Ya think so?

In other news, the Dalai Lama is a Buddhist.

The article by Jodi Rudoren, who did not write this sublimely idiotic headline, is actually of some interest, but not perfectly lucid: it's about a debate over the Palestinian assertion that [more]

Secretary of State John Kerry had “guaranteed us in writing” that negotiations would start from the 1967 lines, and American officials suggested he was not telling the truth.

Nabil A. Shaath, the Palestinian commissioner for international relations, said the Palestinians had agreed to enter the talks only because of the guarantee. He declined to provide a copy, but when asked if it was signed by Mr. Kerry personally, said: “Absolutely. We wouldn’t have done it without this.”

But American officials denied there was such a document, which would have been a significant gesture to the Palestinians and could have enraged Israel.

The weird thing is that at the time when this guarantee may or may not have been provided, around July 19, it was apparently the key that made the talks possible; according to an earlier Times article (by Rudoren with the somewhat credulous Michael Gordon, Kerry

apparently won concessions on the new framework, which American, Israeli and Palestinian officials said would allow Washington to declare the 1967 prewar borders as the basis for the talks — along with the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state — but allow Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas to distance themselves from those terms.

Should that maybe have been "Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Kerry"? Are we now beginning to understand exactly how this worked? Did Kerry indeed give Shaath such a statement but sign it with a false name (I.P. Freely)? Did he say, "I will announce that the 1967 borders are the basis for the talks, but it won't be true"?

(H/t @peterhart)