JK on moving the Middle East peace talks forward

[Luftmensch067]

Interestingly, I just heard Tony Blair interviewed on NPR saying essentially the same thing, I think -- move the talks forward, define the borders of a Palestinian state and the settlements question will begin to take care of itself. That's only my interpretation of what he was saying -- I find all this highly confusing, but the thing TB said that I did understand was that the lesson he took from years of negotiation re N. Ireland was that you had to keep your eye on the goal, not get sidetracked and never, ever give up. That sounded like JK's strategy on most issues, to me, and I bet it's a lesson any effective politician has to learn!

John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was slated to join a host of lawmakers meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who's in town for AIPAC's annual conference. The Cable caught up to Kerry just before his meeting, and the senior senator from Massachusetts said that he will tell Netanyahu that both the United States and Israel should set the settlements issue aside for now.

"I think what's important now is not to get stuck on the issue of the settlement freeze," Kerry told The Cable. "I think what's important is to get to the table and discuss the final-status talks as rapidly as possible."

Kerry noted that calling for a full settlement freeze has been official U.S. policy for years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. But he said that was just not the most important thing on the table at this point.

"I think the focus ought to be on the talks themselves," he said. "The clock is ticking and that ticking clock works against Israel's security and it works against our interests in the region."

Kerry also pushed back against the calls to move Iran sanctions legislation in Congress before the administration is finished pursuing a new U.N. Security Council resolution. That puts him directly in conflict with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, among others.

"I think for Congress to get out ahead at this moment would be complicated. I think we should proceed in concert with the administration," said Kerry. "We can both send a message and we can do it together in a powerful way. The point is to be effective, not first."

more here: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/23/kerry_to_netanyahu_let_s_drop_the_whole_settlements_thing

[ProSense]

1. This is interesting.

The ME is one area where the administration has a great opportunity to drastically impact American foreign policy. There are so many variables and approaches, but I have to agree with JK that the big picture is more important than the issues that can potentionally bog down progress. Of course, it's hard to focus when everyone is posturing and using every incident to further their own agenda.

[Inuca]

2. I wonder what

"both the United States and Israel should set the settlements issue aside for now." means... Is it an implied criticism of the Administration's reaction to the announcement made during Biden's visit?

[karynnj]

3. I think it might be a gentle reminder that the words used were too hot

I can understand the administration's anger and I think they needed to speak against the settlements, but they elevated the bad decision by making it an action to embarrass the US - which it wasn't.

[Inuca]

4. Are you sure it wasn't?

I don't like/trust Netanyahu and from the little that I know when compared to some in his current clique he is the good guy.

[karynnj]

5. I think this was mostly Kerry saying that the most important

thing is to not let this derail peace talks - which is likely the most consistent Kerry position no matter what country or provocation you speak of. In the hearing on the Middle East on March 4, before this blew up, one of the experts mentioned that Kerry had been more outspoken than the administration on things like the settlements and movement on the West Bank and the situation in Gaza, which he visited and the administration didn't. His answer then was interesting in that he defended the administration saying there were things that he, as a Senator could say, that would not be good for the administration to say - because it could hurt negotiations. (This is from memory and it is a LONG hearing - so finding it would be tough.) To me, this sounded like Kerry saying that he and the administration were not far apart, but they needed to be more restrained in what they said.

I agree with you on the administrations anger and Kerry was quoted US policy has been against more settlements for several administrations. It sounds like Kerry is again using his position to help "un burn" a bridge.