Tangotiger Blog

That piece might be “sober” but it’s extremely far from “balanced”. The paragraphs you excerpt include highly unbalanced phrases like “Real enemies of Israel”, “Muslim supremacists of Hamas”, and especially “anti-Semites in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement” (wtf).

Your own “once the enemies of peace” phrase is remarkable. Fact is, it’s long been recognized by people actually interested in peace (Goldberg has never given much evidence that he is one of these people) that the much vaunted “two-state solution” is completely untenable. It shouldn’t take much to understand why that would be the case.

Richard: it seems that every solution is as “untenable” as the status quo. Which solution do you advance that has the best chance of a lasting peace?

Since individuals are going to not maintain status quo indefinitely, keeping the political position as status quo will eventually result in a swing one way or the other.  Which of course will demand the losing side to try to swing harder to get back to the status quo.

There are some interesting angles to this story: the comments were uttered in off the record, closed-door meeting where, presumably, hopefully, honesty and frank discussion trump the delicate, political framing you hear in public commentary. Second, the word apartheid has been used by prominent, decorated, dedicated Israeli political figures (as the linked article mentions). I see no harm in Kerry then using the same language.

I find the use of the word refreshing. As long as people wish to engage with serious issues using delicate, calculated, empty language that can be parsed any manner of ways by any number of interested parties, states and people will always continue on their own trajectories. See: Crimea. See: Syria. Et cetera.

Frankness should be applauded, even (and maybe especially) when it offends. Honesty, and the, I don’t know, raising of the blood in reaction to this honesty, is really what moves things along and results in action and change.

I agree.

Imagine for example that the concept of apartheid was previously discussed at length by Kerry and the others at the negotiating table.  The kind of discussion that would be encouraged say in a college setting, or even in a mock courtroom setting where someone needs to play Devil’s Advocate.

So, everyone has that as a basis of prior discussion going forward.

Kerry then references apartheid in a future discussion, with all those present aware of the context.

But, you have yahoos who listen to his clinical use of the term, and interject themselves in a discussion of peace that they are not a part of.  If Kerry, and everyone there, has to be worried that everything they say can be taken out of context and parsed, then we’ll be getting nowhere fast.

You have to at least respect the idea that everyone there is looking for peace.