Why I have found John Kerry's rhetoric on the Israel/Palestine conflict disappointing.

[beachmom]

As you guys all know, Sen. Kerry was the highest ranking U.S. official to visit the Gaza strip back in February, following the brutal war there:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5goYpXaJ5UaOiAK5F7fEh2iTLd3Kw

US Senator John Kerry on Thursday made a rare visit to the war-ravaged Gaza Strip, but stressed this did not reflect a change of policy towards the territory's Islamist rulers listed by Washington as a terror group.

The visit "does not indicate any shift whatsoever with respect to Hamas," said Kerry, who heads the Senate's powerful foreign relations committee.

His first stop in the impoverished Palestinian enclave was the American school left in ruins by the deadly 22-day Israeli offensive that ended on January 18.

Talking to a Palestinian lawyer amid the dust and rubble, Kerry defended Israel for responding to almost daily rocket attacks by Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups.

"Your political leadership needs to understand that any nation that has rockets coming into it over many years, threatening its citizens, is going to respond," Kerry told Shar Habeel al-Zaim.

...

"There is nothing in a visit that changes anything," said Kerry, who is also scheduled to visit Syria as part of his tour of the region.

"What has to change is behaviour. What has to change obviously is Hamas's consistent resort to instruments of terror," he said in the Israeli city of Sderot before entering the Palestinian enclave aboard a UN vehicle.

"We feel very deeply that no one should have to live under this threat," he said after he and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni inspected rockets fired by Gaza militants that are exhibited in Sderot police station.

Notice what he said to each party. To the Palestinians, he said "this is your fault for firing the rockets" while saying little about the destruction. But while in Israel, he has the full sympathy for the Israeli people, who suffered few casualties, about the rockets being fired from Hamas. Now, to be clear, it was wrong for Hamas to fire those rockets, and perhaps a retaliation was warranted. But something proportional under Just War principles. We are now learning that is not what happened:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html

During Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces killed Palestinian civilians under permissive rules of engagement and intentionally destroyed their property, say soldiers who fought in the offensive.

The soldiers are graduates of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory course at Oranim Academic College in Tivon. Some of their statements made on Feb. 13 will appear Thursday and Friday in Haaretz. Dozens of graduates of the course who took part in the discussion fought in the Gaza operation.

The speakers included combat pilots and infantry soldiers. Their testimony runs counter to the Israel Defense Forces' claims that Israeli troops observed a high level of moral behavior during the operation. The session's transcript was published this week in the newsletter for the course's graduates.

...

Another squad leader from the same brigade told of an incident where the company commander ordered that an elderly Palestinian woman be shot and killed; she was walking on a road about 100 meters from a house the company had commandeered.

The squad leader said he argued with his commander over the permissive rules of engagement that allowed the clearing out of houses by shooting without warning the residents beforehand. After the orders were changed, the squad leader's soldiers complained that "we should kill everyone there . Everyone there is a terrorist."

The squad leader said: "You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won't say anything. To write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It's what I'll remember the most."

These are soldiers coming forward to tell the truth about what happened in Gaza. And yet, I hear American politicians too scared to talk about what went on. I do support a lot of Kerry's ideas in bringing about peace:

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2009/~/media/Files/events/2009/0304_leadership/0304_leadership.pdf

But his reaction to the Gaza war? Well, I found it troubling, and unlike how he usually talks. I just think part of being Israel's friend is showing them tough love, and American politicians are simply unwilling to do that. It is not enough to say things behind closed doors, if that is what happened. I find America way too timid in regards to Israel to the detriment to both countries.

[Mass]

1. I would not see what a press agency reports as a source to determine

what was said or not. (and AFP is no better than AP and Reuters in this aspect, they just have a different viewpoint).

I have read many reports of this visit from many sides, and it seems that the Palestinians were more than happy that he and Berman came and see the reality on the ground. We will never know what was said, though there are longer quotes in other articles.

I also would not expect that Kerry would take a very different angle than Obama and Clinton would while on foreign territory.

Now, if you want to talk about the fact that the US should be somewhat more balanced in its rethorics toward the Middle East, I would agree, but it is not going to change. Remember that, a few days after they came back, the US Senate voted unanimously a resolution supporting Israel and its present action. It will take some time to change the tone (I wrote in another thread on how it was tiring to see how Democrats were afraid to propose things that were not DC wisdom without pledging allegiance to DC wisdom first. I think this is somewhat the case here).

[karynnj]

2. Part of it was that he was a US official speaking in the middle east

Even when Bush was President, he and the other Democrats had to be understated in any comments in any of the troubled areas. We do not know what he said privately in Israel, other than we know he brought up the fact that pasta was being held at the border - and got the situation changed.

Even being Jewish, I can see there is a bias towards Israel - but Hamas is seen as a terrorist organization by people other than the US. The problem is that they refuse to consider that Israel has a right to exist. I've heard more comments from Kerry on the destruction and the plight of the children playing amidst the rubble than I have heard from any other Senator. He is the only one who has spoken of them as people. But, part of the problem is that through an election the US pushed for, the leaders in Gaza are Hamas. How do you deal with a country led by people with a goal to destroy their neighbor - much more powerful as it is?

I suspect that his goal was to keep good relations with both peoples - and it took less to do so with the Palestinians. Just going to Gaza and observing is something. It was also something seen by Israel.

[beachmom]

3. Yes, I agree with all that you say. Still, I feel the need to express

disappointment that there isn't more frank talk. The world collectively was outraged by the destruction of Gaza, even while most agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization that egged the Israelis on by firing rockets. But pretty much 100% of the politicians in this country won't say anything much critical of Israel. I am fairly biased toward Israel, yet even I have my limits. In fact, as evidenced by the article from Israel I linked to, THEY are more critical of themselves than their #1 ally is. I just feel like we are making things worse for the region, not better.

[karynnj]

4. I will wait to see what is discussed in future SFRC hearings

I hope that the discussion will be franker and more balanced there. From various accounts, the Palestinians were pretty happy with Kerry viewing the destruction. From his face and comments in the SFRC hearing on Muslim outreach - where he spoke of little girls playing in rubble where their school was, it is clear that he is very aware of the level of damage and - as any decent person would be - he was affected by this.

Kerry's trip was the most balanced between the various sides of any top level officials. (Compare HRC's and remember she may be constrained by the Obama policy.) He met with some of the Israelis after the Gaza trip. We have no knowlwdge of what he said there. We do know that in both Israel, the Gaza and the SFRC back here, he did speak of not tolerating rockets fired into the country. His meetings in Israel after Gaza were private so we don't know what he said on Gaza - other than questioning why pasta was blocked. (The meeting in the border town was before the Gaza trip.) Out of the people who are close to Obama on foreign policy, Kerry and Mitchell the most likely to push for a more balanced position. It may be that Kerry can have more influence speaking behind closed door with Obama than speaking out- as long as he has influence and Obama's position is not firm.

I agree with you on the Jewish newspapers. Around the time of the Hezbollah/Israel fight, I went to a small discussion on Israeli newspapers at my synagogue led by a reporter on a prestigious US paper. They are a country that has many thriving newspapers and a population that reads not just one but many newspapers on a regular basis. Their press is free to criticize the government - and they do. Even in the US, the assumption that the Jewish population is 100% behind the Israeli government, even when Likud is in power is also very false. (It is very often given as the reason tri-state legislators voted wrong - ie when they voted against the Feinstein amendment that would have prevented the sale of cluster bombs)