US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in the region to initiate new diplomatic efforts, attempting to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, even as Israeli authorities continued to expand settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This expansion, including in the controversial E1 corridor, followed the Palestinian Authority's gaining nonmember observer state status at the UN last November.
Kerry's mission, which began Tuesday afternoon, a day before President Barack Obama's arrival, aimed to reintroduce the 2002 Saudi Peace initiative as a framework for future negotiations. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed Kerry's preparatory meetings, though his schedule remained undisclosed to the media.
The 2002 Saudi plan proposed that Arab nations would recognize and make peace with Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines, an agreed solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, and the formation of an independent Palestinian state. However, the original proponent, then-Crown Prince King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, stated the initiative was a basis for negotiation, not a dictate, with all points open for discussion. Kerry himself had previously warned Palestinian leadership that concessions would be required on some clauses of the peace plan.
Who Profits from Dispossession
The ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements directly serves the interests of capital accumulation and the privatization of collective resources. After the Palestinian Authority secured nonmember observer state status at the UN last November, Israel announced a series of new construction plans for areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. These plans included development in the E1 corridor, a strategic area located between Maaleh Adumin in the West Bank and Jerusalem, further fragmenting Palestinian territory.
Palestinian officials have consistently demanded a halt to settlement construction as a precondition for returning to negotiations, recognizing these expansions as fundamental obstacles to any genuine resolution. Israel, however, maintained that peace talks should proceed without preconditions, arguing that all final status issues—security, Jerusalem, refugees, and borders—would be resolved during negotiations. This stance effectively allows for continued land seizure while diplomatic processes are stalled.
Direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians have been broken down for 15 years, since the fall of 2010, when Israel refused to extend a settlement construction freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This refusal underscored the Israeli state's commitment to protecting and expanding accumulated wealth through territorial control.
The State's Role in Maintaining Control
The US state apparatus, through its diplomatic efforts, appears to manage contradictions rather than challenge the structural foundations of the conflict. Aaron David Miller, an adviser on Mideast peace to six secretaries of state, described Obama's visit as a “down payment trip,” suggesting no immediate accomplishments were expected. Kerry was scheduled to accompany Obama and return for additional meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Abbas was expected to ask Obama to pressure Israel for “goodwill gestures,” including the release of Palestinian prisoners, the transfer of additional land to PA control, and the handing over of armored vehicles donated by Russia. Netanyahu was reportedly considering a package of gestures, such as transferring authority over two access roads, approving building plans for 10 Palestinian villages currently deemed illegal, releasing Fatah prisoners arrested before the Oslo peace talks, and providing small arms ammunition to Palestinian security forces. These proposed gestures, while offering minor relief, do not address the systemic issues of occupation and dispossession, instead reinforcing the existing power dynamic.
Nabil Shaath, a PA official and former member of the Palestinian negotiation team, noted that the new Israeli government, sworn in on Monday, contained more settlers and fewer religious legislators than previous administrations. Shaath characterized these settlers as “more extremist and more dangerous” than their religious counterparts, indicating a hardening of the state's stance on territorial control.
Top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat stated that no new initiative was needed, nor a summit meeting, but rather a clear timetable for Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. Erekat further asserted that the new Israeli government was formed specifically to destroy the principle of a two-state solution to the decades-old conflict, exposing the futility of US-led reform efforts.
Organized Resistance from Below
While state-level diplomacy continued to falter, thousands gathered in Tel Aviv on Thursday for the third annual People's Peace Summit. This event, organized by a coalition of over 80 Israeli co-existence and human rights organizations, brought together a diverse group including old peace activists, women in hijabs, bilingual schoolchildren, and men in tzitzit. Speakers at the summit urged a revival of a peace movement, demonstrating a collective desire for structural change that transcends the limitations of official negotiations. This grassroots mobilization stands in stark contrast to the top-down diplomatic maneuvers that have consistently failed to address the root causes of dispossession and conflict.
Former deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon recalled that the Israeli government, despite initially rejecting the 2002 Saudi offer as “take-it-or-leave-it,” did explore the idea, attempting to arrange a meeting with Adel Jubeir, then an adviser to Abdullah. This historical detail reveals the strategic calculations of the state in managing external proposals while maintaining its core objectives.