John Kerry: Israel Risks Becoming An Apartheid State

[jimmy olsen]

Backpedaling like he's on a unicycle.

http://time.com/#80429/john-kerry-israel-apartheid/

Kerry Backtracks on Israel 'Apartheid' Comment
Per Liljas 12:42 AM ET 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wishes he could "rewind the tape" featuring him saying that Israel risks becoming an 'apartheid' state. The comment, leaked on Sunday, drew condemnations from across the American political spectrum U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is seeking to control the fallout from his heavily criticized remark that Israel risks becoming "an apartheid state."

"I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes," he said in a forceful statement released by the State Department on Monday.

"If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution."

The tape being referred to is of Kerry speaking at a Friday closed-door meeting of the Trilateral Commission — a discussion group of U.S., Japanese and European officials. On the tape, he says that "a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state."

Acquired and published by The Daily Beast, the recording prompted condemnations from across the U.S. political spectrum. Republican Senator Ted Cruz even called on the Secretary of State to resign.

In his statement, Kerry emphasized that he has shown his support for Israel not only verbally, but also "when it came time to vote and when it came time to fight."

He pointed out that former Israeli Prime Ministers and the current Justice Minister have "all invoked the specter of apartheid to underscore the dangers of a unitary state for the future," but he added that "it is a word best left out of the debate here at home."

Kerry added that the word may have created a "misimpression" and said that he does "not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that without a shred of doubt."
     

[Sheilbh]

He's right.

Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.

[Ideologue]

Risks?

[jimmy olsen]

He's right.

Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.

Even if you believe it's right, that's just not something a diplomatic should say unless they're intending to just blow up the negotiations right there.

[Sheilbh]

It's absolutely something you should say given the parties in Israel's government and the direction of their policy.

Israel needs candid friends, not Ted Cruz.

[Viking]

He's right.

Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.

It's also a word that actually means something.

Can somebody who actually agrees that it is at risk of becoming an apartheid state explain how it risks becoming an aparheid state? I'm a bit curious as to how Israel can't just let the status quo continue for a few more generations. I'm also confused as to why it somehow becomes incumbent on israel to give up it's state to a palestinian majority between the river and the sea should one manifest itself.

[Tamas]

He's right.

Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.

It's also a word that actually means something.

Can somebody who actually agrees that it is at risk of becoming an apartheid state explain how it risks becoming an aparheid state?

Hamas and European intellectuals say so. So, shut the fuck up and embrace the truth.

[celedhring]

The problem is simple; if Israel doesn't go for a two state solution, in the long term it will be compelled to give full citizenship rights and full enfranchisement to its palestinian minority or become an apartheid state. But of course, if it does, in a few generations we'll get Hamas (or whoever) ruling in Tel Aviv and hilarity will ensue.

Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.

[CountDeMoney]

It's absolutely something you should say given the parties in Israel's government and the direction of their policy.

Israel needs candid friends, not Ted Cruz.

This is the land of Israel Right or Wrong, Shiv.  We bleed baby blue, which makes us blind to Jewish policy mistakes.

[DontSayBanana]

Even if you believe it's right, that's just not something a diplomatic should say unless they're intending to just blow up the negotiations right there.

You know what else isn't a word you use accidentally?  Appeasement.

This was supposed to be a closed-door meeting.  If anything, I'm getting more annoyed that we can't even be honest in our planning because supposedly confidential planning is going to end up aired all over the media.  It's skirting a little uncomfortably close to thought police for my tastes.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The problem is simple; if Israel doesn't go for a two state solution, in the long term it will be compelled to give full citizenship rights and full enfranchisement to its palestinian minority or become an apartheid state. But of course, if it does, in a few generations we'll get Hamas (or whoever) ruling in Tel Aviv and hilarity will ensue.

Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.

seems more likely that the Palestinians will be given the option to move. With or without them liking it.

[grumbler]

seems more likely that the Palestinians will be given the option to move. With or without them liking it.

So, they will be assigned to tribal homelands with or without their consent?

Sounds a lot like apartheid to me.

[jimmy olsen]

The problem is simple; if Israel doesn't go for a two state solution, in the long term it will be compelled to give full citizenship rights and full enfranchisement to its palestinian minority or become an apartheid state. But of course, if it does, in a few generations we'll get Hamas (or whoever) ruling in Tel Aviv and hilarity will ensue.

Seems quite a slip by Kerry though. He should be aware of the kind of fallout this would entail, and you can make the same point in a more elegant manner. The worst of it is that it is a real issue that now can be buried under a layer of indignation.

seems more likely that the Palestinians will be given the option to move. With or without them liking it.

How's Israel's gonna do that without waging another war to force Egypt/Jordan to take them?

[Malthus]

Few to none in Israel seriously contemplate holding on to Palestinians as second-class citizens.

Israeli bad behaviour these days consists entirely in attempting to nibble away as much Palestinain land from the WB as they can get away with, before Palestine, inevitably, becomes a full-fledged country - or rather two countries, Gaza and WB (no-one really believes a Palestinian"unity government" can last).

The "risk" isn't an "apartheid state", more the "reality" of an agressive state stealing bits from a weaker, incompetent neighbour. Not, as it were, enslaving or taking advantage of the Palestinian population outside of Israel, which is the essence of "apartheid" (in the past Israel used Palestinian labour, now they have mostly replaced that workforce with others). There is no serious notion that Israel is embarking on an "aparthied" policy inside Israel, though racism and government indifference to Israeli Arab issues of course remains a live issue (the Israeli governemt and society has to deal with "racism" in many, many different ways - Israel is entirely composed of squabbling minorities, each and every one of whom feels hard done by, by all the others).

In reality, a better analogy for the Israeli situation is not "apartheid", so beloved of Euros and the left, but what is currently happening in Russia/Ukraine. Obviously not a perfect fit, but the motives in Israel are to acquire land, not to enslave a population; and unlike Russia's, they are very limited and small-scale - close off Jerusalem, take the best bits along the current border, etc. There is no serious move to take the entire WB, and of course Sharon quite deliberately abandoned all of Gaza.

[CountDeMoney]

He's right.

Also, 'apartheid' isn't a word you use accidentally.

Even if you believe it's right, that's just not something a diplomatic should say unless they're intending to just blow up the negotiations right there.

I was under the impression that the negotiations were pretty much blown up as it is, hence Kerry's frustration.

Never understand why Presidents wait until the ass end of their presidencies to get involved in that mess.  Pissing in the wind on both sides.