Excellent Boston Globe oped on Kerry and Israel/Palestine

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/01/03/john-kerry-tenacious-diplomacy-offers-hope-for-mideast-peace/L35tIZoYp92e8eCwe6dNVO/story.html

My first comment is that it is silly to repeat the stock meme that he is doing this because it is the end of his career before stating a far more serious reason - that not doing so is dangerous. We in this group likely hear echoes in Kerry's reason of many past decisions (impolitic or not) - that it's the right thing to do. (Did I write that I am beyond sick of it being added largely to give an explanation of why Clinton did not do this? The fact is Kerry in 1971 spoke before the SFRC against the war and as a Senator investigated BCCI and headed the POW/MIA committee when doing so was absolutely not likely to help politically - in these cases because he thought it important and the right thing to do. He was not at the end of his career then. Second, it is not a zero sum game - Kerry succeeding on something does not diminish Hillary. As the Democrat, she will do BETTER if foreign policy succeeds over the 8 Obama years.)

A second comment is that the opinion that Netanyahu may not "want to give Kerry what he wants" because of Kerry's work on Iran is silly. Netanyahu - or Abbas for that matter - will not and should not do something because Kerry wants him to. His actions should be based on what he sees as good for his country. A peace deal will change the future of both countries. It is the most serious decision that any leader could make. The decision will be made on the merits of the deal and possibly internal political ramifications for him personally.

This does not diminish what Kerry has achieved to date. Kerry has worked to get each side to talk about a deal. Neither side did this lightly and both agreed to do things they did not want to do before starting. The only reason they did this was because both have concerns about the future of the status quo. There will be a deal ONLY if the parties find one that to both sides looks better than where the status quo is going and both see it as the best deal they are going to get from the other.

From my perspective, these negotiations really will lead to a two state solution or be a conclusive test of whether a two state solution can happen. If they fail, it is very likely that that possibility is dead. Many people, including Tom Friedman have long written that Israel can be two of three things - democratic, Jewish and controlling all the land it controls now. Three is impossible. If the two state solution is impossible - splitting the land is impossible meaning that the choice is losing either being majority Jewish or not really being a democracy for all the people in the country.

The death of the two state solution, by definition leads to a one state solution. The question then is which of the other characteristics is dropped. Will Israel evolve to be:

- Give up being majority Jewish - A democracy where everyone in the entire area including the West Bank and Gaza have equal rights including the right to vote. This is what many people, including many young American Jews, think the best solution. This fits with American values, but it is hard to see Netanyahu moving to change Israel in that direction.

- A country claiming to be a democracy, but disenfranchising everyone living in the occupied territories (as now, but with no future goal of two states.) I think the goal of a two state solution has acted as a veil that allows Jews and other Americans to support Israel without apply their normal (Jewish and/or American) values to the plight of the people in Gaza and the West Bank.