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
= new reply since forum marked as read