Secretary of State John Kerry late Monday issued what was widely described as an “unusual” statement walking back remarks made to a conference last week in which he told influential world leaders that Israel may become an “apartheid” state should it fail to quickly secure a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The statements had been secretly recorded, obtained by the Daily Beast, and published over the weekend.
The resulting firestorm put the State Department on defense throughout Monday. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) described the statements as “deeply troubling” and suggested that “the true focus of those who support peace should be on urging President Abbas to revoke his destructive agreement with the terrorist organization Hamas.” The AIPAC statement also very pointedly cited 2008 statements by President Barack Obama on the issue:
The reported remarks on apartheid by Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday are deeply troubling. Any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate. The Jewish state is a shining light for freedom and opportunity in a region plagued by terror, hate and oppression… AIPAC shares President Obama’s perspective that while there is a political conflict between Israel and the Palestinians that needs to be resolved, the use of the term “apartheid” to characterize Israel is inaccurate and unhelpful. As the president said in 2008, “There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.”
The statement concluded by suggesting that a better approach to the current deadlock would be to urge “President Abbas to revoke his destructive agreement with the terrorist organization Hamas, and continue peace negotiations with Israel without preconditions.”
The Anti-Defamation League quickly declared it “startling and deeply disappointing that… [Kerry] chose to use such an inaccurate and incendiary term.” The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) expressed “deep disappointment” and called on Kerry to apologize.
Groups and lawmakers on the right went further. The Emergency Committee for Israel – which has been historically critical of the administration for seeking to put distance between Washington and Jerusalem – called on Kerry to resign or be fired, a stance echoed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
Veteran Associated Press diplomatic writer Matthew Lee – who been clear that he thinks the controversy is overblown, and who has been harshly critical of some of the groups that have blasted Kerry – nonetheless on Monday pressed State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki on the wisdom of Kerry’s remarks.
Lee conveyed criticisms from both supporters and detractors of Israel, ultimately asking whether using ‘apartheid’ was “smart” given that the move was “going to cause him a lot of grief.” Psaki declined to answer a question about whether Kerry appreciated that such rhetoric – even if suggesting a future scenario – was out of step with “American officials, who are supposed to be… neutral — you know, the arbiter, the honest broker.” In response to a question about why Kerry was unwilling to cede to the demands of pro-Palestinian advocates who insist that Israel is already an apartheid state, Psaki bluntly stated that Kerry “believes that Israel is a vibrant democracy with equal rights for its citizens.”