McCain Says Netanyahu Has Serious Concerns on Kerry Plan

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

By Terry Atlas - Jan 3, 2014

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has grave doubts about elements of an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan being pressed by Secretary of State John Kerry, said U.S. Senator John McCain.

McCain, an Arizona Republican, spoke to reporters in Jerusalem following a meeting with Netanyahu. His remarks signal the hurdles facing Kerry both in Israel and among pro-Israel lawmakers at home as he seeks agreement on a framework accord to guide negotiations to a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Netanyahu has serious, serious concerns about the plan as it has been presented to him,” McCain said. The concerns, which the prime minister has also stated publicly, include defensible borders, the viability and actions of a Palestinian state, and the overall security provisions for Israel, McCain said.

Kerry, on his 10th visit to Israel since becoming Secretary of State last year, met today with Netanyahu for three hours following five hours of talks yesterday. Kerry goes to Ramallah, in the West Bank, for talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas later today.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-03/mccain-says-netanyahu-has-serious-concerns-on-kerry-plan.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. Why is McCain there--to undermine Kerry, perhaps?

[olddad56]

2. no, he is the acting Secretary of State. Acting on his owe because his just a troublemaker.

[QuestForSense]

13. Along with this bunch, on a related topic.

A group of Democrats are joining Republicans in trying to undermine the White House's negotiations with Iran by imposing a new set of sanctions. Fifteen of them, actually, who prefer status quo bluster and threats to diplomacy that might actually do something to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. They are:

Bob Menendez (NJ)
Chuck Schumer (NY)
Ben Cardin (MD)
Bob Casey (PA)
Chris Coons (DE)
Dick Blumenthal (CT)
Mark Begich (AK)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Mark Warner (VA)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Cory Booker (NJ)
Joe Manchin (WV)

The Senate equivalent of the Blue Dog caucus is well represented on this list, with Begich, Casey, Donnelly, Landrieu, Manchin, Pryor, and Warner. I've always considered Coons and Blumenthal to be part of the party's business/corporatist wing. But I guess they hate diplomacy too.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/03/1266741/-The-new-warmongering-wing-of-the-Democratic-Party

[warrant46]

25. McLame taking ordersw from Joementum

[potone]

3. I was under the impression that foreign policy is the responsibility of the executive branch.

Why is McCain shooting his mouth off about this? He seems to regard himself as a sort of shadow president.

[blm]

6. Bibi sez "Jump!" and Bibi'sBoyz say, "How high?"

Has been that way for over 2 decades.

[hughee99]

31. I remember when Kerry was nominated, he was considered a good candidate because

of the time he spent on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Apparently it's because that seat involved him in foreign relations and occasionally meeting with politicians in other countries. McCain is on that same committee now.

[karynnj]

32. True, but I do not recall Kerry EVER speaking against American policy from the foreign country

He did, of course, disagree vehemently when he returned in many cases.

McCain has the right to disagree - and, in fact , the responsibility. However, the convention of the SFRC - expressed most often by Senator Lugar - was that politics ends at the water's edge. McCain and Graham are likely just playing for the Jewish vote.

Imagine they don't know that about 80% of American Jews want a 2 state solution - and they respect Senator Kerry's efforts. (Seriously, J Street's comments on Kerry's efforts may be more laudatory than things written in DU JK! )

[Swede Atlanta]

4. When McGramps becomes SoS he can comment.....

First of all there has been a long-standing tradition that foreign policy stops at the border. I guess that has given way to a free for all.

I do believe we need to take Benny "the war monger" Yahu's views into consideration. Israel has been a consistent ally of the U.S. and the only real democracy in the Middle East.

That said, he has a domestic political constituency to satisfy. We need to see this in that context.

The U.S. (and the world) has often unjustly sided with Israel because (a) Holocaust and (b) tactics of the Palestinians.

What the Israels never want to talk about is how their "guerrilla fighters" engaged in bombings and killings that drove the British to abandon Palestine and recommend statehood for Israel.

The Jews in Israel cannot be characterized (historically or contemporaneously) as "lambs". While I support their right to peaceful existence they are not without blame. They face significant challenges from their neighbors but at some point they need to give peace a chance.

[blm]

5. McCain is another one of the 'Bibi'sBoyz' who act on Bibi's orders

even when it is against the best interest of the US and peace efforts.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Nauseating

[sulphurdunn]

8. Are there blocks in Congress

that are ever referred to as pro-Mexican or pro-Canadian, pro-Chinese, pro-British, pro-German, pro-South African or any other pro-nation state classification besides being "pro-Israel?" Is it in the interest of our country for our leaders to proclaim their loyalty (often unconditionally and publicly) to the state policies of a foreign power?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. To be fair, Purveyro, McCain has to listen to his constituents.

[Submariner]

10. Israel is a welfare state to the U.S.

financially dependent on the U.S. govt for their existence, so Netanyahu needs to STFU and do what he is told by the president and SoS Kerry as long as they are operating on our dime.

Grumpy McCain is just still bitter about getting stomped in 2008 and takes every opportunity to show it.

[skamaria]

11. If Yahoo doesn't like it it must be a good plan.

[EC]

12. What, does McCain think he won the election or what?

What is he doing there? What is his partner in crime Graham doing there? They wanted Kerry in this job, let him do it.

[Beacool]

14. Kerry seems to be personally invested on peace in the M.E. and I wish him the best.

Although, I doubt that much will be accomplished in the long term. Neither party appears to really want peace.

[karynnj]

33. Kerry's comments have been that the status quo is not sustainable

Anyone following the UN resolution on Palestine or the position of the EU on boycotting Israel knows that the US will not be able to indefinitely protect Israel.

Kerry has always said that he thinks it will be hard - and if it weren't, it already would be done - and that it is better to at least try to work for peace. Something tells me you were 100% behind Bill Clinton's efforts -- even though they were similarly long shot.

I suspect the reason for your comment is that Hillary Clinton did not invest her time or capital working this issue. You might remember that George Mitchell did -- and then Hillary brought in Dennis Ross as well. So, though not personally there, there was an effort under HRC. If HRC were still SoS and she did all Kerry did and restarted the talks, you would be the number one cheerleader arguing for why this is a good idea.

[randr]

15. McCain is Netanyahu's go to guy when he needs

to throw a hissy fit. Any peace plan slows down his development plans for ugly housing in the West Bank.

[sakabatou]

16. Oh, shut-up gramps

You're not the SoS.

[geek tragedy]

17. Israel's objections are to its own demands.

1) Their demands make it impossible to have a viable, functional Palestinian state; but

2) They refuse to agree to any proposal where they'd be responsible for the predictable fallout from a non-viable, permanently dysfunctional Palestinian state.

In short, occupation now, occupation forever. Israel is the Occupation State.

[Dawson Leery]

18. This is another case of John McCain acting with dishonor.

67 die on an aircraft carrier due to McCain playing a trick on a pilot who was going to land after he did.
The Keating 5 scandal.
Forcing Sarah Palin (every bad thing said about her is true) on us.

[cosmicone]

19. McCain needs a weekly colonoscopy n/t

[jaysunb]

20. Sen. McCain, you are NOT a member of the Obama administration

, or the President of the USA. Please try to stay in your lane as the US Senate is a boken body and could use your help in healing itself.

[jwirr]

21. Has any other losing presidential candidate poked his nose into foreign policy like this guy does?

Some one should tell him that we won the election.

[Botany]

22. ATTN John McCain

We already have a Sec. of State and his name is John Kerry




http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=686586 why do I have
to keep reposting the same thing?

[Enrique]

23. HE SAID THAT ON FOREIGN SOIL!!!!!!!!

[karynnj]

24. What is clear is Netanyahu is trying to insure that he will not be blamed if the plan fails and the

Palestinians will.

Look at this another way. Both Netanyahu agreed to the talks AND agreed to do things they really did not want to do to build trust with the other side. For one thing, Israel has released Palestinians who were jailed long ago. The last release happened a few days ago. If Netanyahu truly believed that things were unacceptable, would he have made that release?

What is clear is that BOTH Netanyahu have people more extreme than they who they need to keep happy.

McCain is mostly trying to play US domestic politics. Kerry is not and has not defined the framework unilaterally. First of all, that would not work and neither side would accept anything they were not part of creating. The biggest mistake is to think that Kerry can dictate the deal. There will be a deal ONLY if - on each key issue - the Palestinians and Israel find common ground that neither like, but both can accept.

Kerry's role has been to convince each side that a solution better than where the status quo is likely to lead them. Here is a good view of that - http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/01/03/john-kerry-tenacious-diplomacy-offers-hope-for-mideast-peace/L35tIZoYp92e8eCwe6dNVO/story.html

McCain will not impact whether there is a deal - that depends on Israel and Palestine. What he is trying to do is what the Republicans have done for decades - they want to win the Jewish vote. RW pundit Podhertz (Commentary) wrote a whole book that was essentially a temper tantrum claiming that Jews were just not thinking when staying with the Democrats.

McCain said Kerry was a human wrecking ball for ME policy. Kerry likely can't ask for a better compliment. To McCain, Kerry's work to get CW out of Syria, a political solution to Iran and this work with Israel are 100% against McCain's neo con dreams. To us, it should mean that he is doing a great job. (Incidentally, Netanyahu has praised Kerry's work - and did so in a public speech at the Saban Institute last month. )

[1000words]

28. Good post

You make a convincing argument. Do you feel the latest announced settlement plans were just a throw-away bargaining chip?

[karynnj]

30. I don't know

I suspect that they may well be. After all, Netanyahu will have to give on every position - by creating "fat", it could be like it was in the EARLY days of downsizing where in some departments, the agreed on cuts were near the number of unfilled positions. However, I have read NO expert on the region suggest that - so it is just me.

It could also be what many pundits are saying - that Netanyahu is balancing two sides. He announces the prisoner releases and nearly at the same moment the settlement expansions. Late last year, he said (in front of Kerry) that this was an agreed on trade off. Kerry VERY strongly said the next day that the Palestinians had NOT agreed to anything like that. (I suspect that Netanyahu was attempting to create a new narrative - one that would harm Abbas, but might better position him with his right wing.

If I could make any point, I would like to say that there is a problem with the reporting in the US that is not coming from bias. The media here reports on everything as if it were a sports game. As a result, there are stories of Kerry winning or Kerry likely losing. (Then throw in the need = though there is no reason to do so - of making it a comparison to other SoSs) What is hard to find is anything that really explains the positions, historical narratives and goals of the real players - the various powers (including people seen as having no power) in the area. Those are the things that will create the courage to make a deal or kill any deal that others want to make.

The other reason for wanting the Kerry winning/losing meme to end is that the assumption built in is that he "needs" something as his legacy. In fact, there are few - non Presidents - who come close to what Kerry already has as a legacy (even if not widely known) - no one forgets his 1971 actions that did change perceptions on war, changed US practices, and possibly made war less likely for a few decades; lies told under oath to his small committee that investigated the Contras before the plane crash proved the truth were the basis for indictments of people like Elliot Abrams and others - all pardoned by GHWB; Kerry's investigation of BCCI led to its closure and it acted as the bank to many non-state terrorist and funded Pakistan's bomb; Kerry and a SFRC staffer wrote the AIDS in Africa help that later was sponsored by him and Senator Frist, who pushed Bush to back it and include it into the SFRC's Pepfar bill (oddly, THIS is often cited (correctly) as a redeeming GWB achievement - and he deserves credit for this as much as Clinton deserves credit for SCHIP - Senators proposed the idea and the President accepted it in his budget), ... There are more things, but this is enough to show he already has a legacy - he was an accomplished Senator - and one who maybe because he never pandered to them had few media supporters.

As SoS, at minimum, he will have succeeded in pushing the most serious Israel/Pakistan talks in decades, been a key player in getting chemical weapons out of Syria and in reopening US dialogue with Iran. If I had to guess on these: The removal of the chemical weapons will be largely successful. The RW is already arguing not that it won't happen, but that it was the wrong goal. Their goal - as usual - regime change. On Iran, I suspect that while there are strong forces on BOTH sides fighting the Obama and Rouhani plan, it really will lead to an agreement. Of course, the RW will argue that we could have gotten a better deal and makes the world less safe. However, IF Kerry/Obama can follow that with getting Iran to stop its support of Hezzbollah, it could be a game changer in the middle east. (I suspect the odds are more likely that there will be an agreement because the Clinton allies have started to emphasize her role in both the sanctions and in being SoS when they set up the back channel in Oman (Senator Kerry led in opening the channel, but William Burns, who reported to HRC was the key ongoing person involved. I will be even MORE confident if Clinton publicly spoke in favor of the interim agreement which she has been silent on - which is the politically smart move.))

[regnaD kciN]

27. Gee, how surprising...!

I'm shocked to learn that Netanyahu has objections to a plan that would prevent the status quo from continuing in perpetuity...shocked, I tell ya!

[Orsino]

29. I'm just going to ignore headlines including "McCain" and "serious concerns." n/t

[nilesobek]

34. From presidential candidate to errand boy

for Netanyahu. Kerry should dismiss him from the room like a pizza delivery boy.

[yellowcanine]

35. We are even then. Kerry has serious concerns about Netanyahu's plan to annex the West Bank one

settlement at a time.

[OldHippieChick]

36. At what point can we finally question

this man's patriotism? We already know about his mental state