Kerry is in Lebanon and will be going to Syria an Israel

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1110/Kerry_in_Lebanon_Damascus.html?showall

This article explains the need to defend the tribunal - it is very short, so I think this might be all I can quote.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gdUKmlnooyA6FSn_oXpFhtEd26HA?docId=5070663

Here is an article that explains more of the Lebanese situation.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1597422.php/US-Senator-Kerry-says-UN-s-Hariri-tribunal-will-complete-its-work

From the op-ed itself, it seems that the US is actually moving away from this type of dual track program. The question is whether Kerry writing this is completely independent from an administration that has given up on this approach due to the lack of success or if he is acting as an Obama ally but not part of the administration suggesting in a less official way than an administration official could to Burma what they need to do to improve relations, while like every American condemning the bogus elections. It really could be either way.

Trying to get Turkey to reengage with Israel. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jUpGHqs7CdXzWLjT6ggXmxdqujEA?docId=5078956

Kerry is then going to Israel and the West Bank. ( The article then speaks of Clinton and Obama criticizing Israel's plan to build 1300 houses in East Jerusalem. Clinton will meet with Netanyhu in NYC later this week. )

It is better than the other articles - explains what Kerry is trying to accomplish in Turkey - in short to act as the mediator between Turkey and Israel to get them to re-establish relations - that have become very cold since the flotilla. Kerry told FP that he was exploring how this deadlock could be broken. Turkey in the past was Israel's best ally in the entire area.

FT now has text that says it it a violation of their copywrite to cut and paste, but does say to link to the article.

Nice summary of the history of the two countries, but nothing else not in the other articles - but it has a nice photo of Kerry in Lebanon. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/senator-kerry-israel-and-turkey-must-renew-close-ties-1.323805

The first suggests a much friendlier meeting than the AP article did - where it seemed that Kerry was pressuring them to make up with Israel. Here, the story is more speaking of the good US/Turkey relations and their past help on the Middle East, then expressing the hope that Turkey and Israel could get their relationship improved enough that Turkey could again help.



http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=66153

The second has a much fuller discussion of all the issues covered, not just relations with Israel. My take is that Turkey has been a goo US ally and there are many things that have not made them happy - including not having an Ambassador. It sounds like Obama was slow to appoint one (he appointed one in July. His confirmation was on the agenda of the Aug 3 business meeting of the SFRC) and the Republicans have been holding approval up.

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-226803-102-kerry-its-importantthat-turkey-and-israel-renew-ties.html

He was there to discuss the situation in Sudan.



http://nazret.com/blog/index.php/2010/11/09/ethiopia-meles-zenawi-held-talks-with-senator-john-kerry-on-sudan

The article mentions that Ethiopia is working with the African Union High-Level Panel on Sudan to facilitate the referendum.

This really is a major trip - Sudan, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and Israel. All with major problems.

No idea about the writer's context or background, but this was a new take for me, though I'm not sure I know what it means...

blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/11/09/2741680/kerrys-pivot

Kerry did speak of the fact that House resolutions on Iran and also (in response to a question) the Armenian genocide, that House resolutions are more likely to pass. I think he might have spoken of potential House resolutions more because they could very well happen. From all his comments, he seemed to be trying in Turkey to praise what they have done good and to encourage them to try to meet Israel half way in repairing their problems. (He did express sympathy for the loss of life in the flotilla incident - I think he is the first American to do so directly to Turkey in an unqualified way.

Kerry did NOT say that those resolutions would cause a change in administration policy. Nor did he imply that we would be more likely to go to war with Iran.

One conjecture:
He might be trying to use the threat of the Republicans to get Iran to regret not making needed actions when the Democrats controlled everything and giving them a hint that they will be best off rejoining the rest of the world now before the Republicans potentially gain more power. (He might be making the Republicans the bad cops)

As to Netanyahu - he likely thinks he has more American support than he does. J Street did a survey of Jewish voters and found that Israel was a number 1 or 2 issue with just 7% of American Jewish voters. Parts of the Jewish media has apparently tried to argue that some loses were due to supporting the 2 state solution (J street's position.) Here is a link to their election stuff - http://2010.jstreet.org/ that pretty much debunks that. (Yesterday, Eric and I heard the phone call mentioned with a small group of local J Street people - they are trying to develop grassroots) It is probably true that he might actually have more support among Christians than Jews - especially Republican ones. The Republican who will chair the House Foreign relations committee is beyond awful - and not just on this and Cuba.

He is completely misreading the election if he thinks it means support for him building settlements and not negotiating in good faith. But, it really is not and can not be the US that makes them make peace. It has to be that they see that time is not on their side - and it isn't. If they want a democratic, Jewish state - they need a two state solution. Kerry is not alone in telling them that the window of opportunity is closing. Like every problem, both sides need to see that they are better off with a negotiated solution.

One thing I wonder is whether these 1300 new buildings approved in East Jerusalem is an attempt to change what is on the ground. The hardest decision will be Jerusalem - where the most extreme on each side will refuse to accept a solution without getting the most contested parts of the city. If so, it could be a power play Or it could be an intentional way to end negotiations.

(One thing I would consider if I were an Israeli leader is what will happen if the US loses more of its dominance in the world. Over time - under any President - this will likely happen. There is NO other country that has been more biased in Israel's favor - and many biased against it. This may really be the last best chance if they want a democratic Jewish state.

The first and last sentences say it all (both in the article and Mass's excerpt). The fact is that in every county he was in except possible Ethiopia, - Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, the West Bank and Turkey were potentially explosive foreign policy messes. Being trusted as essentially Obama's emissary in any would indicate trust. To be the high profile person in all of them - and to have succeeded in not having any of them blow up (like both Pakistan and Palestine did within a week as a SoS did)

I don't like the Globe saying that Kerry was making a case for him as SoS. The fact is what this does demonstrate is that he has now handled most of the explosive political countries - adding Afghanistan and Pakistan to this list. (To me, Kerry by his excellent work has proven that on merit, there is no question who the most qualified competent Democrat was for that position - the only reaon not in his favor was politics and keeping the Clintons under control.)