Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity." The United States also abstained on that resolution, but noted that its "content generally accords with the frequently stated position of the United States on settlements in the occupied territories."

While the U.N. resolution, in the words of Kerry, did "not break new ground" on the international community's stance regarding Israeli settlements, the outgoing secretary of State nevertheless felt compelled to offer a lengthy justification of the U.S. decision to abstain.

Marshaling detailed statistics on the growth and strategic placement of Israeli settlements and displaying an intimate knowledge of Israeli land-use planning processes, Kerry laid out a convincing argument why the two-state resolution is "in serious jeopardy."

Israel's settlement activity is "increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality," he warned. If Israel persistsin the mistaken notion that Palestinians can continue to be placed "under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms," then a "separate and unequal" scenario exists.

"Would an Israeli accept living that way?" Kerry asked rhetorically.

Despite his lucid assessment of the intentions of Israel's government and the ramifications of those policies, however, Kerry’s speech was distressingly paltry on prescriptions for salvaging the two-state resolution. His call for more direct talks between the parties to establish a Palestinian state, after acknowledging that the current Israeli government opposes Palestinian sovereignty, seemed farcical and detached from reality.

And the much-awaited parameters he put forward for a two-state resolution turned out to be stale regurgitations of failed negotiating sessions long since relegated to inconsequence.

A more far-sighted and inspiring speech