The Senate's top foreign relations Democrat joined the calls of many Republicans Tuesday by coming out in favor of tabling the U.S.-Israeli dispute over Jerusalem housing construction.

John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was slated to join a host of lawmakers meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who's in town for AIPAC's annual conference. The Cable caught up to Kerry just before his meeting, and the senior senator from Massachusetts said that he will tell Netanyahu that both the United States and Israel should set the settlements issue aside for now.

"I think what's important now is not to get stuck on the issue of the settlement freeze," Kerry told The Cable. "I think what's important is to get to the table and discuss the final-status talks as rapidly as possible."

Kerry noted that calling for a full settlement freeze has been official U.S. policy for years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. But he said that was just not the most important thing on the table at this point.

"I think the focus ought to be on the talks themselves," he said. "The clock is ticking and that ticking clock works against Israel's security and it works against our interests in the region."

Kerry's position might look practical considering that Netanyahu continues to reject the reported demands of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Israel reverse its decision to build 1,600 new settlements in disputed East Jerusalem, despite their meeting for 75 minutes on Monday afternoon.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-VA, issued a statement after his bipartisan meeting with Netanyahu saying that "building in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem is not an impediment to the peace process."

There are signs that the administration is getting the message. For example, Clinton only mentioned settlements once during her AIPAC speech, and other administration officials have refrained from focusing on the issue in their public statements.

State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley said at today's press conference that the future of Jerusalem is "a final-status issue," and he too emphasized the need to shelve the settlements dispute in favor of getting to the negotiating table.

"The only way to ultimately resolve competing claims, on the future of Jerusalem, is to get to direct negotiations," he said.

That led some in the press corps to ask Crowley if Clinton had "lost" in her showdown with Netanyahu, but Crowley wouldn't concede that.

Kerry also pushed back against the calls to move Iran sanctions legislation in Congress before the administration is finished pursuing a new U.N. Security Council resolution. That puts him directly in conflict with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, among others.

"I think for Congress to get out ahead at this moment would be complicated. I think we should proceed in concert with the administration," said Kerry. "We can both send a message and we can do it together in a powerful way. The point is to be effective, not first."

Amos Ben Gershom/GPO via Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

SCOTTGOOSE

3:28 AM ET

March 24, 2010

Uhh duhh

This issue is hackneyed by now, and only enlarges the gulf between these two special allies at the worst possible time. Yes, settlements are an issue. Yes, Bibi is a total shmuck for OK'ing the housing at the time (had Yishai waited a day, I doubt we'd be hearing a word about settlements) and again showed it by OK'ing 20 new housing units pre-Obama's meeting with Bibi. However, Iran is a much bigger issue right now, and the Israel-Palestine issue does not have a solution forthcoming in the near horizon, so why let it come between such close allies?

Arab countries hate the U.S. for its own policies, and use Israel as a scapegoat, even though they certainly despise the latter's actions as well. However, the idea of Israel making all sorts of unilateral concessions as good-faith measures to all of a sudden reconcile Hamas and Fatah, let alone tame Hezbollah and other Palestinian factions. Netanyahu can't even keep his own bureaucracy in order -- he's certainly not capable of striking a peace deal.

 

ZATHRAS

4:12 AM ET

March 24, 2010

Kerry and the Surrender Thing, Again

Sen. Kerry's instant fold to Mr. Netanyahu on the settlements issue is a hint as to why he did not deserve the Presidency. His support for final status talks now is an indication of why he did not deserve to be Secretary of State.

That the man has little stomach for a fight, we knew. We also know that there does not exist a Palestinian government able to negotiate an agreement on final status issues right now, and that the Israeli government would not approach such a negotiation in good faith anyway. Kerry does not, all his years sitting on the Foreign Relations committee notwithstanding. He speaks instead of ticking clocks, and getting to the table, and resolving competing claims to Jerusalem -- while the Israeli government is oblivious to the ticking, the Palestinians can't agree on who to send to the table, and the Israeli Prime Minister explains to a rapturous audience of American supporters that Israel will resolve competing claims to Jerusalem by imposing its own, without reference to negotiations.

I'm not surprised to see Sen. Kerry go to lengths to avoid having Israel's supporters in the Democratic Party be angry with him. I expect that. I thought it possible that someone of his experience might be a little more perceptive as to the actual state of play between the Israelis and Palestinians. Evidently not.

 

IAN

11:07 AM ET

March 24, 2010

Once again

The US panders to Israel to the point of saying bench the settlements in Jerusalem.

"I think what's important now is not to get stuck on the issue of the settlement freeze," Kerry told The Cable. "I think what's important is to get to the table and discuss the final-status talks as rapidly as possible."

I'm sorry, but how are you going to get the Palestinians to talk when the US is allowing the Israeli Government to build houses in East Jerusalem? Isn't that really the one thing that Palestinians won't deal about? This is getting more and more retarded. Everyone is saying that Israel can't afford to give up this because of security reasons, but isn't doing it in the first place aggravating security? Every time they go into East Jerusalem to build themselves houses, the Palestinians get more pissed off and riots start and stones get thrown and some Israeli gets injured/dead and the military responds to secure the area and a couple Palestinians die and the Israelis make some more houses and we're back at round one again. How long before the Palestinians finally flip and the whole area explodes in violence.

When this happens, Israel will use it to garner support, saying the Palestinians started the violence and they are just trying to maintain their security, and the US will buy it. Hamas and Hezbollah will blame Israel and start a Third Intifada and get support from the Arab countries and the UN will be deadlocked behind the vetoes of Russia and China.

I have become somewhat disillusioned with the Israeli Government and their desire for peace over the last little while. I can see them deliberately pursuing this course of action for the above reason. They make the talk but take the opposite actions. The Israeli government is driving Israel towards destruction and no one is willing to stop them. Hopefully Israel itself sees that before its too late.

 

ARTCOHN

3:03 PM ET

March 25, 2010

Palestinians ntransigence is the problem

At Annapolis the Palestinians made the pronouncement that they will never recognize Israel as the Jewish State. That being so, where does anybody get the idea that there is a solution to the Israel/Palestinian impasse near at hand? Talks will get nowhere until the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish State. In 1947; the Arabs refused to accept the UN partition resolution that would have formed a Jewish State and an Arab State from the British Palestine Mandate territory. They refused, because they would not countenance a Jewish State. Israel is the name of the Jewish State foreseen in the UN resolution. The Palestinians are still maintaining their fight against any Jewish State, no matter what Israel does. All the rest are ruses meant to provide cover for the Arab/Palestinian intransigence.

 

Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.

Read More

Enter your email address to get The Cable delivered to your inbox each night:

Delivered by FeedBurner