Kerry's 'Fair and balanced' is unfair to Israel

Ted Belman
Secretary of State Kerry left Israel this morning for Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  His parting words were:

"I can guarantee all parties that President (Barack) Obama and I are committed to putting forward ideas that are fair and balanced.. .."

It sounds nice; what can it mean?

Courts don't make judgments based on what's fair and balanced. They look to the facts and to the law.

Accordingly Kerry proposes to ignore the law and perhaps even the facts. Essentially his starting point is the demands being made by each side whether justified or not. He is saying that he will be fair and balanced in deciding where to draw the line between these demands.

Israel should have demanded the moon as the PA did. Instead, Prime Minister Netanyahu opted for making minor demands -- and Israel will suffer because of it.

When it comes to the facts, Israel is on strong ground and the Arabs weak ground, so she is greatly disadvantaged by ignoring them.

Legally Israel is on even stronger ground and the Arabs weaker ground, so again ignoring her legal rights is to her disadvantage. Unfortunately, Netanyahu has been ignoring her legal rights to Judea and Samaria.  Perhaps he did so because he knew that such rights were going to be ignored in a final settlement. But as I see it, all the more reason to protest.

How can Kerry be fair and balanced when proposing measures for Israel's security? He obviously isn't allowing her to decide what her needs are. How does he balance her need for security and her legal right to it with the Arab demands for sovereignty?  Especially when they have no right to sovereignty.  UN Security Council Resolution 242 allows Israel to remain in occupation when she has secure and recognized borders. But such borders should be hers to insist on.  Yet Kerry denies her that right and seeks to determine the borders for her. What's fair about that?

What is fair and balance about requiring Israel to accept 1967 lines with swaps? That is decidedly unfair.  Given her legal rights to settle Judea and Samaria, and given the fact that she liberated the territory in a defensive war, why is it not fair to allow her to determine how much of it she wants to keep? The Palestinians have no right to this land and no right to sovereignty. Anything Israel gives them is a gift.

Why is it fair and balanced that Kerry and Obama have endorsed the Arab demand for full withdrawal?

Essentially the peace process is a process whereby Israel's legal rights are being forcibly given to the Arabs.  What's fair about that?

 

Secretary of State Kerry left Israel this morning for Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  His parting words were:

"I can guarantee all parties that President (Barack) Obama and I are committed to putting forward ideas that are fair and balanced.. .."

It sounds nice; what can it mean?

Courts don't make judgments based on what's fair and balanced. They look to the facts and to the law.

Accordingly Kerry proposes to ignore the law and perhaps even the facts. Essentially his starting point is the demands being made by each side whether justified or not. He is saying that he will be fair and balanced in deciding where to draw the line between these demands.

Israel should have demanded the moon as the PA did. Instead, Prime Minister Netanyahu opted for making minor demands -- and Israel will suffer because of it.

When it comes to the facts, Israel is on strong ground and the Arabs weak ground, so she is greatly disadvantaged by ignoring them.

Legally Israel is on even stronger ground and the Arabs weaker ground, so again ignoring her legal rights is to her disadvantage. Unfortunately, Netanyahu has been ignoring her legal rights to Judea and Samaria.  Perhaps he did so because he knew that such rights were going to be ignored in a final settlement. But as I see it, all the more reason to protest.

How can Kerry be fair and balanced when proposing measures for Israel's security? He obviously isn't allowing her to decide what her needs are. How does he balance her need for security and her legal right to it with the Arab demands for sovereignty?  Especially when they have no right to sovereignty.  UN Security Council Resolution 242 allows Israel to remain in occupation when she has secure and recognized borders. But such borders should be hers to insist on.  Yet Kerry denies her that right and seeks to determine the borders for her. What's fair about that?

What is fair and balance about requiring Israel to accept 1967 lines with swaps? That is decidedly unfair.  Given her legal rights to settle Judea and Samaria, and given the fact that she liberated the territory in a defensive war, why is it not fair to allow her to determine how much of it she wants to keep? The Palestinians have no right to this land and no right to sovereignty. Anything Israel gives them is a gift.

Why is it fair and balanced that Kerry and Obama have endorsed the Arab demand for full withdrawal?

Essentially the peace process is a process whereby Israel's legal rights are being forcibly given to the Arabs.  What's fair about that?