 |
| Top: A section of the so-called "apartheid wall" in Israel's occupied territories; Bottom: Protest against the apartheid wall in Toronto, Canada - July 29, 2006. (Top Photo by Wall in Palestine; Bottom Photo by humbleslave) |
By Tom Cohen and Elise Labott
John Kerry wasn't the first to use the A-word -- apartheid -- when talking about Israel, and he likely won't be the last.
Even some Israeli leaders have mentioned the word that basically means "separate" in describing the eventual result if a Jewish state had a Palestinian majority in some areas, such as currently exists in the West Bank.
However, the U.S. secretary of state touched a diplomatic live wire last week when he predicted an apartheid situation if Israel and the Palestinians fail to agree on a two-state solution for their decades-long conflict.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a tea party favorite and possible presidential candidate, called for Kerry's resignation, while pro-Israel groups accused America's top diplomat of inappropriate language and insensitivity.
The backlash reflected both the hyper-partisanship of a U.S. election year and the high stakes of Middle East peace talks pushed by Kerry that have effectively broken down in the latest episode of a dispute that seems to define the word intractable.
"Unwise, ill-timed and ill-advised"
"This was unwise, ill-timed and ill-advised for sure, but it's not going to make much of a difference frankly in the overall arc of the process that's promising only diminishing returns," said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. negotiator on the Israel-Palestinian issue.
Kerry issued a statement on Monday acknowledging he used the wrong word in comments to a closed-door meeting of the Trilateral Commission of private sector leaders from North America, Europe and Asia.
Read More
No comments:
Post a Comment