Arlene Kushner on Expectations As John Kerry Visits Israel Again

From Arlene Kushner:
June 28, 2013

And Here We Go

Secretary of State Kerry is convinced that it's necessary to make progress with negotiations before September, when the UN convenes for the new season.  Otherwise, goes his reasoning, Abbas will go to the UN with more unilateral plans.

Well, sorry about that.  Israel cannot negotiate by herself, or concede what should not be conceded, to stop Abbas's UN shenanigans.

~~~~~~~~~~
Earlier in June, Kerry addressed the American Jewish Committee Global Forum in Washington, and explained to his Jewish audience how serious the consequences would be if no deal were to be reached:

“Think about what could happen next door.  The Palestinian Authority has committed itself to a policy of nonviolence. … Up until recently, not one Israeli died from anything that happened from the West Bank until there was a settler killed about a month ago.

Mideast Media Sampler 12/30/11:Sorting The Peace Process, Collateral Damage

by DG:

1) What peace process?

Shmuel Rosner writes in Peace? Process? in the New York Times:

One can see this change as a sign that Israelis have gotten too used to the current — and supposedly unsustainable — situation with the Palestinians, and now foolishly believe the status quo can last forever. Or perhaps it’s a sign that they see little point in debating a topic about which they generally agree: a decent peace deal for most of the occupied land (with many devils in the details). Or maybe they’re just tired of rehashing what has become a very boring issue with no new angles to discover and no new arguments to chew on.

A Strategy for Israel in the Changed Middle East

The following is a summary of the article A Strategy for Israel in the Changed Middle East, written by Efraim Halevy--former head of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002.

A Strategy for Israel in the Changed Middle East

 

Efraim Halevy

• The options for Israel and the Palestinians basically can be boiled down to these: a permanent agreement, an interim agreement, a de facto interim agreement, and a situation of no agreement. The best possible option - a permanent agreement - is not operable at this time and is the least probable.

Has Obama Endorsed The 2004 Bush Letter To Sharon?

The issue of using the 1967 lines as borders in the negotiations between Israel and the Arabs in Judea and Samaria has been a point of contention--especially since the Obama administration has explicitly refused to recognize the letter of agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon in April 2004:

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

The Obama administration argued that the letter was never formally recognized as official US policy.

Apparently now it has.

It is now being reported that Netanyahu is saying that the Obama administration has ratified George Bush's 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon guaranteeing settlement blocs will remain part of Israel in any future peace deal: