[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: "Israel's security is critical...But so is our
concern for the people of Palestine and for the Palestinians and their
future...The security of Israel is always paramount...But so is our concern
for the people of Palestine and for the Palestinians and their future."

This may sound politically correct to American ears. But it is downright
baffling to us here in Israel.

Let's put the cards on the table: our security is our survival and John
Kerry is equating that to some amorphous "concern for the people of
Palestine and for the Palestinians and their future."

What is as important as our survival?

Let's be clear here: Aaron Lerner isn't claiming that there is some
conflict between "concern for the people of Palestine and for the
Palestinians and their future" and "the security of Israel." It was John
Kerry who used the word "but" instead of "and" to connect between the two
phrases.

A reminder:

"Likewise, the United States remains committed to the belief that the
Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their
own sovereign state. "
President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly September
24, 2013

Let me spell this out: security arrangements to make sure that Palestinians
don't murder Israelis impinge on Palestinian "dignity".

And so while these folks can say for the umpty umpth time that they "have
our backs" and are "committed to Israel's security" they also think that
Palestinian "dignity" is as important as Israel's survival.

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama have no qualms having 95 year old grandmothers
manhandled at JFK as they walk barefoot through the security check, but they
aren't particularly happy that we bother to check if Palestinians passing
through are carrying bombs and weapons because it hurts Palestinian
"dignity".

And don’t think for a moment that "dignity" ends with inspections. Where is
the "dignity" in Israeli control of the airspace? Where is the "dignity" in
compliance inspections?
===========================

Remarks at Solo Press Availability

Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
David Citadel Hotel

Jerusalem

January 5, 2014
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/01/219298.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning to everybody. This has been a productive
couple of days with very, very intensive talks. And though we're not done
yet obviously, I want to catch you up on the most recent negotiations to
give you a sense of where we are.

But before we do, I really want to say a brief word about the situation in
South Sudan. For the last several weeks, all of us at the upper levels of
the Obama Administration have been working together and constantly talking
to the leaders in South Sudan, working with our special envoy Ambassador Don
Booth, working with our Ambassador Susan Page, and working with all of our
colleague countries who are engaged in trying to prevent the violence of
South Sudan.

And the United States remains deeply committed to supporting the efforts
that will bring this violence to an end. We’ve been involved in this for a
long time. We were involved in the birth of this nation, and I personally
know the leaders. I’ve been there many – a number of times. And so I think
all of us feel a very personal stake in trying to avert tribal warfare and
ethnic confrontation on the ground, as well as any kind of resolution of
political differences by force.

The beginning of direct talks between the parties, as announced by the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development, is a very important step. But
make no mistake: it is only a first step and there is a lot more to do.

Both parties need to put the interests of South Sudan above their own, and
that has been a message we have consistently delivered to those engaged in
this conflict. Negotiations have to be serious. They cannot be a delay
gimmick in order to continue the fighting and try to find advantage on the
ground at the expense of the people of South Sudan. They have to be credible
talks, and both parties need to approach the talks with courage and with
resolve, with the clear intent of trying to find a political solution.

So we call on the parties to listen to the region and to the international
community in finding a peaceful way forward to resolve this conflict.

As we've said before, the United States will support those who seek peace,
but we will deny support and we will work to apply international pressure to
any elements that attempt to use force to seize power. That is not
acceptable. The talks in Addis Ababa, we believe, are absolutely the best
way forward, and the world is going to be watching very closely to see that
a halt to the fighting on the ground takes place and to test the good faith
of leaders of any group, and particularly the two most critical players
here, President Kiir and former Vice President Machar. Both of them need to
push their people to come to the table here. The fighting must end, and we
seek tangible progress towards peace on the ground.

Obviously, it is this effort to try to make peace that has brought back here
again to Israel, to Jerusalem. And I want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu
and I want to thank President Abbas for the significant amount of time and
for the effort and energy that they have expended in order to engage in very
serious conversations about the way forward.

Over the past few days, I've had two lengthy rounds with each leader and
with their teams, and we have had very positive, but I have to say very
serious, very intensive conversations. These issues are not easy. As I've
said before, if this was easy, this would have been resolved a long time
ago. It is not easy. These are complicated issues that involve the survival
and the future of peoples. And this is a conflict that has gone on for too
long, so positions are hardened. Mistrust obviously exists at a very high
level. And so you have to work through that and around that and over that,
and every step is a step that is to try to point to the path forward and the
ways in which each side can build a relationship and trust over a period of
time.

Today, I am leaving Jerusalem in order to go to Jordan and consult with His
Majesty King Abdullah and his team, and from there I will leave to go to
Saudi Arabia to consult with His Majesty King Abdullah of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, who is, of course, the author of the Arab Peace Initiative and
has a very significant interest and stake in this process. I will then
return here to Jerusalem tonight.

We will continue discussions at staff level for a period of time, and at
some point I do need to go back to Washington, obviously, this week for the
work that we have there. But as our teams flesh out some of the concepts
that are on the table, as necessary, I will return.

I want to be very clear about something that I have said before, but it
bears repeating at this juncture: both Prime Minister Netanyahu and
President Abbas have already made important decisions and courageous
decisions, difficult decisions. You can see in the press and you see in the
public debate that the choices they’re making elicit strong responses from
their people. And I understand that very, very well.

We’re at the table today because of the determination to try to resolve this
issue, and both of them have made the tough choices to stay at that table.
We are now at a point where the choices narrow down and the choices are
obviously real and difficult. And so we – the United States, President
Obama, myself – will do everything in our power to help the parties be able
to see the road ahead in ways that will meet the interests of both of their
peoples.

The security of Israel is always paramount - in my mind, in our mind. For 29
years I had the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, and I am
proud to say I had a 100 percent voting record with respect to those issues
of concern to Israel, and I don't intend to change that now. Israel's
security is critical, and the United States relationship is ironclad.

But so is our concern for the people of Palestine and for the Palestinians
and their future. And I can guarantee all parties that President Obama and I
are committed to putting forward ideas that are fair, that are balanced, and
that improve the security of all of the people of this region.

Now, obviously, I can't go into the details. I’m not going to start breaking
now the agreements that I made with the parties and that I set forth as the
rules here. We are not going to negotiate this in public. We are not going
to lay out the substance of these core issues. But I can tell everybody all
of the core issues are on the table. The difficult issues of security, of
territory, borders, the future of the refugee issue, the status ultimately
of the city of Jerusalem, and the end of conflict and of claims. How you
arrive at a fair resolution of all of these complicated issues is obviously
at the core of what we are talking about.

I want to share something that I shared with both of the leaders in my
meetings, and that is now is not the time to get trapped in the sort of up
and down of the day-to-day challenges. This does not lend itself to a daily
tick-tock. We don't have the luxury of dwelling on the obstacles that we all
know could distract us from our goal. What we need to do is lift our sights
and look ahead and keep in mind the vision of what can come if we can move
forward.

I want to reiterate – we are not working on an interim agreement. We are
working on a framework for negotiations that will guide and create the
clear, detailed, accepted roadmap for the guidelines for the permanent
status negotiations, and can help those negotiations move faster and more
effectively.

The agreed framework will address all of the core issues that we've been
discussing, and I think that's the most that I would like to say about that
at this point in time.

I do want to be clear: I know there are those out there who on both sides
question whether or not peace is possible. I know there is a high level of
cynicism, reservation about the possibilities. But it is clear to me that we
can work to bride the remaining gaps that do exist and we can achieve a
final status agreement that results in two states for two peoples if we stay
focused and if we keep in mind the benefits of our doing so.

The benefits for both sides are really enormous, and people don't talk about
it enough or think about it enough. One of the reasons I'm going to Saudi
Arabia is that Saudi Arabia's initiative holds out the prospect that if the
parties could arrive at a peaceful resolution, you could instantaneously
have peace between the 22 Arab nations and 35 Muslim nations, all of whom
have said they will recognize Israel if peace is achieved.

Imagine how that changes the dynamics of travel, of business, of education,
of opportunity in this region, of stability. Imagine what peace could mean
for trade and tourism, what it could mean for developing technology and
talent, for job opportunities for the younger generation, for generations in
all of these countries.

Imagine what peace could mean for an Israel where schoolchildren, some of
whom I've seen in the course of my many visits here, so that they could
actually run around a playground without the threat that a rocket might come
from Gaza or from Lebanon and have to seek shelter during the course of the
day.

Imagine what peace could mean for Palestinian children, who could grow up
living in the dignity of their own sovereign country with an understanding
that they can do what anybody in the world might be able to aspire to do,
free from hatred and free from the fear that accompanies their daily
existence, and obviously free to embrace all of the opportunities of young
people anywhere else in the world.

The ancient and historic city of Jerusalem where long ago the words were
written that have great meaning today: the scripture tells us that "the Lord
will give strength to His people; and the Lord will bless His people with
peace." And as men and women of peace I think in this region, we continue to
believe in that possibility.

So we stand behind these negotiations that can lead not just to two states
for two peoples, but a shared prosperity that benefits the peoples of all of
this region. The stakes here are much bigger than just Israel and Palestine.
This is a conflict that is felt around the world. It is a conflict that has
implications with every leader I have met anywhere in the world as Secretary
of State or a senator. They all ask about the conflict of the Middle East
and whether or not it can be resolved.

So these are high stakes, high stakes for the leaders and high stakes for
everybody else. And President Obama is determined that the United States of
America and his Administration will do everything in our power to exhaust
the possibilities of finding that peace.

On that note, I'd be happy to open it up to any questions.

MODERATOR: Deb.

QUESTION: There have been 20 rounds of negotiations for the --

SECRETARY KERRY: Who's counting?

QUESTION: Who's counting, yes. The negotiations seem to be hung up on some
pretty serious roadblocks. I mean, Israel, for example, is balking at the
'67 lines, and that's a pretty big hurdle.

SECRETARY KERRY: Israel is doing what?

QUESTION: Balking at the '67 lines.

SECRETARY KERRY: You’re telling me things that I don't know that I'm not
commenting on. So I mean, I don't know where you – honestly, I don't know
where you know that from. I'm not going to talk about who's balking, not
balking. But don't believe what you hear.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY KERRY: What we're doing right now is working through those issues.

QUESTION: Okay. I know you don't want to talk about specifics, but can you
give the American public, the Israelis, the Palestinians even one example of
something even generally in terms of progress that you’ve been able to make
in your 10 trips here?

And when the framework is agreed upon, if It's agreed upon, how detailed
will it be? Will it include some sort of a deadline or framework - frame -
timeframe for finishing a final status agreement?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me share with you as best I can sort of how this
is working and why I am not going to go into the details. I have shared with
you that we are talking about all of the core issues, and you know that. You
all have traveled out here many times. And you know that the core issues
involve territory and the core issues involve security, and they involve
refugees and they involve the question of recognition for both peoples and
involves, obviously, ultimately, questions about Jerusalem and how you
resolve all claims and the conflict itself.

Now, this is deeply steeped in history, and each side has a narrative about
their rights and their journey and the conflict itself. And in the end, all
of these different core issues actually fit together like a mosaic. It's a
puzzle, and you can't separate out one piece or another. Because what a
leader might be willing to do with respect to a compromise on one particular
piece is dependent on what the other leader might be willing to do with
respect to a different particular piece. And there's always a tension as to
when you put your card on the table as to which piece you're willing to do,
when, and how. So it has to move with its particular pace and its particular
privacy, frankly. And that's why it's so important not to be laying out any
one particular component of it at any given moment of time, because it
actually makes it more difficult for those decisions to be made or for those
compromises to be arrived at, or for one of the leaders to have the freedom
to be able to do what they need to do in order to figure out the political
path ahead, which is obviously real for both.

So the answer is I'm not going to lay out one particular example or another,
except to say to you that the path is becoming clearer, the puzzle is
becoming more defined, and it is becoming much more apparent to everybody
what the remaining tough choices are and what the options are with respect
to those choices.

But it takes time to work through these things, and that's why I have
refused to ever set a particular timetable. But I feel comfortable that
those major choices are now on the table and that the leaders are grappling
with these options, otherwise I wouldn't be going to talk to other
stakeholders in this process the way I am today. But I cannot tell you when
particularly the last pieces may decide to fall into place or may fall on
the floor and leave the puzzle unfinished. That's exactly what makes this
such a challenge, and also so interesting at the same time.

With respect to – I think you had --

QUESTION: What about the – how detailed will the framework be if it's --

SECRETARY KERRY: I'm not going to go into – again, we'll let the framework
speak for itself when and if it is achieved and --

QUESTION: But are you seeking some sort of deadline? In other words, it does
become kind of --

SECRETARY KERRY: Am I thinking of some sort of deadline?

QUESTION: Is --

SECRETARY KERRY: Sure I am.

QUESTION: Is there a discussion about a deadline so that it doesn't just
(inaudible) a long and --

SECRETARY KERRY: Yes. The answer is yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY KERRY: I have a deadline in mind.

QUESTION: Okay.

MODERATOR: Michael Gordon.

QUESTION: On another Middle East subject, Mr. Secretary. A significant
number of American military personnel died to take Fallujah from al-Qaida in
Iraq, and now two years after the American forces were withdrawn from Iraq,
much of that city has been taken back by an al-Qaida affiliate.

The 75 Hellfire missiles that the Administration is selling to Iraq and the
ScanEagle drones it plans to deliver by March don’t appear to be sufficient
to prevent this al-Qaida affiliate from controlling much of Anbar and other
parts of Iraq. And yesterday, your State Department issued a statement
saying that American officials had been in touch with Iraqi tribal leaders
and that the U.S. was working with the Iraqi Government to "support those
tribes in every possible way."

My question is: What specific steps is the Administration prepared to take
to help the Iraqi tribes or the Iraqi Government roll back the al-Qaida
advance in western and northern Iraq? Nobody is suggesting the U.S. send
ground troops, but would the United States be willing to carry out drone
strikes from bases outside Iraq? Would you provide arms to the tribes? The
leader of this al-Qaida affiliate has been designed a global terrorist by
the State Department. What specific steps are you prepared to take?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Michael, I'm not going to go into all of the
specifics. Let me just say in general terms a couple of things. First of
all, we are following the events in Anbar province very, very closely,
obviously. We're very, very concerned by the efforts of al-Qaida and the
Islamic State of Iraq in the Levant, which is affiliated with al-Qaida, who
are trying to assert their authority not just in Iraq but in Syria.

These are the most dangerous players in that region. Their barbarism against
the civilians of Ramadi and Fallujah and against Iraqi security forces is on
display for everybody in the world to see. Their brutality is something we
have seen before. And we will stand with the Government of Iraq and with
others who will push back against their efforts to destabilize and to bring
back, to wreak havoc on the region and on the democratic process that is
taking hold in Iraq.

Now, we're going to do everything that is possible to help them, and I will
not go into the details except to say that we're in contact with tribal
leaders from Anbar province whom we know who are showing great courage in
standing up against this as they reject terrorist groups from their cities.
And this is a fight that belongs to the Iraqis. That is exactly what the
President and the world decided some time ago when we left Iraq. So we are
not, obviously, contemplating returning. We're not contemplating putting
boots on the ground. This is their fight, but we're going to help them in
their fight.

And yes, we have an interest. We have an interest in helping the legitimate
and elected government be able to push back against the terrorists. This is
a fight that is bigger than just Iraq. This is part of the reason why the
Geneva conference is so critical, because the rise of these terrorists in
the region and particularly in Syria and through the fighting in Syria is
part of what is unleashing this instability in the rest of the region.
That's why everybody has a stake. All of the Gulf states, all of the
regional actors, Russia, the United States, and a lot of players elsewhere
in the world have a stake in pushing back against violent extremist
terrorists who respect no law, who have no goal other than to take over
power and disrupt lives by force.

And the United States intends to continue to remain in close contact with
all of the Iraq political leaders to see how we can continue to support
their efforts in the days ahead. But it is their fight; that is what we
determined some time ago, that we can't want peace and we can't want
democracy and we can't want an orderly government and stability more than
the people in a particular area, in a particular country or a particular
region. And so we will help them in their fight; but this fight, in the end
they will have to win, and I am confident they can.

MODERATOR: Anne Gearan.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the Geneva II conference a moment
ago. You're less than two weeks out from that event now, and the question as
to whether Iran will be invited is still open. What is your current
position? Do you want to see Iran included? And even if they don't sign up
to all of the principles of Geneva I, isn't it better to have them working
alongside you than potentially (inaudible)?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Iran could participate very easily if they would
simply accept publicly the Geneva I premise on which Geneva II is based. We
are not going to Geneva to just have a discussion. We are going with the
purpose of implementing Geneva I. That was the premise originally that
Foreign Minister Lavrov and I announced in Moscow. That has been the premise
of organizing this. That will be the premise of the invitation that is sent
out by the secretary general of the United Nations. We are going to
implement Geneva I, which calls for a transition government by mutual
consent with full executive authority; and if Iran doesn't support that,
it's very difficult to see how they're going to be "a ministerial partner"
in the process.

Now, could they contribute from the sidelines? Are there ways for them
conceivably to weigh in? Can their mission that is already in Geneva be
there in order to help the process? It may be that there are ways that that
could happen. But that has to be determined by the secretary general and it
has to be determined by Iranian intentions themselves. But in terms of a
formal invitation or participation, that is for those who support the Geneva
I implementation, and that’s the purpose of the Geneva conference.

QUESTION: Would you like to see Foreign Minister Zarif attend on the
sidelines then at the invitation of the secretary general --

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I think I just spoke to it. I think that we’re happy
to have Iran be helpful. Everybody is happy to have Iran be helpful. But we
have a huge piece of business on the table with Iran right now to complete
the task of the implementation language and get moving with respect to the
negotiations on their own nuclear program and the challenge of that
particular relationship.

So Iran knows exactly what it has to do with respect to the nuclear program
as well as with respect to Geneva II. And it's very simple: come join the
community of nations and do what all of us are committed to doing, which is
try to bring about a peaceful resolution in Syria by virtue of the
implementation of Geneva I.

MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all. Appreciate it.