Kerry's 'Apartheid' remark draws predictable response in Washington In the world of American politics, there are a few things that almost immediately provoke a ritual kabuki-like dance of condemnation. Criticizing U.S. soldiers is always dangerous for any politician, or attacking someone's religious beliefs (only if you're a Muslim can you be 'safely' attacked). But perhaps the biggest "no go" zone is to be critical of the policies of the Israeli government. Any politician who makes such a comment invites a firestorm of calls for his or her resignation, condemnation from various lobby groups and perhaps the accusation of anti-Semitism. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stumbled into this hornet's nest of pro-Israel support when he made a comment during a closed-door meeting of the Trilateral Commission, which is composed of U.S., European, Russian and Japanese officials, that Israel could become an apartheid state if it doesn't reach a peace deal with the Palestinians. "A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because 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," Kerry told the gathered officials. "Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to." The comment was reported by the American news website, The Daily Beast, which said it had a recording of Kerry's comments from the meeting. The familiar round of condemnations began almost immediately. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington, said Kerry's remarks were "offensive and inappropriate." The Anti-Defamation League said the comments were "startling and deeply disappointing." The U.S. House leader, Republican Eric Cantor, said Kerry should apologize. Outspoken far-right Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who is already jockeying for a run at the Republican nomination for president in 2016, said Kerry should resign. "Mr. President [of the Senate], it is my belief that Secretary Kerry has thus proven himself unsuitable for his position and that before any further harm is done to our alliance with Israel, he should offer President Obama his resignation," Cruz said. "And the president [Obama} should accept it." Even some Democratic politicians jumped on the pile, with Senator Barbara Boxer of California saying, "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and any linkage between Israel and apartheid is nonsensical and ridiculous." A State Department spokeswoman defended Kerry's comments, saying "[Kerry] was talking about the kind of future Israel wants and the kind of future both Israelis and Palestinians would want to envision. The only way to have two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution. And without a two state solution, the level of prosperity and security the Israeli and Palestinian people deserve isn't possible." Not all the comments about the remark, however, were negative. J-Street, the Jewish organization that lobbies for a two-state solution, said Kerry's critics were twisting his remarks, "Israel today is not an apartheid state, and that's not what Secretary of State Kerry said," read a statement on the organization's website. "For over a year now, Kerry has argued that, without a two-state solution, Israel is risking its future and its values as it moves toward permanent rule over millions of Palestinians without equal rights. Former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have used the 'apartheid' term as well to describe this possible future." "Instead of putting energy into attacking Secretary Kerry, those who are upset with the Secretary's use of the term should put their energy into opposing and changing the policies that are leading Israel down this road." Michigan University Professor Juan Cole, who writes the well-read Informed Comment blog and has been a longtime critic of the policies of the Israeli government, however, wrote that the problem with Kerry's comments were that they understated the situation. He outlined five ways that Israel already meets the definition of apartheid as defined by the Rome Statue: "inhumane acts... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." The five ways were: 1) Creating 'Bantustan" like areas in Gaza and the West Bank, 2) Creating a pass system to control the movement of Palestinians, 3) Setting aside large areas of Palestinian lands for Israeli settlers, similar to how the then-apartheid government of South Africa set aside land for white settlers., 4) Creating universities that Palestinian-Israelis can attend in the Occupied West Bank, but not West Bank Palestinians themselves; and 5) Forbidding marriages between Jews and Palestinians. Also Israeli-Palestinians cannot marry someone from the Occupied West Bank and bring them back to live in Israel. Finally, J-Street also noted that Kerry's remarks may signal that the U.S. will offer a "comprehensive plan" for a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians and encouraged Kerry to continue on this course.
