Kerry’s obsolete rhetoric

Every time US Secretary of State John Kerry visits Jerusalem and Ramallah, initial encouraging signs rapidly dissolve into a perpetual descent towards “a pivotal point”. Besides the constant alienation from the ramifications of colonisation, decades of diplomatic jargon have also rendered the significance of many of America’s words obsolete in the Palestinian context.

The recent meetings last Tuesday between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas followed a predictable itinerary. After asserting that “Israel has every right to defend itself from terrorist attacks,” Kerry went to Ramallah where, according to Palestine News Network, he held “a long, very constructive and serious conversation” with Abbas and was handed files pertaining to recent Israeli state and settler terror attacks by Saeb Erekat.

The files contained details regarding the Palestinian civilians murdered since October, as well as demands for the return of the bodies of Palestinians that are routinely held by Israel under the pretext of security concerns. Ma’an news agency reported that during a Knesset meeting held on 4 November, Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon declared Palestinian funerals an incitement against Israel and called the policy delaying the return of the bodies “consistent and prudent, and takes into account moral and security considerations.”

Kerry reiterated that the aim of the visit was “to help contribute to calm and to restore people’s confidence in the ability of a two-state solution to still be viable.” It is evident that the US and Israel’s concept of priorities are incompatible. Netanyahu insisted upon further settlement expansion while Kerry distorted the differentiation between the oppressed and the oppressor, declaring that Israel “has an obligation to defend itself”.

Palestinian resistance movements, notably Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), denounced Kerry’s remarks and called upon the PA to boycott Kerry, who, they declared, intended to “thwart the intifada”.

Besides the obvious approval that the US has always expressed with regard to Israel’s violent and repressive tactics, Kerry’s rhetoric constructs additional, false narratives intended to stifle direct Palestinian expression. The PA has long exposed itself as a willing collaborator, with Israel collecting statistical data with the sole objective of rendering itself subject to the complex intricacies of international law. Negotiations and insistence upon the two-state solution, however, has continued to divert attention away from Palestinian anti-colonial struggle. It has become difficult for Palestinians to articulate the dimensions of their struggle owing to the torrent of premeditated distortions enforced upon the population. The result is dissociation between the immediate, most visible resistance, and the precedents that led to a struggle that, despite its foundations on unification and land reclamation, has yielded to a scattered, reactive defence against different forms of Israeli violations.

Given this neglected reality, Kerry’s statements that “the situation” would spiral out of control without compromise can only be taken seriously by anyone gullible enough to even ponder the possibility of acquiescence as a solution. It is through constant international impositions and Palestinian leaders’ compromises, notably post-Oslo, that each violation committed by Israel is treated as a solitary gesture, rather than a continuation of earlier colonial intentions.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.