Kerry’s Address: More Posturing Than Policy

Secretary of State John Kerry, in a speech lasting over an hour on Wednesday, laid out six “principles” for achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. The timing of the address was unfortunate, coming five days after the U.S. abstained from a UN Security Council resolution vote condemning all Israeli building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and barely three weeks before the end of President Obama’s term. Like that abstention, Kerry’s address reflects this administration’s tendency to place posturing over policy on critical Middle East issues.

The six principles are variations on well-worn themes. The first reaffirms President Obama’s 2011 endorsement of the pre-1967 lines (with mutually agreed swaps) as the basis for an Israeli-Palestinian border – a controversial position that backtracks on George W. Bush’s 2004 letter to Israel’s then-prime minister acknowledging new “realities on the ground.” The second endorses UN Resolution 181 – the 1947 Partition Plan, which the Palestinian and Arab leadership rejected – calling for the establishment of Jewish and Arab states in the Holy Land. The third upholds the need for a “just and fair” solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, while the fourth asserts Jerusalem as the future shared capital for both states. The fifth affirms both Israel’s security needs and the need to end the occupation, while the sixth maintains that a final peace deal would represent the end of the conflict and all outstanding claims.

It’s not the first time a U.S. administration has laid out a vision for Middle East peace in its final weeks. Bill Clinton presented his “Clinton Parameters” in December 2000, just a month before vacating the White House. But those parameters came after years of strenuous – if ultimately stalled – negotiations through the Oslo framework, whereas Kerry’s come two and a half years after his failed ten-month attempt to restart talks. Whereas the Clinton Parameters aimed to lay the groundwork for George W. Bush to continue the peace process, the “Kerry Principles” appear to be directed at reducing options for two individuals: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed a friendlier Israel policy than his predecessor.

The Security Council resolution passed on Friday condemned all Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, labeling those entire areas – including the Old City’s Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall – as occupied territory. Although Washington generally vetoes anti-Israel resolutions at the Council, this wasn’t the first time a U.S. administration had abstained from such a measure. Still, coming after eight years of Obama-Netanyahu acrimony and an Iran nuclear deal that Israel vehemently opposed, Jerusalem is hardly likely to see either the resolution or Kerry’s speech as well-intentioned advice from a trusted friend.

Instead, the optics could hardly be worse. To recap: the administration first abstained from a deeply flawed Security Council resolution and may even have colluded with Palestinian leaders (but not Israel’s), assuring them that no veto would be forthcoming. Meanwhile, a Middle East summit is planned for next month in France, which Israel regards as a less reliable mediator than Washington. There is concern that another Security Council resolution could follow. And the White House may have even more in store for the Jewish state, such as new guidance at the IRS to prohibit private donations to settlements or even sanctions.

Taken in total, Kerry’s address – like the Security Council resolution last week – diminishes the already-challenging odds for achieving peace anytime soon.

Oren Kessler is deputy director for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow him on Twitter @OrenKessler.