Mr. Kerry, the 2-state solution isnt at risk, its already dead

[geek tragedy]

So where were you till now, Mr. Secretary? Why the sudden decision to come out now with a fire and brimstone speech against Israel’s government, the settlements, Palestinian incitement, etc., when these words come too little, too late? Is that what’s going to stop the Regulation Law? Yes, Mr. Secretary, your words served as a painful reminder for those of us living here in Israel of where this country is heading. But might not your timing and that of the US administration be based on personal motives, like taking revenge on Netanyahu, rather than on concerns for the future relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Because if not, why did you hold off until the your words weren’t worth the paper they were written on?

The Israeli public hasn’t exactly been moving to the left in recent years, and its support for a two-state solution has declined. Most Israelis are on the right, and support Netanyahu’s policies — that is, not to withdraw from Judea and Samaria and enable the establishment of a Palestinian state. As for the Palestinian public, 65% hold that the two-state solution is irrelevant in view of construction in the settlements (according to a survey by Khalil Shikaki). The number of settlers in the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem) is estimated at around 400,000. You’re absolutely right, Mr. Kerry. Some Israeli government ministers, such as Naftali Bennett, say openly that the two-state solution is over — with all the implications that carries for the vision of a democratic Jewish state. Netanyahu prefers to sell us stories about how he still supports this solution.

But in 2004, Mr. Kerry, a two-state solution was still alive — battered, wounded, dying perhaps, but somehow it had survived the intifada, despite the brutal terrorism and violence. Twelve years later, the two-state solution is dead. It is no longer realistic. It’s over. Because of Israel, because of the Palestinians, and, yes, because of a US administration that preferred to deal with Iran and not to push the parties to engage in serious peace negotiations. Settlements became a huge obstacle to such a solution. So, too, the Hamas regime in Gaza and the Palestinian public’s growing hatred of Israel.

If you tried to convene a group of Israeli and Palestinian journalists today, in Jerusalem or anywhere else, it’s doubtful you’d succeed because so many of our Palestinian colleagues are now boycotting Israeli journalists. Maybe it’s time to try and think of a different creative solution to the conflict. Two-states is no longer a realistic option, and one state evidently will not work here.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/mr-kerry-the-2-state-solution-isnt-at-risk-its-already-dead/

"What were you hoping to accomplish" seems to be a very pertinent question.

[still_one]

1. Between Trump and Kerry, the latter is the true friend of Israel;

"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry showed his true face on Wednesday: He is a true friend of Israel. In a long and detailed farewell speech, the outgoing secretary of state sketched out the main principles of his views on Israel, and in particular his fear for its future and fate.

It was clear that he was speaking from his pained heart. He warned of the death of the two-state solution because of the settlement enterprise, presented a logical and just framework for a solution to the conflict, and blamed Israel for aspiring to full and permanent control in the West Bank.

This is exactly the way a true friend speaks: He does not fear to criticize what deserves criticism, is worried and fearful about the future. This is exactly how the opposition in Israel should have spoken too: to sketch out a clear and pointed alternative to the policies of the present government, including an alternative plan for action. But Israel does not have an opposition that carries out its job, so it is very important to listen to Kerry, even at the conclusion of his term.

Kerry said what has been known for quite a while: The two-state solution is breathing its last breath. He may be convinced that it is still possible to save it, but the most important thing in his speech was raising the question of an alternative to this solution in full force. In Israel, which is speeding toward the elimination of the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state, almost no one is dealing with the situation that will be created the day after the final ruination of this option.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/1.762173


Ehud Barak: 'Majority of Israelis' agree with Kerry

"Former prime minister Ehud Barak praised Secretary of State John Kerry's speech Wednesday, tweeting that "this the way Russia and China think as well as the majority of Israelis." Barak added that "The prime minister is being dragged after the messianic stream, standing in front of an abyss and insisting on walking forward."

Jewish Home leader Naftali Bennett responded by saying that "messianism is to grant Arafat the Old City of Jerusalem, not to respond to the kidnapping of soldiers, to suggest transferring the Golan Heights to the Syrians, to abandon Madhat Yusuf (at Joseph's tomb in October 200) to die and then to dare to continue tweeting."

Earlier Bennett attacked Kerry's speech, stating that "Kerry quoted me three times anonymously in his speech in order to demonstrate that we oppose a Palestinian state."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222451

[Gothmog]

2. Under Bibi, the two state solution is indeed dead

Many American Jews dislike Bibi strongly because of this

[HoneyBadger]

3. Did American Jews vote in Israel's elections?

Because they could have become Israeli citizens and done so.

[karynnj]

6. I believe that is only if you move there -something that most American Jews will not and can not do

Not to mention, it really would be very undemocratic if huge groups of American Jews, intending to return as soon as they vote to their lives in America voted in Israel.

[Nitram]

4. "So where were you till now, Mr. Secretary?" Kerry has been working tirelessly

but diplomatically (behind the scenes and quietly to maintain trust) to get Israel to live up to its commitment to work towards a two-state solution. Netanyahu is determined to continue to steal Palestinian land. Kerry's statement that Israel has the choice to be Jewish or a democratic state, but cannot be both with a single-state solution, is right on the money. If Israel chooses to ignore the Obama administration's wake-up call, then they will end up a truly apartheid state.

[shira]

5. Two states isn't dead due to settlements. The PA could offer citizenship to settlers...

Problem solved. The PA guarantees their safety & borders become easier to declare.

Except for the fact that many folks believe the Palestinians to be ethno-fascists incapable of tolerating any percentage of Jews in their future state.

[karynnj]

7. The Times of Israel is really looking for a scape goat

The intensive US negotiations on the Iran happened in 2014 and 2015 -- it was very early in 2014 (I think March) when both Israel and the Palestinians made it clear there would be no successful negotiations. To imply that Kerry chose to work on Iran rather than continue and make this happen is ridiculous. One summary that I believe essentially said that Kerry wanted peace more than either side did. The fact is he returned to Israel in summer 2013 when they were willing to meet at great personal sacrifice, when Teresa was ill.

The peace talks blew up and within months there was the terrible war in Gaza. What the Times of Israel leaves out of their story is that Netanyahu stabbed Kerry (and Obama) in the back. Kerry came to help get a ceasefire that Netanyahu PUBLICLY wanted, but privately didn't. When an attempt to get a ceasefire began in Paris, Hamas sent their proposal via Oman. As happens in all these ceasefire negotiations where neither Israel or the US will speak to Hamas - Oman gave the proposal to Kerry and various European foreign ministers. As he was asked and as was the norm, Kerry sent it to Netanyahu and awaited the Israeli counter proposal. Instead, Netanyahu dramatically called the Knesset together and introduced it as the American proposal and it was angilly defeated.

As would have it, I was in Europe at that time with a Jewish British friend. Her comment - which should be asked of the Times of Israel was why did Israel think it was the American responsibility and their fault when obviously Israel and Hamas were the parties unable to find peace.

Here, this oped is ridiculous - in that it does not ask why Netanyahu has thrown road blocks in the way and has been utterly dishonest.

As to the question, "what are you hoping to accomplish?" My guess is that it is the Hail Mary pass of all Hail Mary passes hoping to wake up Israel and get them to at least freeze things so that maybe they could under better future circumstances find a way back. A second possibility - he had to defend himself and Obama from Netanyahu's disgraceful full blown raging temper tantrum against them. Adding what could have been was in a very real way an answer to why the US waited 12 years. It didn't. Condi Rice tried in the second Bush term, George Mitchell and Dennis Ross tried in Obama's first term and Kerry did everything he humanly could have in the second term. The failure was that of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. A mediator could lead them to water, but could not make them drink.

[geek tragedy]

8. The author is very anti-Netanyahu.

I think the Iran deal was far more worthy of tilting at the I/P windmill once more again. I agree that Kerry, if anything, cares too much.

Trying to save Israel from itself is a thankless effort. It's also probably not an appropriate approach for one state to take towards another.