John Kerry is now apologizing for the following remarks:
A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens — or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.
So: is he right, or is he wrong?
Look: I love jumping on John Kerry as much as the next guy. But for some on the right, the topic of Israel is treated the way race is treated by the left: there is a very narrow category of allowable discussion, and Heaven help you if you make a remark that falls outside that range.
He didn’t say Israel is an apartheid state. (And, clearly, it’s not. It’s a democracy in which the same laws apply to all.) He said what he said.
I’m not saying he’s right. In fact, I tend to think he’s not.
I’m saying: can we have a discussion about whether he’s right — and, if not, why not? — without the sort of hissing and finger-pointing that the left does on race issues?