Kerry's CNN For the Record with Amanpour

On CNN with London-born, Muslim-raised and Teheran-educated (more on this later) Christiane Amanpour:

QUESTION: I want to stay in the Middle East. You did so much shuttle diplomacy. Basically, yet another administration has not brought peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah, I --

QUESTION: Donald Trump says this is going to be his priority and that his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is an Orthodox Jew, will be a great negotiator and make a peace deal.

While it is fair to note that Kushner is an Orthodox Jew, to make sure we're fair all around, I thought to note Amanpour's personal background as well. In fact, we can add that she is married to a Jew by birth, American James Rubin.

To continue:

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, more power to them if they can do that, Christiane. But you have to have a theory of how you’re going to do that and what compromises are going to be made to do it. I assure you --

QUESTION: Were you wrong about the settlements and --

Now if I was the interviewer, I'd ask Mr. Kerry: "what compromises to you expect the Palestinian Authority to make?  Territories, because isn't the game "territorial compromise"?  

Or, perhaps, the PA needs to fulfill commitments they signed in previous agreements that until today that have not fully carried out?

More:

SECRETARY KERRY: I assure you – let me just make this so clear – that when you say another administration has failed to do this – no, no. The leaders of the two countries involved – one country and one entity, the Palestinian Authority – have failed to come to the table and reach agreement. You know the old saying – you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink. Now, we did a lot of leading to a lot of water, but people decided they weren’t ready for one reason or another to move. Now --

QUESTION: And one reason or another is what you described --

SECRETARY KERRY: And that is one of the reasons why we at the United Nations made the decision we made, because we believe that Israel has a major choice and the Palestinians have a major choice. The choice we put to Israel is if you want to be a Jewish state and you want to be a democracy, you cannot be a unitary state. And right now, they’re marching down the road, because of the increased settlements, because of the absence of a legitimate negotiation, towards that possibility. And all we’re trying to do --

Why not ask: "well, why can't they be a 'unitary state'? Are you sure the demographics are negative?"

QUESTION: So you said --

SECRETARY KERRY: -- is speak as a good, good, solid best friend of Israel. And we’ve done more for this government, more for Israel, than any other administration with the Iron Dome and the $38 billion --

QUESTION: Do you think they’re ungrateful? Do you think Prime Minister Netanyahu is ungrateful?

SECRETARY KERRY: No, I’m not characterizing it in any way whatsoever except to say that it – we speak out of a caring and concern for Israel as a democratic and Jewish state, and we also speak out of concern for the Palestinians, who will not be able to satisfy their aspirations ever without the ability to be able to create a state. So both have a huge interest in being able to move this forward, and we wish the administration coming in all the luck in the world if they find a different formula that will actually work. But I will be stunned if the Arab world writ large and the Palestinians in particular – because everybody has said the parties have to arrive at an agreement – I guarantee you the Palestinians are not going to agree to less than a state based on 1967 lines with swaps. They’re just not going to do that.

Did she do a follow-up and ask: if the end is a state based on the 1967 lines with swaps, what compromise is that? After all, they started the 1967 war with the terror campaign of the PLO beginning on January 1, 1965? 

Did she ask him about Israel and Iran?

No, she didn't.

Another empty Amanpour interview.

^

Kerry's "Jewish" and "Democratic" State

In his remarks on December 28, 2016, John Kerry, United States Secretary of State addressed the Arab-Israel conflict and the lack the the achievement of peace.

Paying close attention to his words, I noticed that he mentioned the term "Jewish" twelve times and "democratic" nine times and together, as the "Jewish and democratic state", twice and once as "Jewish democratic".

I picked them out:

That’s what we were standing up for: Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state

if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace. 

Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish democratic state of Israel living in peace and security with its neighbors? Because that is really what is at stake.

And here are mention of Israel's Jewish identity:

Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts to legitimize [sic. that should be delegitimize'] their state and question the right of a Jewish state to exist.

Nearly 70 years ago, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 finally paved the way to making the State of Israel a reality. The concept was simple: to create two states for two peoples – one Jewish, one Arab – to realize the national aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians. 

Principle two: Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab

Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the U.S. position for years

That’s why it is so important that in recognizing each other’s homeland – Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people – both sides reaffirm their commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective citizens.

There is one odd, even strange, use of 'democratic':

And we understand that in a final status agreement, certain settlements would become part of Israel to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 49 years – we understand that – including the new democratic demographic realities that exist on the ground. 

That, I think could be a result of Kerry's meandering of mind and tongue although it could indicate that Kerry is quite well aware that the decisions to revitalize Jewish life in the historic regions of the Jewish homeland was done through a very democratic process in that election after election, governments were established, except in very short time periods, that all supported, encouraged and engaged in activities that increased the Jewish population in Judea and Samaria and, until 2005, in Gaza as well.

Incidentally, refugees are mentioned in a formulation that actually disengages the issue from the existence of Israel in this way:

Provide for a just, agreed, fair, and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance, that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering, and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples...The international community can provide significant support and assistance. I know we are prepared to do that, including in raising money to help ensure the compensation and other needs of the refugees

That set off the PLO's Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi who declared on television: 

"The six principles that [US Secretary of State John] Kerry presented are undeniable Zionist principles that serve Israeli interests...he said 'a Jewish state,' giving them [Israel] a great prize. We have refused and still refuse to say that Israel is a Jewish state... Even on the issue of the refugees, he [Kerry] automatically denied them the right of return, and said that it is necessary to reach a just solution of compensation and resettling and the like. In other words, there is no right of return."  [Official PA TV, State of Politics, Jan. 3, 2017]

Of course, Jewish refugees were not included in his speech.

But getting back to the issue of Kerry deciding for Israel what "Jewish" and "democratic" mean and why they are important, we can note there also her words

he said 'a Jewish state,' giving them [Israel] a great prize

Prize?  Or a simple recognition of what Israel is?

On January 6, in an interview, Kerry returned to that matter and expounded:

I believe in the state of Israel’s dream to be the democracy and the Jewish state it wants to be. But the simple reality is you cannot be a unitary, one state, with more non-Jews than Jews and remain a democracy or a Jewish state. It’s impossible. You can’t do it. David, Ben Gurion, the first president of Israel, said that. Rabin said it... moving towards a single state without resolving this two-state issue, which is why everybody has supported it until today, is leading Israel to a very dangerous place of perpetual conflict and it will not be a Jewish state.

Besides being contradicted by Ashrawi, I would wish to point out the chutzpah of someone defining for us Jews what is 'Jewish" and how that state is to be as a 'democratic' one.  I am sure Kerry is predicating himself of J Street's ideology, among other left-wing Jewish groups, as well as Peter Beinart's thinking, most more radical than the next.

I could argue that the demographic outlook is not as Kerry thinks it is and that his projected minority status or threatened minority status are in error.

But is think it could be summed up so:

Dear American Jewish Liberal-Progressives:

You Can Be Either Jewish

or Liberal.

You Cannot Be Both.

Let's make that a poster:

Of course, that is as true as they intend their slogan of "Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both" is.  They cannot have it both ways.

They have moved far off the Jewish quotient scale and have supplanted their liberalism, what is actually a universal assimilationist progressivism, as have Jews before them, for a foreign ideology which is destructive to Zionism, the Jewish national movement.

Those who join them risk losing their Judaism, no matter how they define it in practical religious terms.  They are 'lost at sea'.  They do not realize, or refuse to do so or worse, reject, that Israel and its Zionism is their anchor.

______________

Tangentally, here is Melanie Phillips on "Real liberals must shun Palestinian colonialism".

And something similar.

^

Kerry Demands "All Three" in Jerusalem

As Jordan announces officially (h/t=IMRA), its government via State Minister for Media Affairs Mohammad Momani, 

strongly condemned Israel for allowing settlers [are all Jews "settlers"?] to enter the courtyards of Al Aqsa Mosque-Haram Al Sharif in occupied East Jerusalem, saying it violates the sanctity of the mosque, and harms the feelings [what about Jewish feelings harmed by Muslim behavior and attitude?] of Muslims worldwide.

...the Jordanian Government, holds Israel, as an occupying power, responsible for any violations against Al Aqsa Mosque-Haram Al Sharif.  Momani, who is also the government spokesperson, said any attempt by Israelis to storm or enter the Haram Al Sharif compound, is illegal [like living in the Land of Israel?] and an aggressive act against Islamic holy places and the feelings of Muslims.

And

The minister also reaffirmed Jordan's stance on maintaining the status quo at Al Aqsa Mosque/Haram Al Sharif.

Actually, he was echoing John Kerry's remarks this past week:

...Principle four: Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.

Now, Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides, and the solution will have to meet the needs not only of the parties, but of all three monotheistic faiths. That is why the holy sites that are sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and remain accessible and the established status quo maintained. 

Not only is that "status quo" discriminatory and basically a fiction, but Kerry inserted internationalization again, asserting that the solution to Jerusalem must meet the needs 

of all three monotheistic faiths

This is an invidious return to November 29, 1947 and to allow the Arabs, once again, to point to a basis of diplomacy that will enable them to wrench all of Jerusalem from Israel's sovereignty and to submit Judaism's religiously historical ties in the city and to the city and its sacred places to an equal footing to other religions.

It's a throwback to the 1928-1929 dispute in essence.

I hope Israel's diplomats and world Jewish  leadership pay careful attention to this sleight-of-words.

UPDATE

Consider this from 2010.

And this map.

On the idea of a 'holy zone, see here.

And here.

UPDATE

Some have noted to me that this is actually "old news".

While factually correct, the point is that:

a. some of us who know that history do not know that people under 30 simply do not.  it's new news to them. 

b. Jerusalem is a great wedge instrument on our behalf. speaking of "division", any "division", more (all the "East" from the "West") or less (only the Holy Basin) works to our advantage.

c. the point is that actually SC 2334 + Kerry's speech was a double division. 1st - east/west and 2nd - Holy Basin which becomes internationalized. once we can highlight subterfuge and sneak diplomacy, that is, SC saying one thing and US policy statement taking that and furthering the lessening of Israel's connection to, not to speak of administration of, Jerusalem gives us a leverage.

^

What Did Kerry Just Imply?

At the Saban Conference:

MR GOLDBERG: You know how hard it is to move 10,000, 8,000 settlers from Gaza. You’re talking about 90,000 --
SECRETARY KERRY: But they don’t all have to move necessarily depending on what the solution is, depending on what you choose to have as your outcome. 

Some other quotables:

MR GOLDBERG: Why don’t you have any leverage with the Israeli Government? Why do you – what – you’re describing a situation in which you have zero leverage.
SECRETARY KERRY: I think we do – I think we do have leverage --
MR GOLDBERG: But they never listen to you.
SECRETARY KERRY: No, they don’t, and they haven’t listened on settlements, that’s correct – hasn’t been listened to on settlements.

---

Kerry: I remember Shimon Peres, the wonderfully eloquent, incredibly gifted and committed Shimon Peres saying to me as recently as two months before he passed away, I think 22 percent [of the former Mandate area less Transjordan] is fair and that’s enough; we can’t ask for more.

---

Goldberg: ...  you’re asking us to begin a process of withdrawing from territory that overlooks Ben Gurion International Airport, that wants to turn over territory to a weak and divided Palestinian Government.
SECRETARY KERRY: Nobody --
MR GOLDBERG: What’s the – what is your --
SECRETARY KERRY: No, Jeff. No, no, no, no, no. Nobody has ever suggested there should be a turnover to a weak and divided and (inaudible).
MR GOLDBERG: But the reality is it’s a weak and divided Palestinian entity right now.
SECRETARY KERRY: It is today, but nobody is talking about a turnover today. This is something that’s going to take time. We’ve always acknowledged that. We’ve always said to Prime Minister Netanyahu this is going to take years of work to evolve. Nobody is talking about something happening tomorrow or next year, in three years. It has to happen with the assurance that you’re not turning the West Bank into Gaza. 

---

Kerry:  if I showed you a map, and I have this map that shows all the sectors of where the violence has been in Israel and in the territories. And you will see that it’s where the settlements are. That’s where most of the violence is. Now, there are other incidences of violences that come into Tel Aviv and into Jerusalem and other places, but there’s a huge amount of violence out there and some of it, as you know, has been settler on Palestinian, Palestinian on settler. So that obviously is having an impact on people’s perceptions of peace and on rights.

---

 ^

Egypt's Sisi and the Temple Mount

Sisi?

"We are particularly grateful to Jordan for its efforts which came out of the meeting that I held just about a year ago regarding the tensions in Jerusalem at the Haram al-Sharif, the Temple Mount compound. And we talked about that a little bit today, and need to continue to make progress. But that came out of an important meeting between the Prime Minister of Israel, His Majesty, Foreign Minister Judeh, and myself, and a telephone call at the time from President el-Sisi."

Sisi?

From Secretary J. Kerry's Remarks: Press Availability with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh on February 21, 2016.

My questions:

a. why did Netanyahu permit Sisi's involvement?

b. what did Sisi promise Netanyahu?

c. what did Netanyahu yield?

d. where are the cameras?

e. what happened to the halt in incitement?

“It is time for the international community to tell President Abbas to stop spreading lies that Israel wants to change the status quo or destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. We are the ones who maintain the status quo and protect the holy sites in Jerusalem. We defend ourselves like every democracy would do in the face of such terror attacks. To generate hope we need to stop terror and in order to stop terror we need to stop incitement,” Netanyahu said.

What was going on and what is going on?

^

Biblical Diplomacy Suggested?

From a review of Secretary John Kerry's latest efforts:

Netanyahu and Abbas both doubled down on their positions and refused to take even the most minimal step to restore calm,..Kerry’s meeting with Abbas was no better. Sources briefed on it said Abbas refused to take even minimal confidence-building measures like condemning stabbing attacks, or at least not voicing support for the perpetrators. Abbas kept asking what Kerry had brought him from Netanyahu, and when he realized the answer was nothing, he began threatening to turn the keys of the PA over to Israel or start new diplomatic and legal campaigns against Israel at the United Nations.Afterward, Kerry phoned Netanyahu while en route to the airport and told him, “I’m out of ideas,” a source briefed on the conversation said.
The White House had already concluded that Netanyahu and Abbas were a lost cause, but now, Kerry’s aides are coming to the same conclusion.
“Our begging and pleading isn’t helping,” one American official said. “Maybe what’s needed is simply for the situation on the ground to force the sides to take action.”

2 Samuel 2:14 

And Abner said to Joab: 'Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and play before us.' And Joab said: 'Let them arise.'

^

Netanyahu to Kerry: First Fire The Official Who Called Me Chickenshit

Remember this:

The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors...

Well, Netanyahu may be telling Kerry, that guy gets identified and fired first.  And second, he wants to know who called him

Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” 

and only then he'll deal with Ran Baratz. 

As for this:

"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said of Netanyahu, according to the website.Obama replied, "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day," the site reported.Arret Sur Images ("Freeze Frame") said journalists had listened in on the conversation but had agreed not to report it. The Reuters and Associated Press news services confirmed that report Tuesday

Netanyahu already dealt with that.


_____________________

UPDATE (h/t=DG)


Why Baratz may think Kerry is an 'idiot'.

^

Status Quo Violated by...Kerry's Cameras

Reported that Hanan Ashrawi has declared:

“The placement of cameras in the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not only a violation of the status quo;..."

So, it's official:

Palestinian officials rejected a U.S.-backed plan to install surveillance cameras at a Jerusalem shrine 

Lowenstein is  the Acting Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations and his State Dept. page is empty.  So symbolic.

More details.

_______

In Jordan they are calling the cameras a 'trap' - "الفخ الجديد"،  And that

وتمارس إسرائيل الخداع حيال مصطلح "الوضع القائم" وتعتبر أنه يعني الحفاظ على الوضع الحالي وشرعنة اقتحامات المستوطنين، 

or,

Israel is practicing deception about the term "status quo", that it means maintaining the status quo and legitimize the incursions of settlers,

And this

ن الكاميرات ستكون تحت مراقبة دائرة الأوقاف الإسلامية 

 The cameras will be under the control of the Islamic Waqf

And in addition to Ashrawi:

Many Palestinians, however, were not enthusiastic about the security camera idea, a move that Israeli police have sought for years. "It is an additional trap to arrest Palestinians on charges of incitement," Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Malki said.

And now, an update from the State Dept. Press Briefing:

QUESTION: The question is: Is the Secretary satisfied by the response to what he announced in Jordan and what the prime minister then later said in his statement?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: So there has been more violence, however, since those events. At least two more Palestinians have been killed. At least one more Israeli citizen, I believe, has been killed. And so it hasn’t led to any immediate easing in the violence, one; and two, the Palestinians have – at least the Palestinian Authority has reacted quite negatively to the notion of 24/7 cameras, saying that they fear that the Israelis will simply use this to surveil their people and arrest those who they think may be troublemakers, whether they are or not. So why is he satisfied when the violence hasn’t been reduced quickly and when the Palestinians – at least, their foreign minister and Saeb Erekat – seem quite hostile to the idea of the cameras?

MR KIRBY: Well, that he’s satisfied with his comments should be self-evident, because he made them. That he’s satisfied with the prime minister’s comments – I think that’s beyond dispute. He welcomes the comments the prime minister made Saturday night as useful. But that he is – that he welcomes those comments or that he’s – and he’s satisfied by those statements doesn’t mean that he is satisfied by the potential for more violence and by the actual events of the last couple of days. I mean, he also said on Saturday – and I know you heard him say that the violence has to stop, that there’s no – there can be no excuse for the taking – the deliberate taking of innocent life – that it needs to stop. And so he remains concerned about reports that he continues to see about violence there and, as I said earlier, wants all sides to do what they can to try to bring it to an end.

So yes, satisfied by the productive discussions he had, by the statements that were given, but certainly not satisfied that we’re near the end of conflict here just in terms of Israel, West Bank, and especially Jerusalem.

QUESTION: How about the Palestinian response to – particularly to what he described as the excellent suggestion from Jordan’s King Abdullah for the video monitoring? I mean, I realize that Israel has overall control of the site. I realize that Jordan is the custodian of the site. But most of the people, I would imagine, who pray at the site are Palestinians. I mean, I’m sure there are non-Palestinian Muslims who go there, but most of them, one would imagine, are Palestinians. So presumably, they should have some kind of a voice here, and it doesn’t sound like the Palestinian Authority is – I mean, it’s clear that they are very hostile to this idea of cameras. So --

MR KIRBY: Well, I’ll let the Palestinian Authority speak for itself. I can tell you that, broadly speaking, the Secretary found his conversation with President Abbas to be helpful and to be constructive, and he was grateful for the opportunity to have that discussion. So I’ll let them – let those Palestinians who have a different view on the closed-circuit television camera coverage that we talked about – I’ll let them speak to that. But the Secretary continues to believe that it was a very helpful suggestion by King Abdullah and that it will help increase the prospect for transparency from all sides and for all sides to have this kind of footage available for the public to see 24 hours a day. That’s – that has the potential to be useful, I think, in terms of at least increasing the transparency about what’s going on and potentially, hopefully, having a persuasive effect on discouraging any more violence.

QUESTION: One last one from me on this, if I may. The Secretary had said that there would be technical discussions fairly soon between the Jordanian Waqf and Israeli authorities about the cameras. We are quoting an Israeli official today as saying that the idea would be that the footage would be available to the Israeli Government and to the Jordanian Government but says nothing about it being publicly available. So that’s one question: Is it publicly available or not?

The second question is: Is it just for the Israelis and the Jordanians? The – or might the Palestinians also be able to see it if it’s not available widely to the public?

And last – and I know you’re not a direct party to those talks, but you’re clearly deeply involved in the process – have the talks actually begun yet, the technical talks?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I’d have to refer you to Israeli and Jordanian authorities about whether their technical teams have started to discuss this or not. I truly don’t know. Our understanding coming away from the weekend’s meeting – discussions were that the technical teams would get together very soon. Again, I just don’t know if that’s happened or not.

It’s also our understanding, and the Secretary talked about this, that it would be – that this footage – this live, streaming footage – would be available to the public 24/7. That’s our expectation.

UPDATE

on a status quo violation:

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today (Wednesday, 28 October 2015), at the Knesset, made the following statement: "The Temple Mount has been quiet for two weeks. We are making every effort to maintain this quiet, but it would seem that someone is disturbed by this. MK Ghattas went up to the Temple Mount, went to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. I assure you he did not do it in order to pray, he did it solely for the purpose of provocation, only to inflame the situation.  In accordance with my general directive, the police moved him away. I will not let any Knesset member or minister ignite the Temple Mount, and I call on all members of the Knesset and public figures in general to act responsibly, especially at this time."

It is getting quite complicated now:

Jordan's Islamic Affairs minister states that Israel will have no role in implementing the plan, and that the technical installation will take time.Oct. 28, 2015  Jordan's Islamic Affair Minister Hayel Abd Alhafeez Dawood said recently that the authority for installing cameras on the Temple Mount lies solely with the Islamic trust which serves as the site's custodian, and that Israeli authorities have no role in its implementation.In an interview with the Al-Dustour newspaper, the minister said that his office is in charge of setting up cameras on the holy site as part of an agreement reached between Israel and the Jordanian under the auspices of diplomatic efforts led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. He said it was a technical issue that cannot be completed within a day. According to him, the cameras will film the site 24 hours a day and the images will be broadcast live across the world, "like the broadcast the Saudis do" in Mecca and Medina.

From an Arabic source

A Jordanian source revealed that the "occupation forces removed on Wednesday, all the preparations that have been installed in order to set up cameras at the Al-Aqsa mosque yard."

The source, who requested anonymity, said "This step is contrary to what has been agreed upon understandings between Israel and Jordan on Saturday in the Jordanian capital Amman, through the intermediary of US Secretary of State John Kerry."

The source added that "the installation of cameras are the responsibility of the Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf and just, pointing out that the understandings indicated that the monitoring of which are part of a committee representing both parties, in addition to the American side.

^

It Could Have Been Worse

UPDATE


An Arab view

Another

^

Kerry Channels the Highly-Charged "Powerful"

Here is an excerpt from the interview of Secretary of State John Kerry with Setareh Derakhshesh of VOA Persian on July 20, 2015 in Washington with a certain phrase highlighted:

QUESTION: They [bipartisan skeptics from Congress] seem to remain unconvinced. What is your battle plan, sir, and are you going to bring anything new – any new arguments – so you can defend the deal?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m going to tell the truth about the deal. There are many people who frankly – some of them had opposed it before they even read it. I mean, many of them admitted they hadn’t read the deal when they started opposing it. Some people just oppose the idea of doing a deal with Iran. But I think when people really look at what is gained here, when they see that this is a possibility of actually doing away with a potential of a nuclear weapon, and that perhaps opening up the possibilities of other good things happening, of a new relationship, I think people will see the benefit of it.

Obviously, there is a very powerful group of voices who are opposed to it, who spend a lot of money in opposition to it, and that’s been heard. But I believe – I’m glad we have the 60 days. I think it will give time for people to really reflect and see that if you don’t let this agreement go forward, you could be choosing conflict and war. That could be the alternative. Because if we don’t have this agreement, then I believe the Ayatollah would say, “Why should I negotiate with these guys? They haven’t delivered. They don’t do it.” Why would our colleagues in the world support the sanctions when they say the sanctions were supposed to be to get an agreement, but they got one and now they’ve walked away? So the whole thing comes apart, with great danger to the region.

J Street is spending money and presents itself as powerful, or influential, as it has great White House access.  So, it applies for both sides.  Or should.

Why should "powerful" resonate so negatively in my mind (does it your yours?)?

This: AIPAC: powerful US lobby on pro-Israel mission?

This: Inside The Jewish Lobby—The Most Powerful Racist Organization in the U.S.?

Mr. Kerry used a loaded term, one that is highly-charged.

I hope it was unintentional.

^

GraphicZionism: Kerry's Iranian Progress

.

^

John Kerry's "Ceasefire" (It Was A Failure)

Let's remind ourselves:

July 31 - John Kerry nails down Israel-Hamas ceasefire days after facing ridicule for failure

Finally, less than an hour after all sides signed off on the precise and technical wording for a 72-hour truce, Kerry issued a statement and called a 3:30 a.m. Friday press conference to seal the deal before any party could back out.

July 31 - Cease-Fire in Gaza Conflict Takes Effect as Talks Are Set

“During this time, the forces on the ground will remain in place,” said the announcement, which means that Israeli troops can continue destroying the labyrinth of tunnels in Gaza that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said are the prime target of the operation.

“We urge all parties to act with restraint until this humanitarian cease-fire begins, and to fully abide by their commitments during the cease-fire,” Mr. Kerry and Mr. Ban said in the statement.

August 1 -  Obama: John Kerry Facing 'Unfair Criticism' Over Israel-Hamas Ceasefire

President Obama went to bat for his secretary of state on Friday, defending John Kerry from "unfair criticism" over the failed cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Hamas.

"Let me take this opportunity, by the way, to give Secretary John Kerry credit. He has been persistent. He has worked very hard. He has endured on many occasions really unfair criticism simply to try to get to the point where the killing stops and the underlying issues about Israel's security, but also the concerns of Palestinians in Gaza, can be addressed," Obama said during an afternoon news conference.

And, a month later,

September 9 - Report: US-Israeli misunderstanding led to breakdown of Gaza truce

The IDF-run radio station reported on Tuesday that the Americans mistakenly led Israel to believe that Hamas accepted an unconditional 72-hour cease-fire when in fact the Palestinian Islamist group never gave its consent to a key Israeli demand that it refrain from attacking troops already on the ground in Gaza.

Do I have a comment?

^

(Almost) Breaking News: Kerry Demands Ceasefire

United States Secretary of State John Kerry, our correspondent has been informed, is demanding an immediate ceasefire and requesting that Haaretz stop all scathing reports about his failed diplomacy as well as his clumsy negotiations style.

Additional sources claim that he is even asking Israel's Minister of Defense, Moshe ('Kerry is obsessive and messianic') Yaalon, to faciliate this.

According to the Haaretz report written by Barak Ravid, who writes in a scathing tone, Kerry’s was an “embarrassing” performance and apparently displayed dishonesty in the negotiations.

Some quotes:

The draft Kerry passed to Israel on Friday shocked the cabinet ministers not only because it was the opposite of what Kerry told them less than 24 hours earlier, but mostly because it might as well have been penned by Khaled Meshal. It was everything Hamas could have hoped for.

The document...demanded no dismantling of rockets, tunnels or other heavy weaponry at Hamas’ disposal. The document placed Israel and Hamas on the same level, as if the first is not a primary U.S. ally and as if the second isn’t a terror group which overtook part of the Palestinian Authority in a military coup and fired thousands of rockets at Israel.

The secretary of state’s draft empowered the most radical and problematic elements in the region – Qatar, Turkey, and Hamas – and was a slap on the face to the rapidly forming camp of Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, who have many shared interests. What Kerry’s draft spells for the internal Palestinian political arena is even direr: It crowns Hamas and issues Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with a death warrant.

Kerry['s]...conduct in recent days over the Gaza cease-fire raises serious doubts over his judgment and perception of regional events. It’s as if he isn’t the foreign minister of the world’s most powerful nation, but an alien, who just disembarked his spaceship in the Mideast. For a few moments Friday, one could not avoid recalling the things Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said about Kerry, and admit that despite the fact that it wasn’t appropriate, he may have had a point.

If Kerry did anything on Friday it was to thwart the possibility of reaching a cease-fire in Gaza. Instead of promoting a cease-fire, Kerry pushed it away. If this failed diplomatic attempt leads Israel to escalate its operation in Gaza, the American secretary of state will be one of those responsible for every additional drop of blood that is spilled.

As this blog post goes to press, it has been learned that Kerry is so depressed that he has called up a senior Hamas commander asking if he would be accepted as a member of the training suicide bombers.

^

Kerry's "Vengeance" Language

First, on the kidnapping of the Israeli (and also one American) three youngsters:

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 15, 2014

The United States strongly condemns the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers and calls for their immediate release. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families. We hope for their quick and safe return home.  We continue to offer our full support for Israel in its search for the missing teens, and we have encouraged full cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian security services.  We understand that cooperation is ongoing.

We are still seeking details on the parties responsible for this despicable terrorist act, although many indications point to Hamas’ involvement.  As we gather this information, we reiterate our position that Hamas is a terrorist organization known for its attacks on innocent civilians and which has used kidnapping in the past.

Then, his statement after their deaths:-

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 30, 2014

The news of the murder of these three Israeli teenagers -- Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach -- is simply devastating. We all had so much hope that this story would not end this way. As a father, there are no words to express such a horrific loss that shakes all people of conscience. We pray for these three boys and their families, and together we grieve with all the people of Israel. Knowing that Naftali was also an American citizen makes this an especially heavy blow not just to Israel, but to the United States.

We condemn this despicable terrorist act in the strongest possible terms. The killing of innocent youths is an outrage beyond any understanding or rationale, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. This is a time for all to work towards that goal without destabilizing the situation.

The following is th statement by US Secretary of State John Kerry [July 2, 2014] on the apparent murder of an Arab youngster:

“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the despicable and senseless abduction and murder of Muhammad Hussein Abu Khdeir.”

“It is sickening to think of an innocent 17 year old boy snatched off the streets and his life stolen from him and his family. There are no words to convey adequately our condolences to the Palestinian people.

“The authorities are investigating this tragedy, a number of Israeli and Palestinian officials have condemned it, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has been emphatic in calling for all sides “not to take the law into their own hands”.

“Those who undertake acts of vengeance only destabilize an already explosive and emotional situation. We look to both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to take all necessary steps to prevent acts of violence and bring their perpetrators to justice. The world has too often learned the hard way that violence only leads to more violence and at this tense and dangerous moment, all parties must do everything in their power to protect the innocent and act with reasonableness and restraint, not recrimination and retribution.”

As far as I know, he did not comment on her murder:

An Arab girl, Omaima Jaradat (15), was stabbed to death by her uncle in the village Kfar Sair, just north of Hebron, according to HNN. Security forces are investigating the reason for the murder.

As for "vengeance", that is a supposition.  It is unworthy of him to suggest that, especially as his condemnation of Hamas was based on "indications', a term he did not apply in the case of Muhammed Abu Khdeir.

___________

UPDATE

The NYTimes leads with but only one possibility:

As Tear Gas Wafts Outside, Palestinian Family MournsBy ISABEL KERSHNER and SAID GHAZALI The father of an Palestinian teenager abducted and killedWednesday, a possible victim of Jewish revenge, said he did not expect the crime to be solved. FURTHER UPDATE Press StatementJen PsakiDepartment SpokespersonWashington, DCJuly 5, 2014 We can confirm that Tariq Khdeir, an American citizen, is being held by Israeli authorities in Jerusalem. He was visited by an official from the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem today. We are profoundly troubled by reports that he was severely beaten while in police custody and strongly condemn any excessive use of force. We are calling for a speedy, transparent and credible investigation and full accountability for any excessive use of force. We reiterate our grave concern about the increasing violent incidents, and call on all sides to take steps to restore calm and prevent harm to innocents.