John Kerry’s Middle East Puzzle
Published in Berliner Zeitung
(Germany) on 6 January 2014
by Daniel Haufler (link to original)
The U.S. secretary of state is putting all his resources into establishing a peace agreement between Palestine and Israel. Yet it seems questionable whether his shuttle diplomacy will have any success at all.
These days, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appears to be more often in the Middle East than in Washington. Within about a week he has been to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Amman and Saudi Arabia in order to mediate a peace agreement between Palestine and Israel. His efforts are greatly reminiscent of those of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. After the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Kissinger travelled back and forth between the opposing parties in the Middle East, achieving a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Syria in 1974 and enabling the signing of the Sinai Interim Agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1975.
Kerry is clearly following in the footsteps of his predecessor, with whom he appears to have little in common politically. El Mundo from Madrid believes that Kerry has even “transformed” the peace process into a “personal crusade.” Yet time does not seem to be on Kerry’s side: “Even though following his tenth visit to the region he declared that his puzzle was starting to take shape,” as it stands, there is still no sign of a treaty. The signing of such a treaty would please both parties, as regional instability is looming in the background. As Kerry said himself, the jigsaw pieces could also fall to the ground.
According to the Bordeaux newspaper Sud-Ouest, it seems that the U.S. has yet been unable to influence its ally Israel toward a compromise: “Europe can be blamed yet again for acting as a bystander in such dealings. Europe and France in particular are in a balanced position and could add much weight to the scales. Europe must be more present in dealings with the Middle East because the U.S. cannot achieve peace in the region on its own.” Yet according to Amsterdam’s De Telegraaf, Israel cannot rely on the United States’ unconditional friendship. Similarly, Palestine cannot rely on the support of the Arab world, since it has been left in shambles since the Arab Spring. Hence, it is possible that both parties will choose the path that creates the least confrontation.
But this might not be so. From a Palestinian perspective, some sort of opposition is understandable as the building of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories such as the West Bank is completely fragmenting the community. According to the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken, Israel’s Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu should realize that “the country’s long-term interest in lasting peace and security is better served if the Israelis’ occupation of the West Bank territory, including that of Israeli settlements, is ended.”
These days, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry appears to be more often in the Middle East than in Washington. Within about a week he has been to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Amman and Saudi Arabia in order to mediate a peace agreement between Palestine and Israel. His efforts are greatly reminiscent of those of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. After the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Kissinger travelled back and forth between the opposing parties in the Middle East, achieving a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Syria in 1974 and enabling the signing of the Sinai Interim Agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1975.
Kerry is clearly following in the footsteps of his predecessor, with whom he appears to have little in common politically. El Mundo from Madrid believes that Kerry has even “transformed” the peace process into a “personal crusade.” Yet time does not seem to be on Kerry’s side: “Even though following his tenth visit to the region he declared that his puzzle was starting to take shape,” as it stands, there is still no sign of a treaty. The signing of such a treaty would please both parties, as regional instability is looming in the background. As Kerry said himself, the jigsaw pieces could also fall to the ground.
According to the Bordeaux newspaper Sud-Ouest, it seems that the U.S. has yet been unable to influence its ally Israel toward a compromise: “Europe can be blamed yet again for acting as a bystander in such dealings. Europe and France in particular are in a balanced position and could add much weight to the scales. Europe must be more present in dealings with the Middle East because the U.S. cannot achieve peace in the region on its own.” Yet according to Amsterdam’s De Telegraaf, Israel cannot rely on the United States’ unconditional friendship. Similarly, Palestine cannot rely on the support of the Arab world, since it has been left in shambles since the Arab Spring. Hence, it is possible that both parties will choose the path that creates the least confrontation.
But this might not be so. From a Palestinian perspective, some sort of opposition is understandable as the building of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories such as the West Bank is completely fragmenting the community. According to the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken, Israel’s Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu should realize that “the country’s long-term interest in lasting peace and security is better served if the Israelis’ occupation of the West Bank territory, including that of Israeli settlements, is ended.”