John Kerry has offered us a reminder that in American politics, the debate about our closest ally in the Middle East has all the candor and thoughtfulness of a cabinet meeting in North Korea. In this case it was the mention of the word “apartheid,” which he used in a private meeting — not saying the situation in Israel is apartheid, but saying it could one day become apartheid. So last night, Kerry performed the appropriate ritual of repentance, issuing a statement walking back his previous statement. 
 
 Like others before it, this controversy played out according to a familiar script: 1) Official says something uncomfortable but true about Israel; 2) The Anti-Defamation League and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) condemn the statement, pretending to be shocked and appalled that anyone could ever criticize Israel; 3) Democratic and Republican senators rush to condemn the statement as well, with the Republican response a little more intense, and a little more stupid; 4) Official issues an apology, pledging not to criticize Israel so sharply in the future. 
 
 But let’s back up. Here’s what Kerry originally said, as reported by the Daily Beast: 
 
 “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,” Kerry told the group of senior officials and experts from the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and Japan. “Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.” 
 
 The first thing to understand about this statement is that everything in it is completely true. You have, right now, Israel presiding over a population of Palestinians in the West Bank who lack political and human rights. They are under Israeli rule, but are not Israeli citizens. The future prospect of apartheid comes from what is sometimes called “the demographic problem,” which is that Palestinian birth rates are substantially higher than Jewish Israeli birth rates, and eventually the number of Palestinians will exceed the number of Israeli citizens, at which point you have a minority government ruling over a majority population without citizenship rights. The second thing to understand is that the eventual creation of two states in order to avoid that apartheid kind of situation is something that all responsible parties agree must happen. 
 
 It’s perfectly legitimate to argue that the current situation in Israel is not comparable to apartheid in South Africa. But when people bring up the specter of a future apartheid — as Kerry did — what they’re referring to is that the number of Palestinians is destined to outnumber the number of Jews in Israel. And this observation is a common part of the debate within Israel; Kerry using the term isn’t some far-out, crazy thing that nobody has done before. For instance, just four days ago, an Associated Press story described the situation this way: 
 
 Some of the Arabs under Israel’s control, in pre-1967 Israel, have citizenship, while those in the West Bank — whose land and entry points and water resources are controlled by Israel — do not. Even though the West Bank is formally not in Israel, the country builds settlements there and their residents vote in Israeli elections. The settlers can freely enter and leave the West Bank, while Palestinians cannot. The situation seems unsustainable, and is starting to draw comparisons to apartheid-era South Africa even in Israel itself. 
 
 Kerry made note of that in the statement that he issued last night, specifically reminding people that apartheid comparisons have been been made by top Israeli officials, including prime ministers. While I’ve seen a number of headlines this morning beginning with the words “Kerry Apologizes…”, the statement he released isn’t really an apology. It does say, “if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word,” but it also notes that “while Justice Minister Livni, former Prime Ministers Barak and Ohlmert have all invoked the specter of apartheid to underscore the dangers of a unitary state for the future, it is a word best left out of the debate here at home.” 
 
 That’s fair enough — it’s perfectly legitimate to say that the word gets people too riled up and ends up distracting from the real issues at hand. But this is a reminder of just how absurdly constrained our debate about Israel is. There’s no other country in the world for which any criticism of the policies of that country’s current government will immediately be met with charges of insufficient loyalty to that other country and the insistence that only supportive statements may be made. Nobody would accuse an American Secretary of State of being “anti-British” or “anti-Japanese” if he said a decision of one of those governments was problematic, but people are routinely called “anti-Israel” if anything but full-throated support for whatever the current Israeli government does should pass their lips. 
 
 You can see it in the statement from the ADL about Kerry’s remarks. While the condemnation is more restrained than it could be, it ends with, “Such references are not seen as expressions of friendship and support,” as though “expressions of friendship and support” are all that is permissible when it comes to Israel. After Kerry’s comments were reported, you not only had liberal Democrats like Barbara Boxer condemning it, Ted Cruz actually called for Kerry to resign because of his intemperate words. I can’t wait to hear the thoughts of Sarah Palin, who used to hang an Israeli flag in her office. 
 
 So it’s less important to consider what Israel’s future is and what kinds of changes must be made than to monitor whether all public officials are being sufficiently “pro-Israel” in their every utterance, public and private. What we have in American politics when it comes to Israel is a system of censorship that requires occasional controversies like this one to remind everyone what the rules are. ||||| Secretary of State John Kerry, under fire for warning that Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state” in the absence of a peace deal, released a statement Monday evening pushing back hard. 
 
 “I will not allow my commitment to Israel to be questioned by anyone, particularly for partisan, political purposes,” Kerry said in a release put out by the State Department. “… If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution.” 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 The tape in question was published by the Daily Beast on Sunday — a recording of Kerry’s comments to a meeting of the Trilateral Commission on Friday in which he lamented the breakdown of talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Kerry's private remarks allegedly taped by reporter) 
 
 “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,” Kerry says in the recording. 
 
 From across the spectrum of right to left, the condemnations rolled in Monday. Anti-Defamation League national director Abe Foxman called the apartheid comment “startling and deeply disappointing.” The American Israel Public Affairs Committee said the comment was “deeply troubling” and “inappropriate.” In a statement, AIPAC said, “Any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate.” 
 
 In addition, Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks called it “inflammatory and inaccurate.” The National Jewish Democratic Council expressed its “deep disappointment.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called on Kerry to resign. 
 
 Kerry was speaking at the end of the most difficult week yet in his attempts to make progress on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians — and just ahead of the official April 29 deadline for extending negotiations. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Cruz: Kerry should step down) 
 
 Just a few weeks ago, Kerry left the region in frustration and declared “reality-check time” when the two sides could not agree to terms in a prisoner exchange. Just last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced plans to strike a reconciliation deal with Hamas — which the United States and Israel designate a terrorist organization, but which has political control in the Gaza Strip — ending a nearly decadelong split between that group and Abbas’ Palestinian Authority, which has control over the West Bank. 
 
 Abbas’ outreach to Hamas drew the condemnation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said Israel would never negotiate with a government that accepts Hamas, which officially calls for the destruction of Israel. In response, the State Department said last week it acknowledged that the reconciliation would create conditions that the Israelis can’t be expected to negotiate under. 
 
 President Barack Obama gave his own disappointed assessment of the status of the peace process at a news conference Friday in South Korea, adding his own point of warning. 
 
 “There may come a point at which there just needs to be a pause, and both sides need to look at the alternatives,” Obama said. “As I’ve said in the past and I will continue to repeat: Nobody has offered me a serious scenario in which peace is not made between Israelis and Palestinians and we have a secure, democratic Jewish state of Israel and the Palestinians have a state.” 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Barbara Boxer: John Kerry apartheid critique ‘ridiculous’) 
 
 Kerry still declared himself hopeful earlier last week — but by Friday, special peace envoy Martin Indyk was headed back to Washington and the secretary of state was blaming both sides in a private meeting with leaders from North America, Western Europe and Japan. 
 
 The “apartheid” reference in those remarks was an attempt to warn what might happen if the two sides aren’t able to reach a solution — though in his apology he said, “I do not believe, nor have I ever stated, publicly or privately, that Israel is an apartheid state or that it intends to become one.” 
 
 Kerry, in his statement, said that everything in his record showed him to be a strong supporter of Israel, arguing that his word choice had created a “misimpression.” 
 
 (WATCH: POLITICO's Driving the Day) 
 
 “For more than thirty years in the United States Senate, I didn’t just speak words in support of Israel, I walked the walk when it came time to vote and when it came time to fight. As Secretary of State, I have spent countless hours working with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Justice Minister [Tzipi] Livni [who is leading peace talks for the Israelis] because I believe in the kind of future that Israel not only wants, but Israel deserves,” Kerry said. “I want to see a two state solution that results in a secure Jewish state and a prosperous Palestinian state, and I’ve actually worked for it.” 
 
 “While Justice Minister Livni, former Prime Ministers [Ehud] Barak and [Ehud] Ohlmert have all invoked the specter of apartheid to underscore the dangers of a unitary state for the future,” Kerry concluded, “it is a word best left out of the debate here at home.”
– John Kerry had to backpedal after he suggested that Israel was on the path to becoming an apartheid state, and that's a sad commentary about the level of candor we have on the topic of our Mideast ally, writes Paul Waldman at the Washington Post. Kerry didn't say Israel was an apartheid state, he said it could become one—and that happens to be true, writes Waldman. Given current birth rates, the number of Palestinians will eventually exceed the number of Israelis, meaning "you have a minority government ruling over a majority population without citizenship rights." Others have made this point before, but Kerry took immediate flak from pro-Israel groups and lawmakers, who seem more concerned with making sure "all public officials are being sufficiently 'pro-Israel' in their every utterance" than with making actual progress in negotiations, writes Waldman. It's tantamount to censorship. At Bloomberg, Jeffrey Goldberg writes that he has used the word "apartheid" himself in writing about Israel's potential future—laying the blame on the settlement movement—though he spells out the reasons why he no longer uses the volatile term. For starters, "deployment of the word doesn't start conversations, it ends them," he writes. Still, he's not going to criticize Kerry. "Israeli leaders must open their minds to the possibility that he has their long-term interests at heart." Click for Goldberg's full column. Or for Waldman's full column.