The Dawn of Another of Kerry’s Promises
Published in Al-Khaleej
(U.A.E.) on 12 December 2013
by Khairi Mansur (link to original)
(U.A.E.) on 12 December 2013
by Khairi Mansur (link to original)
Translated from
by Joseph McBirnie.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
John Kerry heralded the start of negotiations which America will facilitate, serving as midwife for the birth of peace talks. He stated that peace between Palestinians and “Israelis” is close, despite the continued occupation and their refusal to budge on this main, chronic problem in the settlement.
This comes while Kerry gave priority to border security, which was the first time Palestinian borders were referenced. However, the word “security” in this context means only that of “Israel,” as President Obama has made clear several times.
Regardless of whether John Kerry or any other U.S. official successfully serves as midwife for this deal, he should know that the birth of a child should only be rushed if the mother is in danger. Nevertheless, there seems to be something behind the scenes that we don’t know about that warrants Kerry’s optimism and seeks to end the period of negotiations nine months after its conception.
If security is a priority, the borders will be elastic, yielding to security conditions. Here, the Palestinians find themselves depending upon a lottery, as the cart of security is put before the horse of drawn borders based upon Jewish mythology, which construes the Promised Land in any way it sees fit.
There is one last chance, politically. As negotiations are portrayed as a nine-month pregnancy, the opposing party sees it as an opportunity to blackmail and mock the weaker one as such a long period of negotiations may not occur again.
This interpretation is consistent with their eschatological premise and their attempts to convince the Palestinians to be little more than nothing. However, this is the existential conflict of the century, and the Palestinian people’s losses which the U.S. fails to consider are not capable of such a reduction. Therefore, this ultimately means that the execution of these options are to be replaced by a single, involuntary surrender.
Kerry has certainly stimulated optimism. But he has yet to provide sufficient reasons to foretell imminent peace.
These negotiations are intermittently punctuated with resignations, or at least the threat thereof. They coincide with the exciting and dramatic variables that might bring the region and the world together, but Washington prefers to close this file by the end of 2013 and begin another in Asia.
However, this rush has slowed to boring levels after all these years, and Kerry does not propose a just and comprehensive peace unless he takes settlements off the table and deals with this as a fait accompli. Otherwise, more deaths are inevitable unless he persuades himself and the Palestinians that security makes borders, not vice versa.
In any case, this peace is one that promises a bouquet stuffed with gunpowder.
This comes while Kerry gave priority to border security, which was the first time Palestinian borders were referenced. However, the word “security” in this context means only that of “Israel,” as President Obama has made clear several times.
Regardless of whether John Kerry or any other U.S. official successfully serves as midwife for this deal, he should know that the birth of a child should only be rushed if the mother is in danger. Nevertheless, there seems to be something behind the scenes that we don’t know about that warrants Kerry’s optimism and seeks to end the period of negotiations nine months after its conception.
If security is a priority, the borders will be elastic, yielding to security conditions. Here, the Palestinians find themselves depending upon a lottery, as the cart of security is put before the horse of drawn borders based upon Jewish mythology, which construes the Promised Land in any way it sees fit.
There is one last chance, politically. As negotiations are portrayed as a nine-month pregnancy, the opposing party sees it as an opportunity to blackmail and mock the weaker one as such a long period of negotiations may not occur again.
This interpretation is consistent with their eschatological premise and their attempts to convince the Palestinians to be little more than nothing. However, this is the existential conflict of the century, and the Palestinian people’s losses which the U.S. fails to consider are not capable of such a reduction. Therefore, this ultimately means that the execution of these options are to be replaced by a single, involuntary surrender.
Kerry has certainly stimulated optimism. But he has yet to provide sufficient reasons to foretell imminent peace.
These negotiations are intermittently punctuated with resignations, or at least the threat thereof. They coincide with the exciting and dramatic variables that might bring the region and the world together, but Washington prefers to close this file by the end of 2013 and begin another in Asia.
However, this rush has slowed to boring levels after all these years, and Kerry does not propose a just and comprehensive peace unless he takes settlements off the table and deals with this as a fait accompli. Otherwise, more deaths are inevitable unless he persuades himself and the Palestinians that security makes borders, not vice versa.
In any case, this peace is one that promises a bouquet stuffed with gunpowder.
Next article![]( "White House Appointment Inspired and Effective")
