I hope that Teresa will be well enough by then to be at that announcement.

i guess it helps that he has years including decades long relationships with many of the people on all sides involved in this. i think those who actually want a peaceful relationship on both sides trust him also .

PresidentPeres ‏@PresidentPeres 12h

I just perused the articles I posted and found out that 99% of people seem to think that Kerry is anything from an idiot to arrogant (HRC did not succeed, so how could he?). Frankly, I feel more and more puzzled by where this country is going. Even people I used to respect behave as if Obama was Pinochet or something like that. Jeez. There is a difference between opposing surveillance and thinking that Obama will have somebody kill Snowden.

Similarly, there is a difference between thinking that Kerry's attempt to negotiations has low odds (well, if we should not do anything that has low odds, what type of courage does this show) and saying that he is doing that only because he wants to up his profile (very reminiscent from what the RW said about VietNam, that he only went because he wanted to improve his resume). But sadly, we hear that from the so called left as well these days. I say the so called left because they are totally uninterested by anything that is about progressive causes.

where they are going is worse than where they would be under some peace agreement. I think that it is his effort so far on this that has even led to the likelihood of talks.

While I think the disrespect of the DC media is annoying, I don't think it really has that much impact on either side. They would not make peace just because everyone in DC thinks the American trying to lead the effort is fantastic -- and they are unlikely to be dissuaded by the media being negative about the negotiator. It comes down to whether it is enough in the self interest of each of their peoples to take the very big personal risk of doing it.

To me, the most positive indicator is that Netanyahu has spoken of the unacceptability of the "binational" state. I take this to mean the one state solution. This means that the highest priority to him is that there be a Jewish state - something incompatible with a democratic one state solution. However - doing nothing - leads to a de facto one state - and unless there is change one where over half of the people are disenfranchised. This is obviously atrocious for the Palestinians, but I think it is becoming unacceptable for young Jewish Americans and (I hope) for Israelis. The EU joining the boycott is a big deal - and it confirms that Kerry's warnings in his speech to an American Jewish audience are very real.

Where I think Kerry gets less credit than he is due is that he has worked far more with the Arab organizations in the area and he has been more balanced than most previous leaders. This even though he seems to be better liked by Netanyahu than Clinton was - as this somewhat snarky article that I did not post in DU points out.

"Kerry succeeded where both his predecessor Hillary Clinton and his superior, President Barack Obama, failed. His secret, according to Israeli analyst Ehud Yaari, was that he “embraced” Netanyahu in private, rather than confronting and challenging him in public, as both Obama and Clinton did. "
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.536860

(the article goes on to suggest that Obama scheduled his personal comments on the Zimmerman case to cause fewer to hear Kerry's press conference -- something even I think unbelievably tone deaf by the writer. First, at this point there was FAR more public issue in the US on the Zimmerman case and this, while an important diplomatic step, was too preliminary to interest most Americans. Our warped, polarized media only likes things that play to their bases. )

Incidentally, I saw a fair amount of respect and praise in the Israeli media for the way that Kerry completely ignored the negative media and continued his work. It may be that this determined, dedicated effort resonated well with their values.

I think DU has NEVER been a good place to post any thing on Israel -- and John Kerry has never been a DU favorite - even though he has been more consistently good than many of their erstwhile heroes. As to the idea that he can't succeed because HRC didn't - the truth is that she never tried, which to my mind is worse. Either Obama did not give her that opportunity (something they will not admit as it means that she wasn't the one with the choice) or she chose to do exactly what she did - which was a vague agenda of advocating for women. I think the incessant need to compare the two might be behind the negativity. If Kerry is seen as critical on resolving ANY of the major problems - HRC is not just not a historically important SOS, she is not even the best Obama SOS.

I was surprised that the BG actually defended JK when the idiotic "he was on his yacht" episode happened. Their quotes from both Netanyahu and the Abbas are more important than the comments from the self important pundits.

I also hope that the media, especially the NYT, pushing Martin Indyk is really just like their push of Susan Rice. It would seem that as JK managed to get this far - while all the "experts" said it was not possible, that he continue with the people that got him to where he is. From one account, his main person has been Frank Lowenstein. If true that he pushed Kerry to go to Gaza and to make other moves, he may be part of why JK has been more successful than others. Why not go with him? http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/02/4534/kerry-appointments-frank-lowenstein-senior-advisor-on-middle-east-chief-economist-may-move-up/ And http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/25/john-kerry-s-years-of-quiet-diplomacy-helped-forge-path-to-peace-talks.html

Interesting in particular because a quick googling of his name (I am not familiar with him) shows both sides pretty unhappy with the choice. I imagine that Lowenstein does not have the name recognition necessary for this type of activity, but it is too bad that they did not choose somebody younger for the job.

I saw Rogin's article and liked what I had the time to read, though I am not done with it.

However, I would have thought the same thing when it was Susan Rice just reading the papers. Here, it would be Kerry making the choice and he seems to hate leaks. If he had made that decision, I assume that he would have announced it. Given that Lowenstein has obviously - successfully - worked with both sides - I can't imagine why name recognition would be a top requirement.

I really don't get the willingness of so many here to believe everything that sources they NEVER would have trusted 3 months ago have written. I do understand the fear of loss of privacy and remember the discussions back in December 2006 and August 2007 on FISA. Those discussions - even among angry people - were at least reasonable and avoided going for the rhetorical stratosphere.

I was with my brother, who works for microsoft, a week ago. His comment was there was nothing in the Snowden/Greenwald disclosures on the "secret" NSA progams that he had not read in the industry press. For me, there was nothing on the phone records that I did not hear in 2006/2007. In fact the biggest controversy than was the retroactive immunity for the telcos and the Bush administration. ALL of the NEW things Snowden put out were on things like hacking Chinese systems and spying at the G8 or G20 meeting - things that definitely harmed American diplomacy.

Remembering back to DU2, I remember learning never to post anything on Kerry in GD - and to stay in GDP. Though they were supposed to be based on whether they were about a political race, the fact was there were two different populations there. GD was where Kuchinich, Grayson, Weiner and Nader were more respected than Obama, Kerry or anyone else. Looking at the names most prevalent on many many threads, they are either new or the GD people. There are some GDP people - but there is a huge amount of bullying they face. (Prosense, I don't know how you have the strength to do what you do, but you are incredible.)

I also think that the Snowden controversy has hit on a crack in the left of the Democratic party. I remember speaking to my daughter who graduated college in 2009 back when Obama was elected. She cautioned then that while nearly everyone at her MA college voted for Obama - many were not liberal. She argued that many libertarians in college at that time sided with Obama because they hated the Republicans. Her view is that many would not likely remain Democrats.

I suspect that many of the more moderate (GDP like) people are either taking a break until Snowden's cannonization is over or DU might have reached a tipping point where it becomes too libertarian/left for most people who believe that Democrats can make a difference.

What is strange is that this is happening at a point where Democrats could be on the verge of making the case that Democratic policies saved the economy and that with the unexpected reductions in the deficit that that money be used in calculations on sequestration. At this point, the deficit is LOWER than sequestration was suppose to take it. This could then be used to restore all the safety net programs. The primary affect is to hep those hurt, but in doing it you create more jobs.

I hope this negativity on Obama , which is beyond offensive, stops really soon. In addition to the far left who have always taken those positions, it seems that there are a LOT of very new posters. Some of them are extremely aggressive in attacking anyone who does not think that Obama is - as you said - like Pinochet.

what is new about it. If anything, I remember the discussions about the phone records at that time. I know I seriously objected to this then and still do now.

Yep, I would also agree with your daughter concerning libertarian vs progressive. I have to say I am always shocked by the lack of confidence toward the government from some part of the "left". I am not saying you have to be blind and accept everything but the conversations I have seen this weekend are closer from freeperland than from reasonable people. I am fairly left wing myself but I am absolutely puzzled by what I read here. I just do not see how these types of discussion will help people.