The Return of the Kurtzer Curse

Daniel Kurtzer, the bad boy, returns to curse.

In the NYTimes, he provides are twisted explanation, mendacious and lacking in the whole picture for the apparent failure of the latest Obama effort to move peace negotiations along.

As reported:

In the short run, analysts said the failure raised questions about Mr. Netanyahu’s capacity to negotiate a final deal.

“It revealed a degree of weakness in his coalition,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel. “This was such an attractive deal for him, but he still couldn’t get his cabinet to buy into it without attaching conditions to it that were unacceptable to Washington.”

Well, (a) there is the possibility that Netanyahu was exhibiting strength and protercting Israel from an American administration whose policies are inimical, in the long run, for Israel; (b) in Israel, coalitions are the democratic process that provides a sort of 'Congressional review' that is lacking in the powers of the Knesset; (c) it was Washingtion, or, to be specific, Obama, that backtracked and first left Hillary Clinton hanging out to dry to rescinding any authorization for the offer she made Bibi and then refused later on to commit itself to the offer - besides the worthlessness of the offer; and (d) Israel, in accepting the offer, would have become but a banana republic and that's not good to anyone, Israelis or Americans.

But what of the Pals.? Are they a part of this? demanding the moratorium include Jerusalem?

It was the reporter, though, Mark Landler, that provided balance:

But the Palestinians also shifted their position, insisting that a settlement freeze must include East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank. Israel’s initial 10-month moratorium included only the West Bank. The United States never asked Mr. Netanyahu to expand it to Jerusalem, and analysts said Mr. Netanyahu would never have been able to persuade his right-wing cabinet to go along with it.

There were also deeply divergent views about what the two sides would discuss during the 90 days, officials said. The Palestinians wanted the talks to focus tightly on the borders of a future Palestinian state. Mr. Netanyahu resisted that, saying the two sides must discuss the full gamut of issues rather than just borders.

Of course, being a biased and unblanced newspaper on issues related to Israel, the two other 'analysts' include a J Streeter:

“If it encourages that more comprehensive review, then it’s not a bad thing,” said Daniel Levy, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation.

David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said, “It’s the end of a phase for the administration: ‘We’re not focusing on the appetizers anymore; we’re focusing on the main course.’ ”

^