« Open Thread - 27 April, 2014 | Main | The A Word... Adam L. Silverman, PhD* »

28 April 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The beaver

The daggers are already out:
[quote]The Emergency Committee for Israel, whose chairman is the prominent neo-conservative William Kristol, said: "On Friday, secretary of state John Kerry raised the spectre of Israel as an 'apartheid state'. Even Barack Obama condemned the use of this term when running for president in 2008. It is no longer enough for the White House to clean up after the messes John Kerry has made. It is time for John Kerry to step down as secretary of state, or for President Obama to fire him."[EOQ]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/israel-apartheid-state-peace-talks-john-kerry

Charles I

Nobody listened to him, who'll listen to the next?

David Habakkuk

All,

I think this may be the 'tipping point'.

turcopolier

All
Perhaps we should boycott ourselves for having read Kerry's unforgivable words or perhaps Teresa Heinz should be suspended from Catsup production like the Clippers fellow in LA? pl

dan bradburd

David Habakkuk,

I am not sure that this is the 'tipping point,' but it does seem one more example (not bombing Iran, not attacking Syria)of a shift in the Obama administration's view of the political landscape of the Middle East and how it should best act in it.

As I have, I think, mentioned before, it sometimes seems that what we are now seeing is the outcome of Obama playing a very long game in which he has let/encouraged AIPAC, etc. to more fully expose themselves.

Perhaps, as Churchill said, "the end of the beginning?"

Matthew

David H: The Palestinians only have one real weapon: non-cooperation. The Israelis need a local collaborator.

Fred

How do we blame this one on Putin? Meanwhile in the non-appartheid state:

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=693405

oofda

Of course, Israeli pols have used the term.
In 2010, for example, former Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak used language very similar to Kerry’s. “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic,” Barak said. “If this bloc of millions of ­Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”

turcopolier

David Habakkuk

I am sorry to say that I do not think so. pl

Charels Dekle

Col Lang,
It would seem that Kerry and Obama are taking that Low T treatment. They are trying their best to annoy not one, but two nuclear powers. I may go get me some of that stuff. At 66, my T is pretty low.
Regards,

FB Ali

All,

Quite apart from the PR aspect, the fact is that Israel is already in effect an apartheid state with its occupation of the West Bank, siege of the Gaza strip and its discriminatory treatment of Israeli Arabs. This is worse than the situation in South Africa when it was labelled an apartheid state.

Israel will try very hard to prevent anyone from calling it that, because that would cause many governments that now support it to start backing off a little. But so long as it has US backing (and AIPAC and a bought Congress will ensure that continues) it can afford to disregard even the application of this label.

Tyler

Ah irony is watching the beast US Jews devised to wreck South Africa turn for fresh blood.

JohnH

Well fry me for a catfish! Kerry said something that is (mostly) true?

Of course, that could be Kerry's defense to Kristol--he never tells the truth. He was only providing more evidence that Israel is not an apartheid state!

different clue

If neither happens, and Kristol (and AIPAC) is revealed as unable to make either happen; then Kristol's (AIPAC's) power will be revealed as somewhat eye-of-the-beholder based. The more eye-of-the-beholder based it becomes, the less reality-based it remains.
All Obama/Kerry have to do about Kristol's demands is to do nothing. And keep doing nothing.

Highlander

Tyler, yes it is ironic. I know a couple of former South African Jews, who are now legal gringos (sorta).

They are quick to proudly point out the leading role South Africa's relatively small Jewish community played in bring down the former South African apartheid state.

In the next breath, they lament that the former paradise like existence they had in South Africa, is now gone with the wind. And the former South African Jewish community is now scattered around the world. And their few relatives still trapped their are subject to increasing chaos and violence.

Go figure.

Fred

Even worse is the complete cluelessness of the liberal public. I listed to a part of the recent broadcast of 'the splendid table' on NPR on my drive back from the airport They are interviewing someone about a South African farmer/wine maker when the obligatory Nelson Mandela anecdote came around. It included this fine line.

"Then the incredible thing that Nelson Mandela did, he switched into the language of the oppressor, which is Afrikaans."

My immediate thought was what a bunch of ignorant racists to label everyone who spoke Afrikaans as an oppressor. Especially since it is an official language of South Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa#Languages

different clue

If it is . . . if it becomes such - then the ongoing problem of the Armaggedon/Rapture Lobby will draw plainer into view. There are millions of people deeply devoted to witnessing or even bringing about the End Times . . . when the Land becomes so Holy as to glow faintly in the dark.
When Sharon had his surgically related stroke, I remember Pat Robertson saying that this was God's punishment upon Sharon for "dividing the Land". He later pretended to apologize or restate himself or something. He has millions of followers.

Imagine

This question was seriously addressed in a South African Human Sciences Research Council / University of London program. A research team of seven lawyers, plus consultants, explored both sides to this question in a comprehensive manner from an international law standpoint. You can read their conclusions in the 300-page 2009 report "Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?
A re-assessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied
Palestinian territories under international law"
http://electronicintifada.net/files/090608-hsrc.pdf

The results are summarized briefly in the accessible 18-page brochure
"Is Israel An Apartheid State? Rhetoric or Reality?" at ICAHDusa.org:
http://icahdusa.org/multimedia/2014/04/08.01-Apartheid-State.pdf
which still lists a lot of fascinating Israeli laws that most people have never heard of. Check it out.

Why not recommend this brochure to your policy maker?

confusedponderer

As was to be expected:

AIPAC: Kerry’s comments ‘offensive, inappropriate’
In unusually blunt rebuke, pro-Israel group blasts top diplomat, calls Israel the region’s ‘lone stable democracy’

http://www.timesofisrael.com/aipac-kerrys-comments-offensive-inappropriate/#ixzz30FeRXjup

ADL: Kerry’s “Apartheid” Reference to Israel “Undiplomatic, Unwise and Unfair”

http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/israel-middle-east/adl-kerrys-apartheid-reference-israel.html#.U15jX1eLV20

Kerry Apologizes for Apartheid Comments
In a statement Monday evening, the secretary of state said if he ‘could rewind the tape,’ he wouldn’t have used the word ‘apartheid’ in his warning about Israel.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/kerry-s-apartheid-comments-provoke-political-storm.html

robt willmann

Well, secretary of state John Kerry mostly walked back his remarks before the Trilateral Commission that someone recorded and disclosed, but so far I have not seen the complete audio posted on the Internet, or even any audio at all. Kerry's "press statement" in which he scuttles backwards is on the state department's website here--

http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/04/225326.htm

He did include that Livni, Barack, and Olmert have all "invoked the specter of apartheid to underscore the dangers of a unitary state for the future...." He could have used the fact that those Israelis have used the word apartheid and then not backed down an inch from what he had said, but he finished that sentence with, "it is a word best left out of the debate here at home".

Also in "his" statement is, "I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone...." At least he has now admitted that he and the U.S. are not an "honest broker" in the Palestinian and Israeli matter.

rick

Agreed. My take was that if something that is already happening can be said to be possible in the future, Yes, Israel might become an apartheid state.

Margaret Steinfels

A kind of apology has been issued. The apology (or apologia?) points to Kerry's unstinting support for Israel over the years.

Bottom line? Does he claim the right to say what's what now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/world/middleeast/kerry-apologizes-for-remark-that-israel-risks-apartheid.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

SamuelBurke

Somewhere along the line the U.S Israel relationship has turned, it has gone more public.

Col, what would you expect a tipping point to look like?

Bill H

All: Interesting that no one, here or anywhere else that I've observed, has mentioned Jimmy Carter.

turcopolier

Bill H

Carter was long ago written off by AIPAC, etc as amiable but unimportant as a force. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad