Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman also expressed his dismay, saying:

It is startling and deeply disappointing that a diplomat so knowledgeable and experienced about democratic Israel chose to use such an inaccurate and incendiary term ... Even if he used the repugnant language of Israel's adversaries and accusers to express concern for Israel's future, it was undiplomatic, unwise and unfair.

Apartheid rightly recalls a horrific system of oppression which causes a society to disintegrate from within, and so each groups' defensive reaction is understandable. The word is often used against Israel by those who do not even believe in its right to exist as a Jewish entity. But by taking issue with the phrasing, AIPAC and the ADL deny the very real concerns Kerry raises — and the fact that the word carries weight in this context.

Later on Monday, Kerry was adamant in saying that he never said that Israel is currently an apartheid state or that "it intends to become one." Instead, he was expressing concern that failure to create a two-state solution could set the country on that path. (In a statement, Kerry said "If I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word.") The two-state solution is one that most center and left-leaning leaders, within Israel and without, see as the only viable way to achieve peace. According to left-leaning J Street, an organization that describes itself as a "political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans," a one-state solution would lead to a "profoundly undemocratic state." Per the J Street website:

There is no such thing as a “one-state solution,” only a “one-state nightmare.” Neither Israelis nor Palestinians have given up on their national aspirations. They will both continue laying claim to the same piece of land, condemning them to unending conflict. Without a two-state solution, Israel will soon be forced either to cede its Jewish character to an Arab majority or to invite the world’s unprecedented condemnation and isolation as a profoundly undemocratic state.

It stands to reason that a single, democratic Israeli state is an unreasonable way to bring peace to the region. For the state to remain a democracy, newly assimilated Palestinians would need representation in the Knesset and an equal vote. If the non-Jewish Arab population overtakes the Israeli Jewish one, as it is likely to do, it would be reasonable to assume that Israel's identity as a Jewish state would be at risk. Basically, this means a single-state would either have to give up its status as a democratic country or as a Jewish one. That's what Kerry was warning about.

And, as The Daily Beast notes, Kerry's not the first to use the word as a means to highlight the frightening possibility of a non-democratic Israel. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak used the word in a call for peace in 2010, and current politicians shy away from the word but not its significance:

Talked with Israel's @AmbDermer for Tue @MorningEdition; asked about Kerry "apartheid" remark. Very interesting reply.... 1/2 — Steve Inskeep (@NPRinskeep) April 28, 2014

... @AmbDermer rejects "apartheid" label, but acknowledges a real concern: if Israel holds West Bank, hard to stay Jewish and democracy. 2/2 — Steve Inskeep (@NPRinskeep) April 28, 2014

Kerry's remarks come on the heels of controversial unity pact between rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers an end to Fatah's commitment to peace talks. But Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said that this is not the case. As Israel marks Holocaust Remembrance Day this week, Abbas made a conciliatory statement that could be seen as a challenge to the Hamas leaders' belief that the Holocaust didn't happen. Palestinian news outlet WAFA reports:

President Abbas stressed that the Holocaust is a reflection of the concept of ethnic discrimination and racism which the Palestinians strongly reject and act against. 'The world must do its utmost to fight racism and injustice in order to bring justice and equality to oppressed people wherever they are. The Palestinian people, who suffer from injustice, oppression and denied freedom and peace, are the first to demand to lift the injustice and racism that befell other peoples subjected to such crimes."

Abbas has himself been accused of being a Holocaust revisionist — he wrote a dissertation in the 1980s positing that Zionists were in cahoots with Nazis — and some have argued that the conciliatory words don't signify any real change in Palestinian politics. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the statement a publicity stunt, and noted on Twitter that Abbas's words don't alter Hamas's stance:

Hamas denies the Holocaust even as it attempts to create an additional Holocaust by destroying the State of Israel. — Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) April 27, 2014

And called again for the rival Palestinian factions to call off their unity pact.

It is with this Hamas that Abu Mazen chose to form an alliance last week. Instead of issuing statements to placate global public opinion - — Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) April 27, 2014

Even if Abbas hasn't changed his views, it doesn't mean that the Palestinian people aren't hearing what he's saying. Israeli Holocaust museum Yad Vashem issued a statement demanding that Abbas's words lead to change in how the Holocaust is taught and discussed in the Arab world:

Holocaust denial and revisionism are sadly prevalent in the Arab world, including among Palestinians. Thus, the statement that the ‘Holocaust is the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era,’ coming from Abbas, might signal a change, and we expect it will be reflected in PA websites, curricula and discourse. Acknowledging the crimes of the Holocaust is fundamental to anyone who wants to confront history honestly.

Honesty is a rare commodity in the Arab-Israeli peace process. It's easy to interpret Kerry's words as an accusation and Abbas's as a deflection. But if each side allows that the other may be sincerely seeking a peaceful resolution — as it must, at some point, for the peace process to move forward — then this battle over words might not be the worst way to start.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.