US Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unleashed a firestorm of criticism from the same folks who had just finished hyperventilating over the US abstention on a Security Council resolution a few days earlier.
Kerry opened with an account of all that Obama administration did for Israel in the past eight years and closed with a list of principles, which he said should serve as the basis for a future Israeli-Palestinian peace.
In between he gave a passionate indictment of Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – the most comprehensive critique ever given by an American political leader.
Successive US administrations have done their best to avoid public criticism of Israel. When US officials wanted to challenge Israel’s behaviour they prodded, cajoled, pleaded their case or resorted to offering incentives.
They have never “taken Israel to the wood shed”, but that’s what Kerry did.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded with the political equivalent of a
tantrum. President-elect Donald Trump tweeted his displeasure, while members of the US Congress rushed to issue statements pledging full support to Israel and roundly criticising their own secretary of state.
Why the hysteria? As Kerry acknowledged, the speech was not going to change realities on the ground – nor would it force Israelis to alter their behaviour.
With only a few weeks left until the end of the Obama administration, it is clear Israel is not going to pay a price in terms of its relationship with Washington.
The “Kerry Principles” are bound to be ignored, while the overreaction caused by Kerry publicly and forcefully criticising Israeli policy was the standard Israeli approach in situations of this sort – a campaign of intimidation designed to pummel the offender into submission and discourage others.
In 2003, as a senator Kerry addressed the Arab American Institute national conference and condemned the “separation wall” that Israel was constructing in the West Bank, calling it “a barrier to peace”.
For weeks afterwards he was pummelled by pro-Israeli activists and donors until he finally relented and apologised. The same happened to Justice Richard Goldstone, one of the co-authors of the United Nations report on Israeli violations of human rights and international law in its 2008/9 onslaught of Gaza.
The response from Israel and the US Congress was intense and unrelenting. Most
criticised him without even reading the report, but facts didn’t matter as much as snuffing out criticism and making the critic pay a price.
After being shamefully battered and denied entry to Israel to visit his family, Justice Goldstone relented and wrote a Washington Post op-ed apologising for some of the language he used to describe Israel’s behaviour.
This past summer my colleagues and I went through a similar experience after being appointed by Bernie Sanders to serve on the
Democratic Party platform drafting committee. There was an effort to discredit and silence us even before the platform deliberations began.
They didn’t need to turn the heat up too high because the Clinton campaign made it clear they would brook no criticism of Israel in the document.
As a result, our efforts to add the words “occupation” and “settlements” were in vain. Kerry didn’t just criticise Israel’s occupation and settlement policy, he also demolished Israeli arguments defending its actions.
He provided a tutorial on the damage done to peace by settlements. By doing so he has shattered the taboo that has sheltered Israel from official criticism, while providing arguments needed to rebut Israeli justification of their policies.
Kerry’s intervention is welcome, validating and empowering. He has put down markers that should help define a policy agenda on the Israel-Palestine conflict – exactly what we need as we enter the challenges of the Trump era.