US Secretary of State John Kerry remembers '
my friend Arik.'
"Ariel Sharon's journey was Israel’s journey. The dream of Israel was
the cause of his life, and he risked it all to live that dream.
"I remember reading about Arik in the papers when I was a young lawyer
in Boston and marveling at his commitment to cause and country. I will
never forget meeting with this big bear of a man when he became prime
minister, as he sought to bend the course of history toward peace, even
as it meant testing the patience of his own longtime supporters and the
limits of his own, lifelong convictions in the process. He was prepared
to make tough decisions because he knew that his responsibility to his
people was both to ensure their security and to give every chance to the
hope that they could live in peace.
"During his years in
politics, it is no secret that there were times the United States had
differences with him. But whether you agreed or disagreed with his
positions — and Arik was always crystal clear about where he stood — you
admired the man who was determined to ensure the security and survival
of the Jewish state. In his final years as prime minister, he surprised
many in his pursuit of peace, and today, we all recognize, as he did,
that Israel must be strong to make peace, and that peace will also make
Israel stronger. We honor Arik’s legacy and those of Israel’s founding
generation by working to achieve that goal.
Perhaps Kerry needs to be reminded of
this:
At an April 9 press conference
in Tel Aviv, Bow Shapira from Israeli TV (Channel 1) told Kerry he
wanted to ask about “a guarantee from the past”–the 2004 Bush letter,
which he described as “telling that blocs of settlements can stay,
cannot [be] removed from the territory.” His question about the
guarantee was straightforward: “well, does it exist?” Kerry responded in
part as follows:
I remember that commitment very well because I was running for
president then, and I personally have supported the notion that the
situation on the ground has changed, and obviously, we’re talking about
blocs that are in a very different status. I’m not going to get into
telling you what ought to happen with respect to any particular piece of
geography today because that’s for the parties to decide in their
negotiation. But I have certainly supported the notion publicly myself
that we need to deal with the ’67 lines, plus the swaps that reflect
some of the changes that have taken place since then.
It is not surprising that Kerry remembered the commitment so well. He
appeared on “Meet the Press” on April 18, 2004–four days after the Bush
letter was issued–and was asked directly about it by Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush … said that Israel
can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and
asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular
homes. Do you support President Bush?
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Completely?
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
Kerry’s response to the Israeli reporter last week is significant,
because he recognized: (1) that the Bush letter was in fact a
commitment, subsequently endorsed by both the Senate (95-3) and the
House (407-9) in concurrent resolutions; and (2) that he supported it at
the time, in unambiguous terms.
Perhaps Kerry could better remember his 'friend, Arik' by pushing the administration whose foreign policy he leads to live up to its commitments to his 'friend.'
No comments:
Post a Comment