Hillary Clinton would never have used the word when she was U.S. Secretary of State, because she still has presidential ambitions. John Kerry, the current Secretary of State, has no further ambitions in that direction, which may be why he dared to use the words “apartheid” and “Israel” in the same sentence. Or maybe he just didn’t realise that the world would hear about it.
Kerry spoke last month to a group of high-ranking officials from the U.S., Europe
and Japan known as the Trilateral Commission about the failure of his year-long attempt to revive the “peace talks” between Israel
and the Palestinians. Somebody at the meeting secretly recorded his comments, which were published by the Daily Beast and suddenly he was in very hot water.
What he said was that the long-sought “two-state solution” was the only real alternative to a “unitary” Israeli-ruled state that included all the territory between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea – and ruled over millions of Palestinians in the territories that have been under Israeli occupation since 1967.
Those Palestinians, most of whom cannot remember a time when they did not live under Israeli control, have no political rights within Israel. The two-state solution, under negotiation off and on for the past twenty years, would give them a state of their own, but most people had despaired some time ago of getting Israel
to agree to an independent Palestine.
Kerry had not, so he was surprised and disappointed when his efforts came to naught. That was why he blurted out the truth that American
politicians are never supposed to acknowledge. He said that without the two-state solution, “a unitary [Israeli] state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class [Palestinian] citizens – or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel
to be a Jewish state.”
It was clumsily phrased, but the basic idea is common in both Israeli and Palestinian political discourse. Even if Israel
never formally annexes the occupied territories, it has been building Jewish settlements all over them for decades. If this situation continues indefinitely, and the Palestinians must live out their lives as mere residents without no political rights, then they are in the same position as the black South Africans who lived all their lives under white rule without citizenship or the vote.
Alternatively, of course, Israel
might grant them citizenship. But there are already a great many Palestinians living under Israeli rule, and their higher birth rate would make them a majority in in that “unitary” Israel
in less than a generation.
State Department officials tried to defend their boss’s comments for a few hours, but as the firestorm of protest by American
Zionist organisations grew the Obama administration realised that Kerry had to be forced to apologise for speaking the truth.
“I do not believe,” Kerry said, “nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel
is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one.” Well, of course not. It’s not an apartheid state now because the non-citizen status of the Palestinians for the past 47 years is technically only temporary. And Israel
has no intention of ever meeting the technical definition of an apartheid state, either, because that would be a public-relations disaster. However, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems convinced that he can avoid that outcome simply by hanging on to the occupied territories indefinitely but never formally annexing them.
They might even be right, but John Kerry doesn’t think so. Or at least, he didn’t until his own people worked him over a bit.