30 apr 2014
|
|
The nine-month deadline for US-sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has passed with nothing to show for the period of intense American diplomacy, as the US secretary of state, John Kerry, apologised for declaring that Israel risked becoming an "apartheid state".
The two sides were possibly further apart on Tuesday than when talks were launched last July – negotiations which Kerry had hoped initially would lead to a settlement of Israel-Palestine conflict by the middle of this year. Kerry had faced fierce criticism from some congressmen and pro-Israel groups for his comments, made at a closed door meeting of the Trilateral |
Commission in Washington on Friday, and revealed by the Daily Beast website on Sunday.
In a statement issued by the state department, Kerry said: "If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution."
Officials predicted that the end of the talks would prompt the US to withdraw from efforts to mediate, as both sides attempted to "minimise damage".
"Kerry has other pressing issues he needs to deal with, including the Ukraine," said one Israeli official. "I would not expect to see any diplomatic movement for months."
The deadline for peace talks passed as some ministers in Netanyahu's rightwing government called for Israel to set its own borders and annex areas of the West Bank under full Israeli control. The economy minister, Naftali Bennett, said: "We will be gradually attempting to apply Israeli law on Israeli-controlled areas."
The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, accused Israel of "never giving the negotiations a chance to succeed" and "used every possible tool in order to consolidate its apartheid regime".
In a statement issued by the PLO, Erekat said: "Everything Israel did during the past nine months [was] aimed at sabotaging Palestinian and international efforts to achieve the two-state solution. To build settlements in occupied land, kill Palestinians and demolish hundreds of Palestinian homes is certainly not the behaviour of a government that wants to end occupation but of a government that wants to turn occupation into annexation."
It was Kerry's statement, however, which was a metaphor for a US diplomatic effort that has been imploding in slow-motion for weeks. In the midst of a renewed trading of blame, only Kerry appeared to have anything he regretted.
Some critics had accused Kerry and the US of becoming a party to negotiations, rather than guiding them. But in his statement Kerry hit back at what he described against "partisan political" attacks against him, while stating in retrospect that he would have chosen a different word.
Kerry said his remarks were only an expression of his firm belief that a two-state resolution is the only viable way to end the long-running conflict and insisted on his history of support for Israel over the past 30 years.
"I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes, so I want to be crystal clear about what I believe and what I don't believe," Kerry said after members of Congress and pro-Israel groups criticised him, with some demanding his resignation or at least an apology."First, Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one," he said.
"Second, I have been around long enough to also know the power of words to create a misimpression, even when unintentional, and if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution," Kerry said.
While few analysts believe that a third Intifada is likely for now, tensions seem set to increase in other ways .
On the Palestinian side, at least, the next moves are mapped out including seeking recognition at a further group of international bodies, and pushing efforts for a national unity government supported by Hamas within a month or so followed by elections.
The composition of that government, and the degree of Hamas's involvement, will define any potential conflict with western governments and their financial support for the Palestinian Authority, not least because Hamas does not recognise the right of Israel to exist.
For its part Israel has already threatened the PA with punitive sanctions that are likely to be widened. One target that has been mooted is the tax and customs revenues that Israel collects on the authority's behalf. Because the PA owes Israel money for electricity supply, that amount may be deducted.
Source: theguardian
In a statement issued by the state department, Kerry said: "If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution."
Officials predicted that the end of the talks would prompt the US to withdraw from efforts to mediate, as both sides attempted to "minimise damage".
"Kerry has other pressing issues he needs to deal with, including the Ukraine," said one Israeli official. "I would not expect to see any diplomatic movement for months."
The deadline for peace talks passed as some ministers in Netanyahu's rightwing government called for Israel to set its own borders and annex areas of the West Bank under full Israeli control. The economy minister, Naftali Bennett, said: "We will be gradually attempting to apply Israeli law on Israeli-controlled areas."
The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, accused Israel of "never giving the negotiations a chance to succeed" and "used every possible tool in order to consolidate its apartheid regime".
In a statement issued by the PLO, Erekat said: "Everything Israel did during the past nine months [was] aimed at sabotaging Palestinian and international efforts to achieve the two-state solution. To build settlements in occupied land, kill Palestinians and demolish hundreds of Palestinian homes is certainly not the behaviour of a government that wants to end occupation but of a government that wants to turn occupation into annexation."
It was Kerry's statement, however, which was a metaphor for a US diplomatic effort that has been imploding in slow-motion for weeks. In the midst of a renewed trading of blame, only Kerry appeared to have anything he regretted.
Some critics had accused Kerry and the US of becoming a party to negotiations, rather than guiding them. But in his statement Kerry hit back at what he described against "partisan political" attacks against him, while stating in retrospect that he would have chosen a different word.
Kerry said his remarks were only an expression of his firm belief that a two-state resolution is the only viable way to end the long-running conflict and insisted on his history of support for Israel over the past 30 years.
"I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes, so I want to be crystal clear about what I believe and what I don't believe," Kerry said after members of Congress and pro-Israel groups criticised him, with some demanding his resignation or at least an apology."First, Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one," he said.
"Second, I have been around long enough to also know the power of words to create a misimpression, even when unintentional, and if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution," Kerry said.
While few analysts believe that a third Intifada is likely for now, tensions seem set to increase in other ways .
On the Palestinian side, at least, the next moves are mapped out including seeking recognition at a further group of international bodies, and pushing efforts for a national unity government supported by Hamas within a month or so followed by elections.
The composition of that government, and the degree of Hamas's involvement, will define any potential conflict with western governments and their financial support for the Palestinian Authority, not least because Hamas does not recognise the right of Israel to exist.
For its part Israel has already threatened the PA with punitive sanctions that are likely to be widened. One target that has been mooted is the tax and customs revenues that Israel collects on the authority's behalf. Because the PA owes Israel money for electricity supply, that amount may be deducted.
Source: theguardian
Zahava Gal-on, leader of Israel's Meretz Party
Leader of the Israeli Meretz Party, Zahava Gal-on, said Sunday that the current Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not interested in peace.
Gal-on stated, in an interview with Radio Israel, that the Netanyahu government must regain its senses and put the new Palestinian government to the test, to make sure that it is committed to conditions submitted by the Middle East Quartet.
Furthermore, Yitzhak Herzog of the Labour Party challenged Netanyahu to "initiate a comprehensive and courageous offer" to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
According to the Middle East Monitor, a post on his Facebook page stated: "The situation is volatile and very sensitive and we must not take irreversible and potentially harmful steps."
Gal-on also called on the current Israeli government to release the fourth batch of the Palestinian prisoners, as previously agreed, and to freeze settlement construction.
In a report about the Palestinian detainees held by Israel, the Palestinian Ministry Of Detainees said that more than 800,000 Palestinians, including children, have been kidnapped and imprisoned by Israel since 1967, while at least 5,000 Palestinians are currently held by Israel.
Plans for nearly 14,000 new settler homes were approved by the Israeli government, during the nine months of peace talks with the Palestinians, according to an Israeli NGO -- this in addition to over 500 Palestinian structures that were demolished throughout the US-brokered "peace negotiations".
“I believe we can replace the coalition of Netanyahu, Bennett, Liberman and Lapid: the modern variation of the four sons – wicked, wicked, wicked and the one who does not know how to quit,” Gal-on recently confided to a gathering of Meretz’s youth movement.
Leader of the Israeli Meretz Party, Zahava Gal-on, said Sunday that the current Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not interested in peace.
Gal-on stated, in an interview with Radio Israel, that the Netanyahu government must regain its senses and put the new Palestinian government to the test, to make sure that it is committed to conditions submitted by the Middle East Quartet.
Furthermore, Yitzhak Herzog of the Labour Party challenged Netanyahu to "initiate a comprehensive and courageous offer" to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
According to the Middle East Monitor, a post on his Facebook page stated: "The situation is volatile and very sensitive and we must not take irreversible and potentially harmful steps."
Gal-on also called on the current Israeli government to release the fourth batch of the Palestinian prisoners, as previously agreed, and to freeze settlement construction.
In a report about the Palestinian detainees held by Israel, the Palestinian Ministry Of Detainees said that more than 800,000 Palestinians, including children, have been kidnapped and imprisoned by Israel since 1967, while at least 5,000 Palestinians are currently held by Israel.
Plans for nearly 14,000 new settler homes were approved by the Israeli government, during the nine months of peace talks with the Palestinians, according to an Israeli NGO -- this in addition to over 500 Palestinian structures that were demolished throughout the US-brokered "peace negotiations".
“I believe we can replace the coalition of Netanyahu, Bennett, Liberman and Lapid: the modern variation of the four sons – wicked, wicked, wicked and the one who does not know how to quit,” Gal-on recently confided to a gathering of Meretz’s youth movement.
Washington called for "a holding period" in the Middle East peace process after a deadline for reaching a deal expired with hopes dashed and Israel and the Palestinians bitterly divided.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has no regrets about the energy he poured into his failed Middle East peace bid and is ready to dive back in again if asked, US officials said.
As the final date for the nine-month negotiation period came and went on Tuesday, peace hopes appeared more remote than ever with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas locked in a tactical game of finger-pointing, and US attempts to broker an extension in tatters.
After more than a year of intensive shuttle diplomacy by Kerry, Washington was reluctant to admit failure, acknowledging only a "pause" in the dialogue.
"The original negotiating period was set to run until April 29th, today. There's nothing special about that date now," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters in Washington.
But Kerry has "no regrets about the time he spent investing in this process".
"We've reached a point... where a pause is necessary... a holding period, where parties will figure out what they want to do next," Psaki said.
The Israeli and Palestinian leaders were quick to say they were open to resuming talks -- but only under certain conditions likely to be unacceptable to the other side.
"If we want to extend the negotiations there has to be a release of prisoners ... a settlement freeze, and a discussion of maps and borders for three months, during which there must be a complete halt to settlement activity," Abbas said.
But a senior Israeli government official said there would be no further talks unless Abbas renounced a reconciliation pact signed last week with Gaza's Islamist Hamas rulers.
- Back to square one -
Analysts said the end of the negotiating period meant the situation would simply go back to square one.
"We?re back to where we started," said Jonathan Spyer, senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Centre near Tel Aviv.
The Palestinians, he said, were likely to continue with their "strategy of political warfare" by seeking global recognition for their promised state, in a bid "to isolate Israel in international bodies and pressure it into making concessions".
Israel, Spyer said, was unlikely to make any sweeping gestures but merely seek to maintain the status quo by seeking to either "ignore, or reverse" the Palestinian diplomatic moves.
Other Israeli analysts said the collapse of the talks was a direct result of Israel's relentless settlement construction on land which was the subject of negotiations.
Figures published on Tuesday by settlement watchdog Peace Now showed that in parallel with the negotiations, the Israeli government approved plans for nearly 14,000 new settler homes, describing it as an "unprecedented number".
Meanwhile a mosque was among several Palestinian structures destroyed by the Israeli army Tuesday in a West Bank village for having been built without permits, concurring sources said.
- Poor choice of words -
As the curtain fell on the talks, Kerry found himself at the centre of a storm after reportedly saying that if Israel didn't seize the opportunity to make peace soon, it risked becoming an "apartheid state" with second-class citizens.
"Apartheid" refers to South Africa's 1948-1994 oppressive and racially segregated social system.
In an apology issued overnight, Kerry said he had never called Israel "an apartheid state" but he did not deny using the term, suggesting only that he used a poor choice of words.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat accused Netanyahu's government of using the talks as a cover to entrench its hold on the territories.
"Rather than using nine months to achieve a two-state solution, the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu has used every possible tool in order to consolidate its apartheid regime," he said.
In a apparent shift in the US policy, Psaki appeared to suggest that Washington may be prepared to accept a reconciliation government providing it stood by principles such as non-violence and recognising the state of Israel.
"If the unity government accepts certain principles, then it hasn't been our position to oppose that," Psaki said.
But she stressed: "They haven't indicated a desire to abide by the principles -- Hamas, that is."
However US lawmakers and officials warned Tuesday that Palestinian leaders risk forfeiting millions of dollars in US aid if they press ahead with plans to form a unity government including militant Hamas members.
"Let me be utterly clear about our policy towards Hamas," Assistant Secretary for the Near East Anne Patterson told a House hearing.
"No US governmental money will go into any government that includes Hamas until Hamas accepts the Quartet conditions. And that's renouncing violence, recognizing previous agreements and most explicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist."
US Secretary of State John Kerry has no regrets about the energy he poured into his failed Middle East peace bid and is ready to dive back in again if asked, US officials said.
As the final date for the nine-month negotiation period came and went on Tuesday, peace hopes appeared more remote than ever with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas locked in a tactical game of finger-pointing, and US attempts to broker an extension in tatters.
After more than a year of intensive shuttle diplomacy by Kerry, Washington was reluctant to admit failure, acknowledging only a "pause" in the dialogue.
"The original negotiating period was set to run until April 29th, today. There's nothing special about that date now," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters in Washington.
But Kerry has "no regrets about the time he spent investing in this process".
"We've reached a point... where a pause is necessary... a holding period, where parties will figure out what they want to do next," Psaki said.
The Israeli and Palestinian leaders were quick to say they were open to resuming talks -- but only under certain conditions likely to be unacceptable to the other side.
"If we want to extend the negotiations there has to be a release of prisoners ... a settlement freeze, and a discussion of maps and borders for three months, during which there must be a complete halt to settlement activity," Abbas said.
But a senior Israeli government official said there would be no further talks unless Abbas renounced a reconciliation pact signed last week with Gaza's Islamist Hamas rulers.
- Back to square one -
Analysts said the end of the negotiating period meant the situation would simply go back to square one.
"We?re back to where we started," said Jonathan Spyer, senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Centre near Tel Aviv.
The Palestinians, he said, were likely to continue with their "strategy of political warfare" by seeking global recognition for their promised state, in a bid "to isolate Israel in international bodies and pressure it into making concessions".
Israel, Spyer said, was unlikely to make any sweeping gestures but merely seek to maintain the status quo by seeking to either "ignore, or reverse" the Palestinian diplomatic moves.
Other Israeli analysts said the collapse of the talks was a direct result of Israel's relentless settlement construction on land which was the subject of negotiations.
Figures published on Tuesday by settlement watchdog Peace Now showed that in parallel with the negotiations, the Israeli government approved plans for nearly 14,000 new settler homes, describing it as an "unprecedented number".
Meanwhile a mosque was among several Palestinian structures destroyed by the Israeli army Tuesday in a West Bank village for having been built without permits, concurring sources said.
- Poor choice of words -
As the curtain fell on the talks, Kerry found himself at the centre of a storm after reportedly saying that if Israel didn't seize the opportunity to make peace soon, it risked becoming an "apartheid state" with second-class citizens.
"Apartheid" refers to South Africa's 1948-1994 oppressive and racially segregated social system.
In an apology issued overnight, Kerry said he had never called Israel "an apartheid state" but he did not deny using the term, suggesting only that he used a poor choice of words.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat accused Netanyahu's government of using the talks as a cover to entrench its hold on the territories.
"Rather than using nine months to achieve a two-state solution, the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu has used every possible tool in order to consolidate its apartheid regime," he said.
In a apparent shift in the US policy, Psaki appeared to suggest that Washington may be prepared to accept a reconciliation government providing it stood by principles such as non-violence and recognising the state of Israel.
"If the unity government accepts certain principles, then it hasn't been our position to oppose that," Psaki said.
But she stressed: "They haven't indicated a desire to abide by the principles -- Hamas, that is."
However US lawmakers and officials warned Tuesday that Palestinian leaders risk forfeiting millions of dollars in US aid if they press ahead with plans to form a unity government including militant Hamas members.
"Let me be utterly clear about our policy towards Hamas," Assistant Secretary for the Near East Anne Patterson told a House hearing.
"No US governmental money will go into any government that includes Hamas until Hamas accepts the Quartet conditions. And that's renouncing violence, recognizing previous agreements and most explicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist."
During a visit to the municipality of Hebron Tuesday, chairman of Italy’s Left Ecology Freedom party Nichi Vendola said he was angered upon seeing the “Palestinian people living in a big jail inside their homeland.”
Such a feeling, he added, should touch the conscience of all free people in the world and all advocates of justice and humanity.
Vendola added that as long as there are Israeli settlements on the Palestinian land, it will be pointless to talk about peace and negotiations.
The Italian politician, who is also president of Apulia region in southern Italy, added that the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah was one of the “best steps Palestinian president has taken recently.”
He also applauded president Abbas for his remarks about the Holocaust which “indicate that the Palestinian leadership wants peace.”
Vendola’s delegation, which met with the mayor of Hebron Dawood al-Zaatari, included lawmakers Arturo Scotto, Gennaro Migliore, Francesco Martone and the Italian consul general in Jerusalem Davide La Cecilia.
Former speaker of the Italian parliament Luisa Morgantini was also present at the meeting.
The mayor accompanied the delegation in a field visit to the Ibrahimi Mosque and the Old City so they could see firsthand the suffering of the residents at the hands of Israeli troops and settlers who live in the city.
Such a feeling, he added, should touch the conscience of all free people in the world and all advocates of justice and humanity.
Vendola added that as long as there are Israeli settlements on the Palestinian land, it will be pointless to talk about peace and negotiations.
The Italian politician, who is also president of Apulia region in southern Italy, added that the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah was one of the “best steps Palestinian president has taken recently.”
He also applauded president Abbas for his remarks about the Holocaust which “indicate that the Palestinian leadership wants peace.”
Vendola’s delegation, which met with the mayor of Hebron Dawood al-Zaatari, included lawmakers Arturo Scotto, Gennaro Migliore, Francesco Martone and the Italian consul general in Jerusalem Davide La Cecilia.
Former speaker of the Italian parliament Luisa Morgantini was also present at the meeting.
The mayor accompanied the delegation in a field visit to the Ibrahimi Mosque and the Old City so they could see firsthand the suffering of the residents at the hands of Israeli troops and settlers who live in the city.
By Saeb Erekat
Saeb Erekat is chief Palestinian negotiator for the PLO.
During nine months of negotiations, Israeli officials have constantly questioned our ability to make peace. World leaders visiting Tel Aviv have been faced with rhetorical questions like "Shall we make peace with Gaza or the West Bank?" or statements like "Mahmoud Abbas does not represent all Palestinians."
Last week, after we announced our national reconciliation agreement, Israel contradicted its own argument: suddenly peace was impossible due to Palestinian unity.
During the early 1980s, Israel's excuse was the Palestinian Liberation Organization's refusal to recognize Israel. In 1988, we recognized Israel on 78 percent of historical Palestine, a deeply difficult and historic concession. Twenty-six years later, the number of Israeli settlers within the remaining 22 percent has tripled. Next, Israel's excuse was lack of Arab recognition.
In 2002, the Arab League introduced the Arab Peace Initiative, offering recognition from 57 Arab- and Muslim-majority countries in exchange for Israel's respect for UN resolutions. Israel's response? More settlements. Most recently, the Israeli government came up with a further qualification -- that we should recognize Israel as a Jewish state, safe in the knowledge that this could not be accepted. Rather than being afraid of not being recognized, it seems Israel is afraid of recognition.
Today, Netanyahu and those representing him, including Lapid, Yaalon, Lieberman, Bennett and Ariel, are creating a new excuse to avoid the necessary decisions for peace. This Israeli government, which continues its settlement activities all over Palestine, is trying to blame national reconciliation for its own failure to choose peace over apartheid.
First and foremost, reconciliation is an internal affair. Not a single party in Netanyahu's government has recognized Palestine. Nor have we asked them to. Political parties do not recognize states. Governments do.
Secondly, reconciliation and negotiations are not mutually exclusive. Reconciliation is a mandatory step in order to reach a just and lasting peace. The agreement ratifies the PLO's legitimacy to negotiate with Israel, honors all Palestinian commitments and obligations towards international law and previous agreements and calls for the formation of a national consensus government comprising independent professionals. This government is not going to negotiate with Israel: its sole mandate will be to prepare for elections, provide services and build institutions.
Palestinian reconciliation can be rejected only by those who aim to perpetuate the status quo. This is precisely what the government of Israel has been doing during nine months of negotiations: killing 61 Palestinians, advancing more than 13,000 units in Israeli settlements, conducting almost 4,500 military operations on Palestinian land, demolishing 196 Palestinian homes and allowing more than 660 settler terror attacks against Palestinians.
Being consistent with its policies on the ground, Netanyahu's government has refused to recognize the 1967 border or even put a map on the table proposing Israel's idea of its final borders. Netanyahu has ensured that he is unable to do this by surrounding himself with the most extremist sectors in Israel, including the settler movement, from which he selected his foreign minister, housing minister and the Knesset speaker.
In fact, 28 out of 68 members of his government reject the two-state solution entirely, while others "accept it with reservations," meaning something very different to two states as stipulated under international law. Israel's claim that negotiations have been halted due to Palestinian reconciliation is completely disingenuous.
Frankly, it is difficult to understand how anyone could expect us to negotiate with such a government. And yet we have, in good faith, offering concession after concession for the sake of peace. Once again, we have held up our end of the bargain. Once again, the Israeli government has not. The truth is simple: Israel refuses to negotiate sincerely because, as long as the status quo is so beneficial to it, Israel has no interest in a solution. Without firm signals from the international community, Netanyahu's occupation and colonization policies are incentivized.
With Palestine's new international status, we will continue shaping our country as a peace-loving nation that respects human rights and international law, a commitment already assumed during the announcement of national reconciliation. This includes our right to make use of international forums in order to end Israeli violations and achieve the fulfillment of our long overdue rights.
Meanwhile, the ruling coalition of Israel should stop wasting its energy on excuses and start realizing that apartheid is not a sustainable option. Israel's rejection of Palestinian national unity has little to do with Hamas and a lot to do with its own unwillingness to do what is needed for a just and lasting peace.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect Ma'an News Agency's editorial policy.
Op-ed originally published in Time Magazine on April 29.
Saeb Erekat is chief Palestinian negotiator for the PLO.
During nine months of negotiations, Israeli officials have constantly questioned our ability to make peace. World leaders visiting Tel Aviv have been faced with rhetorical questions like "Shall we make peace with Gaza or the West Bank?" or statements like "Mahmoud Abbas does not represent all Palestinians."
Last week, after we announced our national reconciliation agreement, Israel contradicted its own argument: suddenly peace was impossible due to Palestinian unity.
During the early 1980s, Israel's excuse was the Palestinian Liberation Organization's refusal to recognize Israel. In 1988, we recognized Israel on 78 percent of historical Palestine, a deeply difficult and historic concession. Twenty-six years later, the number of Israeli settlers within the remaining 22 percent has tripled. Next, Israel's excuse was lack of Arab recognition.
In 2002, the Arab League introduced the Arab Peace Initiative, offering recognition from 57 Arab- and Muslim-majority countries in exchange for Israel's respect for UN resolutions. Israel's response? More settlements. Most recently, the Israeli government came up with a further qualification -- that we should recognize Israel as a Jewish state, safe in the knowledge that this could not be accepted. Rather than being afraid of not being recognized, it seems Israel is afraid of recognition.
Today, Netanyahu and those representing him, including Lapid, Yaalon, Lieberman, Bennett and Ariel, are creating a new excuse to avoid the necessary decisions for peace. This Israeli government, which continues its settlement activities all over Palestine, is trying to blame national reconciliation for its own failure to choose peace over apartheid.
First and foremost, reconciliation is an internal affair. Not a single party in Netanyahu's government has recognized Palestine. Nor have we asked them to. Political parties do not recognize states. Governments do.
Secondly, reconciliation and negotiations are not mutually exclusive. Reconciliation is a mandatory step in order to reach a just and lasting peace. The agreement ratifies the PLO's legitimacy to negotiate with Israel, honors all Palestinian commitments and obligations towards international law and previous agreements and calls for the formation of a national consensus government comprising independent professionals. This government is not going to negotiate with Israel: its sole mandate will be to prepare for elections, provide services and build institutions.
Palestinian reconciliation can be rejected only by those who aim to perpetuate the status quo. This is precisely what the government of Israel has been doing during nine months of negotiations: killing 61 Palestinians, advancing more than 13,000 units in Israeli settlements, conducting almost 4,500 military operations on Palestinian land, demolishing 196 Palestinian homes and allowing more than 660 settler terror attacks against Palestinians.
Being consistent with its policies on the ground, Netanyahu's government has refused to recognize the 1967 border or even put a map on the table proposing Israel's idea of its final borders. Netanyahu has ensured that he is unable to do this by surrounding himself with the most extremist sectors in Israel, including the settler movement, from which he selected his foreign minister, housing minister and the Knesset speaker.
In fact, 28 out of 68 members of his government reject the two-state solution entirely, while others "accept it with reservations," meaning something very different to two states as stipulated under international law. Israel's claim that negotiations have been halted due to Palestinian reconciliation is completely disingenuous.
Frankly, it is difficult to understand how anyone could expect us to negotiate with such a government. And yet we have, in good faith, offering concession after concession for the sake of peace. Once again, we have held up our end of the bargain. Once again, the Israeli government has not. The truth is simple: Israel refuses to negotiate sincerely because, as long as the status quo is so beneficial to it, Israel has no interest in a solution. Without firm signals from the international community, Netanyahu's occupation and colonization policies are incentivized.
With Palestine's new international status, we will continue shaping our country as a peace-loving nation that respects human rights and international law, a commitment already assumed during the announcement of national reconciliation. This includes our right to make use of international forums in order to end Israeli violations and achieve the fulfillment of our long overdue rights.
Meanwhile, the ruling coalition of Israel should stop wasting its energy on excuses and start realizing that apartheid is not a sustainable option. Israel's rejection of Palestinian national unity has little to do with Hamas and a lot to do with its own unwillingness to do what is needed for a just and lasting peace.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect Ma'an News Agency's editorial policy.
Op-ed originally published in Time Magazine on April 29.
The U.S. has warned the Palestinian Authority (PA) of projected aid freeze if they follow through with decisions to form a unity government comprising Hamas members. “No US governmental money will go into any government that includes Hamas,” Assistant Secretary for the Near East Anne Patterson told a House hearing last night.
“Until Hamas accepts the Quartet conditions, and that's renouncing violence, recognizing previous agreements and, above all, recognizing Israel's right to exist, no aid shall be provided to a Hamas-run government,” Patterson further maintained.
For his part Rep. Ted Deutch told the hearing into the budget priorities for the Middle East and North Africa: “No Palestinian government that includes terrorist members of Hamas will receive US funding."
Subcommittee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said the Palestinian reconciliation deal had "major implications" for the fiscal year 2015 budget, which begins in October.
The warnings come at a time when PLO and Hamas reconciliation delegations agree to turn the division chapter and form a consensus government to catch up on long years of unproductive contention.
But the move has been denounced by Israeli Occupation Authorities (IOA), which has imposed tough sanctions on the PA and cancelled its participation in the peace talks.
Hamas has been pigeonholed under the so-called Terrorism List since 1993 by the U.S administration which, quite observably, has been cheesed off by Hamas-Fatah reconciliation process.
“Until Hamas accepts the Quartet conditions, and that's renouncing violence, recognizing previous agreements and, above all, recognizing Israel's right to exist, no aid shall be provided to a Hamas-run government,” Patterson further maintained.
For his part Rep. Ted Deutch told the hearing into the budget priorities for the Middle East and North Africa: “No Palestinian government that includes terrorist members of Hamas will receive US funding."
Subcommittee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said the Palestinian reconciliation deal had "major implications" for the fiscal year 2015 budget, which begins in October.
The warnings come at a time when PLO and Hamas reconciliation delegations agree to turn the division chapter and form a consensus government to catch up on long years of unproductive contention.
But the move has been denounced by Israeli Occupation Authorities (IOA), which has imposed tough sanctions on the PA and cancelled its participation in the peace talks.
Hamas has been pigeonholed under the so-called Terrorism List since 1993 by the U.S administration which, quite observably, has been cheesed off by Hamas-Fatah reconciliation process.
29 apr 2014
By John V. Whitbeck
John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel.
When, in response to the threat of potential Palestinian reconciliation and unity, the Israeli government suspended "negotiations" with the Palestine Liberation Organization on April 24 (five days before they were due to terminate in any event), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued a statement asserting: "Instead of choosing peace, Abu Mazen formed an alliance with a murderous terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel."
In a series of related media appearances, Netanyahu hammered repeatedly on the "destruction of Israel" theme as a way of blaming Palestine for the predictable failure of the latest round of the seemingly perpetual "peace process."
The extreme subjectivity of the epithet "terrorist" has been highlighted by two recent absurdities -- the Egyptian military regime's labeling of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has won all Egyptian elections since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, as a "terrorist" organization and the labeling by the de facto Ukrainian authorities, who came to power through illegally occupying government buildings in Kiev, of those opposing them by illegally occupying government buildings in eastern Ukraine as "terrorists."
In both cases, those who have overthrown democratically elected governments are labeling those who object to their coups as "terrorists."
It is increasingly understood that the word "terrorist," which has no agreed-upon definition, is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning and that it is commonly abused by governments and others who apply it to whomever or whatever they hate in the hope of demonizing their adversaries, thereby discouraging and avoiding rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behavior.
Netanyahu's assertion that Hamas "calls for the destruction of Israel" requires rational analysis as well.
He is not the only guilty party in this regard. The mainstream media in the West habitually attaches the phrase "pledged to the destruction of Israel" to each first mention of Hamas, almost as though it were part of Hamas' name.
In the real world, what does the "destruction of Israel" actually mean? The land? The people? The ethno-religious-supremacist regime?
There can be no doubt that virtually all Palestinians -- and probably still a significant number of Native Americans -- wish that foreign colonists had never arrived in their homelands to ethnically cleanse them and take away their land and that some may even lay awake at night dreaming that they might, somehow, be able to turn back the clock or reverse history.
However, in the real world, Hamas is not remotely close to being in a position to cause Israel's territory to sink beneath the Mediterranean or to wipe out its population or even to compel the Israeli regime to transform itself into a fully democratic state pledged to equal rights and dignity for all who live there. It is presumably the latter threat -- the dreaded "bi-national state" -- that Netanyahu has in mind when he speaks of the "destruction of Israel."
For propaganda purposes, "destruction" sounds much less reasonable and desirable than "democracy" even when one is speaking about the same thing.
In the real world, Hamas has long made clear that notwithstanding its view that continuing negotiations within the framework of the American-monopolized "peace process" is pointless and a waste of time, it does not object to the PLO trying to reach a two-state agreement with Israel, provided only that, to be accepted and respected by Hamas, any agreement reached would need to be submitted to and approved by the Palestinian people in a referendum.
In the real world, the Hamas vision (like the Fatah vision) of peaceful coexistence in Israel-Palestine is much closer to the "international consensus" on what a permanent peace should look like, as well as to international law and relevant UN resolutions, than the Israeli vision -- to the extent that one can even discern the Israeli vision, since no Israeli government has ever seen fit to publicly reveal what its vision, if any exists beyond beyond maintaining and managing the status quo indefinitely, actually looks like.
As the Fatah and Hamas visions have converged in recent years, the principal divergence has become Hamas' insistence (entirely consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions) that Israel must withdraw from the entire territory of the State of Palestine as defined by the UN General Assembly resolution of Nov. 29, 2012, which recognizes Palestine's state status as "the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967," including, significantly, the definite article "the" missing from "withdraw from territories" in the arguably ambiguous UN Security Council Resolution 242, in contrast to Fatah's more flexible willingness to consider agreed land swaps equal in size and value.
After winning the last Palestinian elections and after seven years of responsibility for governing Gaza under exceptionally difficult circumstances, Hamas has become a relatively "moderate" establishment party, struggling to rein in more radical groups and prevent them from firing artisanal rockets into southern Israel, a counterproductive symbolic gesture which Israeli governments publicly condemn but secretly welcome, and often seek to incite in response to their own more lethal violence, as evidence of Palestinian belligerence justifying their own intransigence.
Netanyahu's "destruction of Israel" mantra should not be taken seriously, either by Western governments or by any thinking person.
It is long overdue for the Western mainstream media to cease recycling mindless -- and genuinely destructive -- propaganda and to adapt their reporting to reality, and it is long overdue for Western governments to cease demonizing Hamas as an excuse for doing nothing constructive to end a brutal occupation which has now endured for almost 47 years.
John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel.
When, in response to the threat of potential Palestinian reconciliation and unity, the Israeli government suspended "negotiations" with the Palestine Liberation Organization on April 24 (five days before they were due to terminate in any event), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued a statement asserting: "Instead of choosing peace, Abu Mazen formed an alliance with a murderous terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel."
In a series of related media appearances, Netanyahu hammered repeatedly on the "destruction of Israel" theme as a way of blaming Palestine for the predictable failure of the latest round of the seemingly perpetual "peace process."
The extreme subjectivity of the epithet "terrorist" has been highlighted by two recent absurdities -- the Egyptian military regime's labeling of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has won all Egyptian elections since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, as a "terrorist" organization and the labeling by the de facto Ukrainian authorities, who came to power through illegally occupying government buildings in Kiev, of those opposing them by illegally occupying government buildings in eastern Ukraine as "terrorists."
In both cases, those who have overthrown democratically elected governments are labeling those who object to their coups as "terrorists."
It is increasingly understood that the word "terrorist," which has no agreed-upon definition, is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning and that it is commonly abused by governments and others who apply it to whomever or whatever they hate in the hope of demonizing their adversaries, thereby discouraging and avoiding rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behavior.
Netanyahu's assertion that Hamas "calls for the destruction of Israel" requires rational analysis as well.
He is not the only guilty party in this regard. The mainstream media in the West habitually attaches the phrase "pledged to the destruction of Israel" to each first mention of Hamas, almost as though it were part of Hamas' name.
In the real world, what does the "destruction of Israel" actually mean? The land? The people? The ethno-religious-supremacist regime?
There can be no doubt that virtually all Palestinians -- and probably still a significant number of Native Americans -- wish that foreign colonists had never arrived in their homelands to ethnically cleanse them and take away their land and that some may even lay awake at night dreaming that they might, somehow, be able to turn back the clock or reverse history.
However, in the real world, Hamas is not remotely close to being in a position to cause Israel's territory to sink beneath the Mediterranean or to wipe out its population or even to compel the Israeli regime to transform itself into a fully democratic state pledged to equal rights and dignity for all who live there. It is presumably the latter threat -- the dreaded "bi-national state" -- that Netanyahu has in mind when he speaks of the "destruction of Israel."
For propaganda purposes, "destruction" sounds much less reasonable and desirable than "democracy" even when one is speaking about the same thing.
In the real world, Hamas has long made clear that notwithstanding its view that continuing negotiations within the framework of the American-monopolized "peace process" is pointless and a waste of time, it does not object to the PLO trying to reach a two-state agreement with Israel, provided only that, to be accepted and respected by Hamas, any agreement reached would need to be submitted to and approved by the Palestinian people in a referendum.
In the real world, the Hamas vision (like the Fatah vision) of peaceful coexistence in Israel-Palestine is much closer to the "international consensus" on what a permanent peace should look like, as well as to international law and relevant UN resolutions, than the Israeli vision -- to the extent that one can even discern the Israeli vision, since no Israeli government has ever seen fit to publicly reveal what its vision, if any exists beyond beyond maintaining and managing the status quo indefinitely, actually looks like.
As the Fatah and Hamas visions have converged in recent years, the principal divergence has become Hamas' insistence (entirely consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions) that Israel must withdraw from the entire territory of the State of Palestine as defined by the UN General Assembly resolution of Nov. 29, 2012, which recognizes Palestine's state status as "the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967," including, significantly, the definite article "the" missing from "withdraw from territories" in the arguably ambiguous UN Security Council Resolution 242, in contrast to Fatah's more flexible willingness to consider agreed land swaps equal in size and value.
After winning the last Palestinian elections and after seven years of responsibility for governing Gaza under exceptionally difficult circumstances, Hamas has become a relatively "moderate" establishment party, struggling to rein in more radical groups and prevent them from firing artisanal rockets into southern Israel, a counterproductive symbolic gesture which Israeli governments publicly condemn but secretly welcome, and often seek to incite in response to their own more lethal violence, as evidence of Palestinian belligerence justifying their own intransigence.
Netanyahu's "destruction of Israel" mantra should not be taken seriously, either by Western governments or by any thinking person.
It is long overdue for the Western mainstream media to cease recycling mindless -- and genuinely destructive -- propaganda and to adapt their reporting to reality, and it is long overdue for Western governments to cease demonizing Hamas as an excuse for doing nothing constructive to end a brutal occupation which has now endured for almost 47 years.
It is a mark of how upside-down Official Washington has become over facts and evidence that Secretary of State John Kerry, who has developed a reputation for making false and misleading statements about Syria and Russia, rushes to apologize when he speaks the truth about the danger from Israeli "apartheid."After public disclosure that he had said in a closed-door meeting of the Trilateral Commission last week that Israel risked becoming an "apartheid state," Kerry hastily apologized for his transgression, expressing his undying support for Israel and engaging in self-flagellation over his word choice.
"For more than 30 years in the United States Senate, I didn't just speak words in support of Israel," Mr. Kerry said in his statement. "I walked the walk when it came time to vote and when it came time to fight."
He then sought to clarify his position on the A-word: "First, Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that without a shred of doubt."
Kerry added: "If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution."
Kerry scurried to make this apology after his remark was reported by The Daily Beast and condemned by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which said: "Any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate."
The only problem with AIPAC's umbrage -- and with Kerry's groveling -- is that Israel has moved decisively in the direction of becoming an apartheid state in which Palestinians are isolated into circumscribed areas, often behind walls, and are tightly restricted in their movements, even as Israel continues to expand settlements into Palestinian territories.
Key members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud government have even advocated annexing the West Bank and confining Palestinians there to small enclaves, similar to what's already been done to the 1.6 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip where Israel tightly controls entrance of people and access to commodities, including building supplies.
In May 2011, Likud's deputy speaker Danny Danon outlined the annexation plan in a New York Times op-ed. He warned that if the Palestinians sought United Nations recognition for their own state on the West Bank, Israel should annex the territory. "We could then extend full Israeli jurisdiction to the Jewish communities [i.e., the settlements] and uninhabited lands of the West Bank," Danon wrote.
As for Palestinian towns, they would become mini-Gazas, cut off from the world and isolated as enclaves with no legal status. "Moreover, we would be well within our rights to assert, as we did in Gaza after our disengagement in 2005, that we are no longer responsible for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, who would continue to live in their own -- unannexed -- towns," Danon wrote.
By excluding these Palestinian ghettos, Jews would still maintain a majority in this Greater Israel. "These Palestinians would not have the option to become Israeli citizens, therefore averting the threat to the Jewish and democratic status of Israel by a growing Palestinian population," Danon wrote.
In other words, the Israeli Right appears headed toward a full-scale apartheid, if not a form of ethnic cleansing by willfully making life so crushing for the Palestinians that they have no choice but to leave.
Just days after Danon's op-ed, Netanyahu demonstrated his personal political dominance over the U.S. Congress by addressing a joint session at which Democrats and Republicans competed to see who could jump up fastest and applaud the loudest for everything coming out of the Israeli prime minister's mouth.
Netanyahu got cheers when he alluded to the religious nationalism that cites Biblical authority for Israel's right to possess the West Bank where millions of Palestinians now live. Calling the area by its Biblical names, Netanyahu declared, "in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers."
Though Netanyahu insisted that he was prepared to make painful concessions for peace, including surrendering some of this "ancestral Jewish homeland," his belligerent tone suggested that he was moving more down the route of annexation that Danon had charted. Now, with the predictable collapse of Kerry's peace talks, that road to an expanded apartheid system appears even more likely.
But apartheid already is a feature of Israeli society. As former CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar wrote in 2012...
"The Israeli version of apartheid is very similar in important respects to the South African version, and that moral equivalence ought to follow from empirical equivalence. Both versions have included grand apartheid, meaning the denial of basic political rights, and petty apartheid, which is the maintaining of separate and very unequal facilities and opportunities in countless aspects of daily life."Some respects in which Israelis may contend their situation is different, such as facing a terrorist threat, do not really involve a difference. The African National Congress, which has been the ruling party in South Africa since the end of apartheid there, had significant involvement in terrorism when it was confronting the white National Party government. That government also saw the ANC as posing a communist threat.
"A fitting accompaniment to the similarities between the two apartheid systems is the historical fact that when the South African system still existed, Israel was one of South Africa's very few international friends or partners. Israel was the only state besides South Africa itself that ever dealt with the South African bantustans as accepted entities. Israel cooperated with South Africa on military matters, possibly even to the extent of jointly conducting a secret test of a nuclear weapon in a remote part of the Indian Ocean in 1979."
Yet, Official Washington can't handle this truth, as the capital of the world's leading superpower has become a grim version of Alice's Wonderland in which speaking truth about the well-connected requires immediate apologies while telling half-truths and lies against "designated villains" makes you a proud member of the insider's club.
When Kerry makes belligerent claims about Syria and Russia -- even when his statements are later shown to be baseless or false -- there is not an ounce of pressure on him to issue a correction or apology. [See "John Kerry's Sad Circle to Deceit."] Yet, when he says something that is palpably true about Israel -- indeed a pale version of the ugly truth -- he cannot run fast enough to issue a clarification and beg forgiveness.
While Kerry and other longtime inhabitants of Official Washington have become accustomed to this madness -- this politicized disdain for reality -- their overly militarized fantasyland has become a nightmare for the rest of the planet.
"For more than 30 years in the United States Senate, I didn't just speak words in support of Israel," Mr. Kerry said in his statement. "I walked the walk when it came time to vote and when it came time to fight."
He then sought to clarify his position on the A-word: "First, Israel is a vibrant democracy and I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that without a shred of doubt."
Kerry added: "If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution."
Kerry scurried to make this apology after his remark was reported by The Daily Beast and condemned by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which said: "Any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate."
The only problem with AIPAC's umbrage -- and with Kerry's groveling -- is that Israel has moved decisively in the direction of becoming an apartheid state in which Palestinians are isolated into circumscribed areas, often behind walls, and are tightly restricted in their movements, even as Israel continues to expand settlements into Palestinian territories.
Key members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud government have even advocated annexing the West Bank and confining Palestinians there to small enclaves, similar to what's already been done to the 1.6 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip where Israel tightly controls entrance of people and access to commodities, including building supplies.
In May 2011, Likud's deputy speaker Danny Danon outlined the annexation plan in a New York Times op-ed. He warned that if the Palestinians sought United Nations recognition for their own state on the West Bank, Israel should annex the territory. "We could then extend full Israeli jurisdiction to the Jewish communities [i.e., the settlements] and uninhabited lands of the West Bank," Danon wrote.
As for Palestinian towns, they would become mini-Gazas, cut off from the world and isolated as enclaves with no legal status. "Moreover, we would be well within our rights to assert, as we did in Gaza after our disengagement in 2005, that we are no longer responsible for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, who would continue to live in their own -- unannexed -- towns," Danon wrote.
By excluding these Palestinian ghettos, Jews would still maintain a majority in this Greater Israel. "These Palestinians would not have the option to become Israeli citizens, therefore averting the threat to the Jewish and democratic status of Israel by a growing Palestinian population," Danon wrote.
In other words, the Israeli Right appears headed toward a full-scale apartheid, if not a form of ethnic cleansing by willfully making life so crushing for the Palestinians that they have no choice but to leave.
Just days after Danon's op-ed, Netanyahu demonstrated his personal political dominance over the U.S. Congress by addressing a joint session at which Democrats and Republicans competed to see who could jump up fastest and applaud the loudest for everything coming out of the Israeli prime minister's mouth.
Netanyahu got cheers when he alluded to the religious nationalism that cites Biblical authority for Israel's right to possess the West Bank where millions of Palestinians now live. Calling the area by its Biblical names, Netanyahu declared, "in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers."
Though Netanyahu insisted that he was prepared to make painful concessions for peace, including surrendering some of this "ancestral Jewish homeland," his belligerent tone suggested that he was moving more down the route of annexation that Danon had charted. Now, with the predictable collapse of Kerry's peace talks, that road to an expanded apartheid system appears even more likely.
But apartheid already is a feature of Israeli society. As former CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar wrote in 2012...
"The Israeli version of apartheid is very similar in important respects to the South African version, and that moral equivalence ought to follow from empirical equivalence. Both versions have included grand apartheid, meaning the denial of basic political rights, and petty apartheid, which is the maintaining of separate and very unequal facilities and opportunities in countless aspects of daily life."Some respects in which Israelis may contend their situation is different, such as facing a terrorist threat, do not really involve a difference. The African National Congress, which has been the ruling party in South Africa since the end of apartheid there, had significant involvement in terrorism when it was confronting the white National Party government. That government also saw the ANC as posing a communist threat.
"A fitting accompaniment to the similarities between the two apartheid systems is the historical fact that when the South African system still existed, Israel was one of South Africa's very few international friends or partners. Israel was the only state besides South Africa itself that ever dealt with the South African bantustans as accepted entities. Israel cooperated with South Africa on military matters, possibly even to the extent of jointly conducting a secret test of a nuclear weapon in a remote part of the Indian Ocean in 1979."
Yet, Official Washington can't handle this truth, as the capital of the world's leading superpower has become a grim version of Alice's Wonderland in which speaking truth about the well-connected requires immediate apologies while telling half-truths and lies against "designated villains" makes you a proud member of the insider's club.
When Kerry makes belligerent claims about Syria and Russia -- even when his statements are later shown to be baseless or false -- there is not an ounce of pressure on him to issue a correction or apology. [See "John Kerry's Sad Circle to Deceit."] Yet, when he says something that is palpably true about Israel -- indeed a pale version of the ugly truth -- he cannot run fast enough to issue a clarification and beg forgiveness.
While Kerry and other longtime inhabitants of Official Washington have become accustomed to this madness -- this politicized disdain for reality -- their overly militarized fantasyland has become a nightmare for the rest of the planet.
Israel approved plans for nearly 14,000 new settler homes during the nine months of peace talks with the Palestinians, an Israeli settlement watchdog said Tuesday as the negotiation period formally ended.
Figures quoted by Peace Now showed that during the talks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government approved at least 13,851 new housing through the advancement of plans and the publication of tenders.
"This is an unprecedented number representing an average of 50 housing units per day or 1,540 per month," it said.
"Netanyahu broke construction records during the nine-month peace talks," Peace Now head Yariv Oppenheimer told AFP.
Israel's ongoing settlement building has weighed heavily on the negotiation process, with the Palestinians infuriated by the relentless pace of new construction approvals on land they want for a future state.
They have demanded a complete settlement freeze as one of the key conditions for any return to the crisis-hit talks.
But Israel has flatly refused, with Netanyahu rejecting the notion that settlement building ran counter to peace efforts, saying he never agreed to any "restraints on construction" throughout the talks.
Figures quoted by Peace Now showed that during the talks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government approved at least 13,851 new housing through the advancement of plans and the publication of tenders.
"This is an unprecedented number representing an average of 50 housing units per day or 1,540 per month," it said.
"Netanyahu broke construction records during the nine-month peace talks," Peace Now head Yariv Oppenheimer told AFP.
Israel's ongoing settlement building has weighed heavily on the negotiation process, with the Palestinians infuriated by the relentless pace of new construction approvals on land they want for a future state.
They have demanded a complete settlement freeze as one of the key conditions for any return to the crisis-hit talks.
But Israel has flatly refused, with Netanyahu rejecting the notion that settlement building ran counter to peace efforts, saying he never agreed to any "restraints on construction" throughout the talks.
Washington's deadline for reaching a Mideast peace deal arrived Tuesday with no breakthrough and US Secretary of State John Kerry mired in a row over allegations that he said Israel risks becoming an "apartheid state."
After more than a year of intensive shuttle diplomacy by Kerry, with the initial aim of brokering a deal by April 29, Washington's patience appeared to be growing thin as both Israel and the Palestinians moved to distance themselves from the crisis-hit talks.
Kerry on Monday vehemently denied calling Israel an apartheid state, as a furor grew in Israel over comments the top US diplomat reportedly made during a private meeting.
"I do not believe, not have I ever stated, publicly or privately that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one," Kerry said in a strong statement after calls for him to resign or at least apologize for the alleged comments, which appeared on US online news site The Daily Beast.
But Kerry, who has seen his dogged efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians collapse, did suggest that he had used a poor choice of words during his speech Friday to international political experts at the Trilateral Commission.
Kerry insisted that although the peace process was at a point of "confrontation and hiatus," it was not dead -- yet.
But both the Palestinians and the Israelis appear to have drawn their own conclusions about the life expectancy of the US-led negotiations, which have made no visible progress since they began nine months ago.
Last week, Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip announced a surprise unity deal aimed at ending years of occasionally violent rivalry.
Israel denounced the deal as a death blow to peace hopes and said it would not negotiate with any government backed by Hamas, the Islamist movement whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Washington called the deal "unhelpful."
Under the agreement, the PLO and Hamas will work to establish a new unity government of political independents headed by president Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah party dominates the PLO.
Abbas has said the new government will recognize Israel, as well as renouncing violence and abiding by existing agreements, in line with key principles set out by the Mideast peacemaking Quartet.
But Netanyahu has ruled out any negotiation with the new government unless Hamas gives up its vision of destroying Israel.
Poor choice of words
Kerry, speaking at a closed-door meeting of international experts, reportedly said that if Israel didn't seize the opportunity to make peace soon, it risked becoming an "apartheid state" with second-class citizens.
"Apartheid" refers to South Africa's 1948-1994 oppressive and racially segregated social system.
The Daily Beast website said it had been given a recording of Kerry's speech, which led one Republican senator to call for his resignation.
Kerry has "repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to countenance a world in which Israel is made a pariah," said Senator Ted Cruz.
Kerry should offer his resignation and President Barack Obama should accept it, Cruz added, "before any more harm is done to our national security interests and our critical alliance with the state of Israel."
Israeli Transport Minister Israel Katz, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rightwing Likud party, expressed outrage at Kerry's reported comments.
"Kerry, shame on you. There are some words you cannot use," he wrote on his Facebook page.
"On this day of national commemoration of the Holocaust, we have the US secretary of state describing us as an apartheid state -- us, the state which is subjected to threats of destruction."
'Israel must act intelligently'
Meanwhile, in remarks in Gaza on Monday, Mussa Abu Marzuk, a Cairo-based top Hamas leader, reaffirmed that the unity government would "not be political."
He said its mandate would be primarily to prepare for elections within six months, restructuring the security services, and overseeing the reconstruction of the battered Gaza Strip.
Tzahi Hanegbi, an MP close to Netanyahu, told army radio that Israel should "wait to understand the meaning" of the Palestinian unity deal.
"Israel must act intelligently and with restraint, and not play into the Palestinians' hands by helping them out of the trap into which they have fallen," he said.
Israel and Washington are reportedly at odds over the proposed new Palestinian government, with US officials waiting to see whether it will embrace the Quartet's principles.
After more than a year of intensive shuttle diplomacy by Kerry, with the initial aim of brokering a deal by April 29, Washington's patience appeared to be growing thin as both Israel and the Palestinians moved to distance themselves from the crisis-hit talks.
Kerry on Monday vehemently denied calling Israel an apartheid state, as a furor grew in Israel over comments the top US diplomat reportedly made during a private meeting.
"I do not believe, not have I ever stated, publicly or privately that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one," Kerry said in a strong statement after calls for him to resign or at least apologize for the alleged comments, which appeared on US online news site The Daily Beast.
But Kerry, who has seen his dogged efforts to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians collapse, did suggest that he had used a poor choice of words during his speech Friday to international political experts at the Trilateral Commission.
Kerry insisted that although the peace process was at a point of "confrontation and hiatus," it was not dead -- yet.
But both the Palestinians and the Israelis appear to have drawn their own conclusions about the life expectancy of the US-led negotiations, which have made no visible progress since they began nine months ago.
Last week, Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip announced a surprise unity deal aimed at ending years of occasionally violent rivalry.
Israel denounced the deal as a death blow to peace hopes and said it would not negotiate with any government backed by Hamas, the Islamist movement whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Washington called the deal "unhelpful."
Under the agreement, the PLO and Hamas will work to establish a new unity government of political independents headed by president Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah party dominates the PLO.
Abbas has said the new government will recognize Israel, as well as renouncing violence and abiding by existing agreements, in line with key principles set out by the Mideast peacemaking Quartet.
But Netanyahu has ruled out any negotiation with the new government unless Hamas gives up its vision of destroying Israel.
Poor choice of words
Kerry, speaking at a closed-door meeting of international experts, reportedly said that if Israel didn't seize the opportunity to make peace soon, it risked becoming an "apartheid state" with second-class citizens.
"Apartheid" refers to South Africa's 1948-1994 oppressive and racially segregated social system.
The Daily Beast website said it had been given a recording of Kerry's speech, which led one Republican senator to call for his resignation.
Kerry has "repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to countenance a world in which Israel is made a pariah," said Senator Ted Cruz.
Kerry should offer his resignation and President Barack Obama should accept it, Cruz added, "before any more harm is done to our national security interests and our critical alliance with the state of Israel."
Israeli Transport Minister Israel Katz, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rightwing Likud party, expressed outrage at Kerry's reported comments.
"Kerry, shame on you. There are some words you cannot use," he wrote on his Facebook page.
"On this day of national commemoration of the Holocaust, we have the US secretary of state describing us as an apartheid state -- us, the state which is subjected to threats of destruction."
'Israel must act intelligently'
Meanwhile, in remarks in Gaza on Monday, Mussa Abu Marzuk, a Cairo-based top Hamas leader, reaffirmed that the unity government would "not be political."
He said its mandate would be primarily to prepare for elections within six months, restructuring the security services, and overseeing the reconstruction of the battered Gaza Strip.
Tzahi Hanegbi, an MP close to Netanyahu, told army radio that Israel should "wait to understand the meaning" of the Palestinian unity deal.
"Israel must act intelligently and with restraint, and not play into the Palestinians' hands by helping them out of the trap into which they have fallen," he said.
Israel and Washington are reportedly at odds over the proposed new Palestinian government, with US officials waiting to see whether it will embrace the Quartet's principles.
