound to do so.

[geek tragedy]

14. In the short term, it unilaterally conceded to the Republicans

the position of Israel's staunchest defenders and advocates.

On the merits, that's the right call. But now, thanks to the vicious backlash across the Israeli political spectrum, Democrats are going to be scared shitless to go even one millimeter to Trump's left on Israel.

[karynnj]

16. that already was true when Trump nominated David Friedman

and praised Netanyahu as much as he praised Putin. Netanyahu has moved further and further to the right. In good faith the Democrats should not condone the things that he has done.

[geek tragedy]

18. In good faith, sure, but the political reality

is that they can't save Israel from itself and any political capital spent will produce zero return of any kind.

Netanyahu has moved to the right because Israel has moved right. He ran an explicitly racist campaign and vowed to proceed with the one-state solution in his most recent campaign,and it increased his popularity.

[karynnj]

20. Agree completely

Even if the situation in Israel were more promising, the minority party can do very little on foreign policy. As it is, Obama has not been able as President - with either George Mitchell or Kerry, two of the most capable diplomats the US has had - to accomplish anything there. In fact, both Gaza "wars" put Obama in very uncomfortable positions - especially the one in 2014.

Yep, Netanyahu's campaign had a lot in common with Trump's -- they both appealed to the baser instincts of voters.

[geek tragedy]

22. Eventually Democrats will need to learn to treat Israel

as a foreign country and not a family member.

Non-interference has to mean two things: willingness to let them make their own mistakes, and willingness to let them suffer the consequences of their own mistakes.

Anything else is a dysfunctional paternalism.

[Blue Idaho]

3. Said the second coming of Maggie Thatcher.

Don't forget her Foreign Secretary is that clown Boris Fucking Johnson.

[TubbersUK]

4. Words for internal party consumption presumably

Following, l'm pleased to say, an active role in getting the resolution passed:


UK's key role in brokering UN resolution on Israeli settlements confirmed

Britain played a key behind-the-scenes role in brokering the UN resolution condemning Israel for violating international law with its policy of building settlements on occupied Palestinian territory, it has been confirmed. The UK helped draft some of the key wording to ensure it met US concerns.

The UK has never hidden its support for the UN resolution, voting for its terms, and subsequently both UK ministers and diplomats have publicly justified its wording. It is also usual for the UK to play a key brokering role on UN resolutions, especially on the Middle East.

The UK role has divided opinion inside the Conservative party. Conservative Friends of Israel’s parliamentary chairman, Sir Eric Pickles, said: “CFI is disappointed by the UK’s decision to support the controversial UN security council resolution, which legitimises the Palestinian Authority’s attempts to internationalise the issue and avoid the necessary direct peace talks.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/uks-key-role-in-brokering-un-resolution-on-israeli-settlements-confirmed

[moondust]

5. Bibi must be furious at the PM and Boris!

:crickets:

[Generator]

15. We are heading for a third world war I'm afraid

The right wing loons have left the barn and are in charge in EVERY damn country. Next Merkel will lose then France and oh hell. It looks bad to me.

Yeah it's complex-and settlements make it worse. Obviously.

[marylandblue]

27. +1

[paleotn]

19. How's that Brexit going for you, May?

...2016 will go down as the year of the fucking moron.

[ananda]

23. Go back under your rock, Theresa.

nt

[guillaumeb]

26. The settlements are visible proof that the Israeli Government has no interest

in allowing for a viable Palestinian State. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous. One state is literally stealing the land that would constitute the other state.

[ucrdem]

28. Shows you what she's all about doesn't it.

[LeftishBrit]

29. May has no right to criticize other people's Foreign Secretaries, when she appointed Boris Johnson!

I think Kerry was quite right, and so do quite a few Israelis.

I also don't think May is really particularly interested in Israel; she just wants to be in the Unspeakable's good graces. We will need all the Special Relationship we can get, when we 'trigger Article 50', i.e. impose biting economic sanctions on our own country. Not that May need bother; the Unspeakable obviously wants a Special Relationship with himself first, Putin second, the USA a long way third, and the rest of the world, including the UK, nowhere.