Re: The wisdom in Kerry’s warning, Editorial Dec. 30

The wisdom in Kerry’s warning, Editorial Dec. 30

The Star’s editorials on Thursday and Friday were absolutely correct in pointing out the wisdom of John Kerry’s warning. But it fell short describing what Kerry really said and in laying blame.

In typical Kerry fashion, the speech was long (73 minutes) but also very clear. What stood it apart was how open and frank it was compared to his previous speeches on the Middle East and that of other foreign ministers (of all nations).

He gave six principles that are needed to bring a necessary and equitable peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, but those principles are being ignored by Israel and largely unreported by Western media. As he did in a Dec. 3 interview, Kerry laid primary blame on the extremely right-wing nature of the current Israeli government and its quest to claim all of the West Bank.

But this time he clearly stated why this one-state desire can only end in failure, “Here is a fundamental reality. 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. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.” It is unfortunate that that only a small number of Westerners (probably no more that 1 per cent) will read or listen to that speech.

Many will wonder why it took so long for Kerry to deliver that speech, when the reality of the situation has been known for so long (really since the first settlement was built, around 1970). That is up to Kerry and his predecessors to determine. But equally profound is why Western media have not taken the same path of clarity and reality.

Western media, including the Star, have continued to take to path of least resistance — namely to soft pedal on Israel’s transgressions (the settlements, the occupation as well as the dire conditions and the terrifying carnage in Gaza) while exaggerating the impact of the Palestinian terrorist attacks and continuing to mislead readers and viewers on the Palestinian position on Israel’s right to exist. (That position is only conditionally held by Iran and Hamas, but not by the Palestinian Authority.)

Yes, Israel and Western nations must heed Kerry’s words in order to move toward a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. But so must Western media. Without doing so, the current situation will continue on the inevitable and disastrous march to a one-state outcome.

Dennis Choptiany, Markham

I never fail to be amazed when well-intentioned sources lose a sense of proportion and become so solely focused on Israeli settlements. To be sure these settlements are a major obstacle to the realization of a much needed two-state solution but the Palestinians as well present more than their fair share of obstacles.

Whether it be an unwarranted fixation on a supposed “right to return” to pre-1967 Israel, a lack of appreciation for the historic lineage of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem or persistent incitement to violence by Palestinian Authority institutions, there is no shortage of changes needed by the Palestinians in order to achieve a genuine two-state solution to the conflict.

It is just too easy — and unhelpful — to focus one’s anger at only Bibi Netanyahu, even if it is so tempting to do so.

Simon Rosenblum, Toronto

Having watched U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on Wednesday regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, I thought your editorial was correct. There was a lot of wisdom and historical truth in what Kerry said. But his remarks ring hollow because if the U.S. really wanted to stop Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, they could’ve suspended or stopped the massive amount of aid Israel receives from the United States. As the Star notes an astonishing $8 million a day.

In fact, the Obama administration has pledged $38 billion to help in Israel’s defense over the next 10 years. Successive U.S. administrations and a very pro-Israel U.S. Congress, sometimes referred to as the American Knesset, has let Israel do pretty much what it wants.

It’s pretty astonishing and probably unprecedented in world history that such a small country has had such sway and power in the international community. A country that can have massive influence in the foreign policy of the most powerful nation on earth, the United States.

Let’s face it, the two-state solution is dead. It’s been on life support for years and the peace process was always a joke. The Palestinians had no real power. Naftali Bennett, leader of the pro-settlement Jewish Home Party, said it best after Donald Trump’s victory, “the era of a Palestinian state is over.”

By creating so many facts on the ground, it would be easy to say that Israel has won the war against the Palestinians and there will most likely not be a Palestinian state. But Israel is facing a future of unending hostility and conflict. Israel is a deeply divided country, not knowing where it wants to go.

If a two-state solution is no longer an option, then the only answer is a one-state solution, Israel and Palestine. One country, equal political and civil rights for all.

Not likely to happen any time soon, but it’s time that Palestinians realize their future lies with Israel and an expanded country that includes them. A new civil rights movement awaits and just like the U.S. and South Africa it’s going to be messy and bloody.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

“The status quo is leading toward one state and perpetual occupation.” Does it really take 50 years for perpetual occupation to become evident? I well remember my “that’ll teach them” attitude when Israel blew away its neighbours in the 1967 Six Day War. Little did I then suspect, however, that 50 years later Israel would still be “occupying” the land it took over in that conflict.

But can I cast stones at Israel from the land occupied by my European forefathers some 500 years ago?

William Lynn, Toronto

The last sentence in your editorial reads: “However difficult the path, a Palestinian state remains key to the long-term security of Israel and stability in the region.” Although, I agree in general with your editorial that there was some wisdom in outgoing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s warning to Israel that a two-state solution is the best option, I have an issue with the part about “stability in the region.” This shows the naivety of the Star’s editorial board or just maybe they don’t read their own publication.

During the WikiLeaks controversy detailed extensively for several months in 2010/11 and covered by just about every print and online media outlet in the world, including the Star, it was revealed that the Arab/Muslim countries in the region hate each other far more than they hate Israel. And much to the consternation and confusion of the anti-Israel industry, what came out of the leaks was that Israel was rarely mentioned negatively—if at all. Apparently, according to WikiLeaks, it appears that most of the distrust, hate and hostility shown by Israel’s neighbours was directed towards each other or Iran—not Israel.

It’s obvious and even without WikiLeaks, recent events have proven that Israel is not the cause of the Middle East’s problems and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of little or no concern by most non-Palestinian Arabs in the region. In fact, only just recently, outgoing United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his final briefing to the UN Security Council on Dec. 16 stated that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the cause of the wars in the Middle East” and in the same speech, finally admitted that “decades of political maneuverings have created a disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel.”

If the editorial is speaking of this planet, Earth, a viable, secure and peaceful State of Israel and a State of Palestine side by side would be great, but the Star editorial board should not delude themselves or their readers into the idea that it would lead to “stability in the region.” There will most likely be stability in Israel. But elsewhere, it’s not happening—at least not on this planet anytime soon.

David Honigsberg, Toronto

A classic case of “too little, too late,” I’m afraid.

Why did it take Barack Obama 96 long months to, at long last, get the courage to do this? It serves to make one pause and ponder what he could

have achieved had his presidency matured into manhood much earlier.

Edward P. Swynar, Newcastle

If John Kerry had really meant what he said, he would not have sent Israel $38 billion with which to build those towns on the West Bank. Mr. Netanyahu says Israel does not need lectures from foreign leaders but declined to say whether his country needed the $38 billion.

Patrick Cowan, North York

I wish that Donald Trump had listened intently to John Kerry’s speech about Mideast peace. He might think twice about helping achieve two states, instead of being negative toward it. The Palestinians used to own 48 per cent of the land and now own only 24 per cent.

The late Simon Peres of Israel is quoted as saying that he thought 72 per cent of the land was enough. Donald Trump is childlike in his behaviour when he takes the opposite view without studying both sides of the problem.

Joy Taylor, Scarborough

The Holocaust challenges belief but it happened and any nation that stood by (in any way) and allowed it to happen, shares the guilt. Today democracy and human rights are intended to avoid such things and Secretary of State John Kerry is comprehensive in his evaluation of Israel’s version of democracy when he says, “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.”

Democracy is in no way anti-Semitic. It simply protects the rights of “everyone.”

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa

Talk is cheap. And rebuking Israel doesn’t even touch the surface. But revoking the newly finalized deal, in which the United States will be giving Israel $38 billion in military aid over the next 10 years, may have an impact. By agreeing to pay out the money, the U.S. is flagrantly condoning the oppression, degradation and humiliation which Israel imposes upon the Palestinians.

It’s no wonder America has become a target for terror. Tough love is the only chance for peace.

JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater, FL

You have printed and posted online a number of letters from readers who are supportive of UN Security Council Resolution 2334. Their support is based on a number of fallacies.

The first fallacy is that settlements preclude the two-state solution. In fact, between 2000 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinian leadership a state on three separate occasions. Those offers and the negotiations preceding them occurred during periods of greater settlement construction than under Netanyahu.

The second fallacy is that Israel has the power to simply make a two-state solution happen. In fact, Israel has repeatedly tried and been unable to convince the Arab and Palestinian leadership to do what’s right for the Palestinians. The Jewish Agency accepted the UN Partition Plan and got a war of annihilation in 1948. Israel expected a land-for-peace deal after the Six Day War and instead got the Arab League’s Khartoum Resolution (“no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it”). And since then Israel has been unable to get the Palestinian leadership to accept a state of its own despite offering East Jerusalem and the dismantling of settlements.

The third fallacy is that this UN resolution promotes peace. In fact, by fixating on settlements it lends legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority’s favourite excuse for refusing to negotiate. It has rewarded their rejectionism and delayed a Palestinian state.

Daniel Fogel, Toronto

Read more about: