Comments on: Israel is not an apartheid state

By: Dana Meijler-Gross

Dana Meijler-Gross — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:40:45 +0000

Dear Gideon,

I couldn't agree more regarding Israel is not being clear in words and deeds regarding what it wants to accomplish on the West Bank. The biggest obstacle on Israel's side, in my humble opinion is that Netanyahu's power is propped up by the settlement movement (at least it was until the last election anyway) and to move forward with negotiations would put his future as Prime Minister too much at risk. The best thing Israel could do in my mind is come to the table, with no preconditions and let the Palestinians be the ones to refuse. The chances of that though really depend on what kind of coalition is formed and how much Netanyahu can be pressured to act because I don't think he will act out of his own volition. His personal politics are against a two state solution. My thoughts are highly unlikely. Yesh Atid, our new power player is more concerned with other issues. All the best to you, Dana

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:19:51 +0000

Dear Dana Meijler-Gross: Thank you so much for your reply and reflections. If I were a Palestinian, I would be pissed off to say the least, that Israel is calling for negotiations while it eats up the very pizza that is going to be negotiated. That isn't a matter of the past, but the present.

We know anti-Semitic pro-Palestinian "anti-Zionists", see all one-sided. Yes. But to extricated ourselves from this situation, we ought to take the fundamental decision: are we for annexing the West Bank, or are we for a de-militarized Palestinian state? That stance is ours to take, and Israel is nowadays a cacophony of double-speech and double action about it. Yours, Gideon Sharabi, Santiago de Chile.

By: Dana Meijler-Gross

Dana Meijler-Gross — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:58:37 +0000

Gideon, thank you so much for reading and for your comment. I agree that the situation is intolerable, however, in order to do something about the situation, the Palestinians have just as much responsibility to hold up their end as Israel does. Israel has traded land for peace in the past and has dismantled settlements, as painful as that is for all concerned. They will do it, for the sake of creating peace and ending this state of war. The reason the Palestinians don't have their state is simply because they have been too foolish to accept it when it has been offered, both by the Uniited Nations in 1947 and Israel subsequently. The Palestinians or at least their leadership refuse to accept the right of Israel to exist and to subsequently meet their security concerns. I am not saying that Israel does not bear responsibility for the situation, it does but the Palestinians do as well. That is my biggest issue with these so called Palestinian supporters, they view everything as completely one sided and lay all the responsibility at Israel's feet and then turn a blind eye when terrorists strap on explosive vests and blow themselves up on an Israeli bus or cafe. I am a staunch supporter of Israel, I love Israel but I am also critical of Israel and accept that Israel has made mistakes and bears collective responsibility for the situation. I am able to see the Palestinian point of view and sympathize with their plight. They are, as you said, disguising hate as political action.

By: Michael Harris

Michael Harris — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:30:05 +0000

there is an appropriate term for it: occupation. It's the military outcome of the failed attempt by King Hussein to assist Nasser's goal of destroying Israel in 1967. The occupation can only end in one of several ways: 1. Israel annexes land and gives the Arabs living there equal citizenship rights, as was done in Jerusalem and the Golan. 2. Israel ends the occupation and turns the land over to the Palestinians for their own country. 3. Israel annexes land but doesn't give the Arabs living there equal rights. Only the 3rd option can be considered discriminatory. And aside from an extremist minority that one isn't on the table. The second option requires a Palestinian leadership that wil accept living in peace alongside Israel as the state of the Jewish people –recognizing its legitimacy and abandoning the claims to a fictional "right of return" for descendants of the original Arab refugee population– itself the outcome of the failed attempt by the Arabs to prevent the founding of Israel. So if both Palestinians want to avoid either continuing the occupation or the first option (annexation, as promoted by Naftali Bennett) they should consider taking the steps required on their end–such as ending the incitement, delegitimization, and so on. Not once have such practices been curtailed even by the PA much less Hamas.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:44:23 +0000

Dear Ms Meijler,

I fully understand and share your feelings at the coupling of Apartheid and Israel, and I share your revulsion at Galloway's display of raw Jew-hatred disguised as a political stance.

That said however, the fact that in the WesT Bank, the law is not territorial, but applies differently to Israelis and Palestinians, is an evident, grave form of discrimination. What the appropriate term for that reality is, escapes me. I am not an expert in South Africa of the 1970's. But it is a seriously damaging reality to both Israelis and Palestinians. The terrorism, incitement to hate, delegitimization and demonization of Israel that emmanate from the PA, the PLO, Fatah (not to talk about Gaza's terrorist sects), and the Palestinian society, doesn't deny this basic fact, which we have to face as Jews.

By: Eduardo Schmidt

Eduardo Schmidt — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:21:07 +0000

precise, clear arguments. great article indeed.