On Wednesday afternoon, a CNN panel reacted to Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech lambasting Israel with praise for the “personal and passionate” address at the State Department aimed at a supposedly vast base of global supporters who believe in a two-state solution.
Perhaps even more head-shaking was CNN correspondent Elise Labott using anonymous acquaintances later in the program from Israel to boast that “rational Israelis” would “agree” that Kerry’s attack on Israel as a democracy was “balanced and simply logical and fair.”
Labott recapped Kerry’s speech immediately after its conclusion but following her was the Wilson Center’s Aaron David Miller, who had plenty to say [emphasis mine]:
MILLER: You know, initially all I can say is, whoa. I mean, I've written speeches for Republican and Democratic secretaries of state on the Middle East before. Never have I heard a speech, first of all, that went 70 minutes. Second, it was as personal and passionate. It was almost as if this speech embodied the sentiments of a man who cares so deeply about this, who was so fundamentally frustrated by the absence of progress and so convinced that the two-state solution is about to become the one-state outcome, and unless something is done, his efforts and the efforts of the United States is doomed. It is interesting that it is the secretary of state gave this speech. Not the president. We had the Reagan plan, we had the Clinton parameters, and now we have the Kerry speech.
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
CNN political commentator and The Atlantic editorial director Ron Brownstein largely parroted Miller, ruling that Kerry clearly emphasized how Israeli settlements “will leave Israel less secure at home and more isolated internationally.”
“It was a passionate — and by the way, offered not only a stick in that sense, more that this path leads to more isolation, but a carrot, because he repeatedly came back to the idea a fundamentally different security agenda for Israel might be available if they those a different direction,” Brownstein added.
After comments from former Israeli Ambassador Danny Ayalon (who offered the lone critique of Kerry) and a commercial break, At This Hour host Kate Bolduan tossed to Labott at the State Department for more spin thanks to an anonymous “Israeli friend of mine that I’ve been communicating with over the years and in my travels there and I ate at this person’s house.”
Labott claimed that her friend “has very tough over the years against the U.S. and in particular President Obama and Secretary Kerry” so it carried significant weight that they were left applauding Kerry’s tongue-lashing of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
She then read from her friend’s e-mail:
This person just e-mailed me said: “The speech was very, very good. It was balanced and simply logical and fair. I don't know what Bibi,” that’s Netanyahu kind of nickname, “will say, but I think rational Israelis will agree with me.”
Labott continued on the other side of the quote with her own analysis, ruling that “I think it kind of sets up what Secretary Kerry was trying to talk to when he talked to the Israeli public about this kind of disconnect what he calls a direction by the right in Netanyahu's government and the Israeli people who are very concerned about a two-state solution.”
“They do want a two-state solution, and I think many would say that the settlements might, you know, affect that in some way. I mean, they're not against settlements, but I think that there is a little bit of a disconnect that Secretary Kerry was trying to speak to when he said that the wealth of the Israeli population agrees with his arguments,” she concluded.
Here are the relevant portions of the transcript from CNN’s At This Hour with Berman and Bolduan on December 28:
CNN’s At This Hour with Berman and Bolduan
December 28, 2016
12:35 p.m. Eastern
AARON DAVID MILLER: You know, initially all I can say is, whoa. I mean, I've written speeches for Republican and Democratic secretaries of state on the Middle East before. Never have I heard a speech, first of all, that went 70 minutes. Second, it was as personal and passionate. It was almost as if this speech embodied the sentiments of a man who cares so deeply about this, who was so fundamentally frustrated by the absence of progress and so convinced that the two-state solution is about to become the one-state outcome, and unless something is done, his efforts and the efforts of the United States is doomed. It is interesting that it is the secretary of state gave this speech. Not the president. We had the Reagan plan, we had the Clinton parameters, and now we have the Kerry speech.
KATE BOLDUAN: What does that tell you?
MILLER: I would also argue the context here as I think Elise mentioned is everything. The question is, how is this going to be heard, interpreted and read in view of the U.S. abstention in the Security Council?
BOLDUAN: Yes.
MILLER: And I think that is going to diminish the receptivity of this clearly on one side, for sure.
KATE BOLDUAN: Well, and along the lines, Ron, one line that you heard and we all three of us, perked our ears is when he said, that the current coalition is the most right-wing in Israel's history with an agenda coming from the most extreme elements. That's a pretty blunt message.
RON BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, as Aaron said, very long speech, but the core summed up pretty I think concisely which is, when he said that while Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly supports a two-state solution, that word “publicly” underlined, his government is pursuing settlement policies that, in effect, render it impractical and effectively extinguishing it. That choice, Kerry argued, in the long run, will leave Israel less secure at home and more isolated internationally. It was a passionate — and by the way, offered not only a stick in that sense, more that this path leads to more isolation, but a carrot, because he repeatedly came back to the idea a fundamentally different security agenda for Israel might be available if they those a different direction. This seemed, David, you know, the question who the audience is is important. It seemed more aimed at Israeli public opinion. I don't know if he has a lot of hope he's going to change the mind of the incoming Trump administration, which has signaled a different course.
BOLDUAN: He seemed to signal not. Right?
BROWNSTEIN: Not. But this basically was designed I think to help seed or perhaps change the direction of the debate inside of Israel as the U.S. begins to move in a different direction.
BOLDUAN: David, what is — what do you think is the most important thing we heard here?
DAVID ROHDE: I think how he squarely went at the settler movement. It’s just extraordinary to have the United States secretary of state making this appeal, I agree with Ron, largely to the American public. Netanyahu came to the United States, made a similar appeal to American voters to scuttle the Iran deal, so it’s — part of this is this ill-will. Again, I traveled with Kerry three years ago, spoke to him at length about this. He said the exact same things. Whether he’s right or wrong, that’s the key debate, but he does not believe that a one-state solution can result in a democratic Israel.
BOLDUAN: Get to —
ROHDE: You know, you can't have one state have all of those Palestinians living under Israelis and maintain democracy.
(....)
ELISE LABOTT: Well, Kate, I want to read something I just got from an Israeli friend of mine that I’ve been communicating with over the years and in my travels there and I ate at this person’s house has very tough over the years against the U.S. and in particular President Obama and Secretary Kerry. This person just e-mailed me said: “The speech was very, very good. It was balanced and simply logical and fair. I don't know what Bibi,” that’s Netanyahu kind of nickname, “will say, but I think rational Israelis will agree with me.” And I think it kind of sets up what Secretary Kerry was trying to talk to when he talked to the Israeli public about this kind of disconnect what he calls a direction by the right in Netanyahu's government and the Israeli people who are very concerned about a two-state solution and what that will mean for their security, but they do want peace with the Palestinians. They do want a two-state solution, and I think many would say that the settlements might, you know, affect that in some way. I mean, they're not against settlements, but I think that there is a little bit of a disconnect that Secretary Kerry was trying to speak to when he said that the wealth of the Israeli population agrees with his arguments.
