If the word fits

Secretary of State John Kerry made a recent comment about Israel and the two-state solution and used the word apartheid, and almost as fast as the recording went public, the backlash and outrage begin, and all it about the use of the word and Secretary Kerry. As for the word, well, here's a thought.

If the word apartheid fits the situation, then call it for what it is, apartheid. It is a word not exclusive to South Africa and to discrimination by race. It has broader application, and can be used to raise a point about a situation, such as the Middle East between Israel and the Palenstinians as Kerry made.

If you don't believe Israel can't create an apartheid state, then you need to consider Gaza, which has self-determination and self-governance, but their access to the world is almost entirely controlled by Israel on three sides, and only the southern border with Egypt is not controlled by Israel.

Israel controls their utilities (water and electricity), energy, telecommunications, and the flow of goods and people through checkpoints. If that's not control of a people, then I don't know what is, and while it's not complete apartheid, and the word doesn't entirely fit, it does fit to enclose Palenstinians.

And lets consider Kerry wasn't the first person to call the future of the Middle East as possibility being apartheid, many Israelis have used it, and he wasn't the first senior American official to use it, Jimmy Carter used to in his book about the Israeli-Palenstinian situation.

Let's not jump on Kerry for raising the issue with a word. We should be focused on the solution for the future of the Palenstinians, who need it more than any people in the Middle East. They need their independence, control of their borders, especially with the Mediterrean Sea, and they need Israel to agree to help them build their economy.

That's what Kerry is trying to do, so let's focus on what he's trying to do than him over a word.