One State in Palestine


Seldom am I inclined to support a member of the Obama administration, but Secretary of State Kerry deserves defense against abuse for mentioning the unsatisfactory alternatives to a two-state solution in Palestine. If the single state allowed equal political rights to all its inhabitants, the Arabs would outvote and outbreed the Jews and deprive the state of its distinctively Jewish character.

Isn’t that obvious and worth recognizing? Kerry was arguing for two states, not a single state with apartheid.

The word “apartheid” may be an unfortunate term for inequality of rights. If so, let the critic suggest a better one. Meanwhile, we should recognize that words often do get applied beyond their original uses. This stretching can be forgivable and even useful, as it is in Kerry’s case.

Share This


Luther Jett

Mr. Yeager, the word "apartheid" is not a synonym for inequality of rights, as you seem to suggest.

Apartheid describes a system of abject segregation, enforced at gun-point.

There are inequities in Israel, I will acknowledge. But in no way do these sink to the level of apartheid as practiced in South Africa (or segregation as once practiced in large sections of the U.S.).

It isn't helpful to use this sort of language in the context of the situation in the Mid-east. It is not simply inaccurate; it is inflammatory, and ultimately, it cheapens discourse, rendering terms like "apartheid", "inequality", "Segregation", "racism", etc. essentially meaningless.The world becomes like Humpty Dumpty, a world in which words can mean whatever the speaker chooses to have them mean, without context or history.

So, I would disagree with your assertion. In this case, permuting and stretching the definition of this term is not forgivable. Kerry has adopted a term which is being used out of proper context to inflame passions and to incite hatred and violence.


Why, why, why on Earth is there a need for another "State" in the middle east? And why must Israel accommodate a Palestinian State when time after time the Palestinians swear their dedication to Israel's destruction, obliteration and annihilation?

The ONLY thing Israel should do is concentrate on having the most productive, fair and just society possible under the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves. And when will the other Arab nations put due pressure on the Palestinians to cease and desist from their hateful nonsense?

The only apartheid going on is in the minds of the Palestinians and their allies who vow the wiping out of the Jews. They don't just want apartheid, they want an apartheid of the dead. They don't want a two state solution, they want a final solution, and if John Kerry doesn't know this by now then he simply hasn't live long enough or his big head doesn't hold all of which it's capable.



The whole Israel situation seems to be so clear in your mind (and presumably in that of others as well). Therefore the following question should be a cinch for you to answer: Considering all that has transpired, if you could go back to October, 1947, would you have the world (the U.N., U.S., repeat its creation of Israel? I understand that existing tenants were kicked off of their land.

It's a simple question; yes or no?


Very recently I read, or heard it stated, by a particular person, that no two-state solution was needed for the Israel problem as people in Israel already have equal treatment and rights. But one's definition of political equality in a society can be intellectually rigorous and honest, or corrupt and irrationally self serving- the latter being almost exclusively what is found. Mine is the former. I'm no scholar on the Middle East, but I'm to believe that such equality exists in an overtly religious state where people are openly at war, while we've never even had it here in the U.S.?

Nor should one think that two states would be more than some temporary respite from conflict. Only individuals have a chance to coexist peacefully for an indefinite period of time. As long as individuals and groups primarily identify as a member of any group whatsoever (even a gender group), there will be conflict.

© Copyright 2020 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.