Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew sister site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Sending the Palestinians to bed without dinner

By withholding the PA’s tax revenues, the Israeli government is effectively stealing Palestinian money. So why won’t the international community call it that?

At the end of last year the Israeli government announced that it would stop transferring Palestinian tax revenue to the Palestinian Authority. The move was explained, explicitly, as a punitive measure for the Palestinian ascension to the International Criminal Court. Conveniently, it also happened to take place at the start of Israel’s fast-paced election season.

The funds in question are tariffs and customs fees that Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinians, which the Palestinian Authority cannot collect for itself, since Israel won’t allow it to control any sea or air port. The goods that are being taxed merely pass through Israel. According to the Paris Protocols, the economic section of the Oslo Accords, the tax money is Palestinian; Israel is just a middle man.

So when Israel refuses to transfer the Palestinian tax revenue, it is stealing. Except nobody calls it that, for two reasons. The first reason is that Israel is not a rogue state in the eyes of most of the world, and states don’t really steal — they have disputes, or they occupy, or nationalize or appropriate.

The second reason is that everyone involved — the Israelis, the Palestinians and the international community — knows that Israel will eventually give the money back. Every year or two, the Israeli government decides to withhold the tax funds, usually in response to some policy decision that doesn’t strike its fancy. It waits a few months until the international pressure grows — and the Palestinian Authority inches toward collapse — before giving it back.

So what does withholding the tax funds accomplish? Firstly, it means that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians lose part of their income. The first thing that the Palestinian Authority slashes when it starts to run out of money is salaries — the salaries of 180,000 civil servants, each of whom supports a family.

PHOTOS: Israel cuts off Palestinian power twice in one week

Withholding tax funds, or holding up the monthly income of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families, is Israel’s way sending the Palestinian Authority to bed without dinner. The Israeli government is saying: your behavior is not acceptable, and although we are not going to do anything too dramatic, we want you to hurt...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

High Court upholds controversial 'boycott law'

High Court rejects petition against the law, gives grounds to allows individuals who want to sue anyone calling for a boycott of Israel, or ‘areas under its control.’

The High Court rejected a petition by human rights organizations, upholding the controversial “boycott law” on Wednesday. The law give grounds for individuals to sue anyone who calls for a boycott of Israel, or areas under its control.

The court struck down only one section of the law, which establishes that one may seek punitive damages for a deliberate call to boycott without needing to prove actual damages. It appears that one will now need to show actual damages in order to win a lawsuit.

Justice Hanan Meltzer, who wrote the majority opinion, ruled that a call to boycott is not consistent with the true purpose of freedom of expression, and therefore is not protected speech. He went on to describe boycott calls as “political terrorism,” adding that the state has a right to defend itself from them.

The human rights organizations that challenged the law responded to the ruling by saying that the High Court failed to protect the freedom of speech. “The Anti-Boycott Law is a law to ‘shut mouths.’ Its sole purpose is to silence legitimate criticism. The Court’s decision allows sanctions on freedom of expression and the right to political action concerning hotly contested issues of debate.”

Nearly four years ago, the Israeli Knesset passed the Law to Prevent Harm to the State of Israel by Means of Boycott, which rights groups challenged in court almost immediately. (Read a translation of the law itself here.)

The law was a direct response to the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. It enables anyone who feels they were (or might be) harmed by a boycott, “solely because of their affinity with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control (read: settlements in occupied territory, MSO), in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage,” to sue for both punitive and compensatory damages.

The second part of the law targets institutions, organizations and individuals that rely on the State of Israeli for funding, special tax status or government tenders.

Read also: Everything you (never) wanted to know about Israel’s anti-boycott law

The law was never utilized, either in civil court or in the government’s discretion in funding...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

'Israeli cellular companies paid to squat on Palestinian land'

The companies never even received permits to build antenna towers in the illegal West Bank settlement outpost of Migron, are now asking the courts to let them stay even after the settlement itself was demolished, Walla reports.

Israel’s three major cellular companies, including the franchisee of Orange, paid rent to Israeli settlers who illegally established an outpost on privately owned Palestinian land, court documents show.

For 12 years, Orange franchisee Partner Communications, Cellcom and Pelephone paid approximately NIS 200,000 to Israeli settlers in the illegal West Bank outpost of Migron in order to place cellular antennas inside the settlement, Walla News’s Shabtai Bendet reported Sunday.

Furthermore, the cellular companies built their towers without permits from the Israeli army, which is the effective sovereign in the West Bank, including planning and building issues.

The Israeli army demolished all of the structures in Migron earlier this year — save for the cellular towers — after a years-long court battle. The settlement itself was built on land owned by neighboring Palestinian villages, without permission and without authorization from Israeli authorities.

In other words, the three cellular companies, one of which pays franchise fees to a Paris based company that is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, paid rent to Israeli settlers who were illegally squatting on Palestinian land — for 12 years.

It should be noted that all settlements are illegal under international law, a near-consensus understanding with which only Israel disagrees. This settlement, however, was illegal even under Israeli law.

Last year, the French government openly warned its citizens “not to engage in financial activity or investments in the Israeli settlements in the West Bank,” Haaretz reported at the time.

Considering that settlements are built on occupied land, doing business in them “could lead to a high likelihood of land disputes,” the French warning read. In the case of Migron, that likelihood was a certainty, one that the cellular companies should have been aware of, especially considering the fact that they were denied building permits to erect their antennas, but which they built nevertheless.

According to the Walla report, not only did the cellular companies not obtain the proper permits to build their towers, they even ignored Israeli army stop-work orders and continued construction.

The three companies are currently asking the Israeli courts to allow their antennas to remain on the illegally seized Palestinian land,...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Justice unlikely in deadly Kafr Kanna police shooting

Clashes break out in the town in northern Israel as police demolish local resident’s home. Knesset member warns of ‘consequences’ if the officer who shot Khair Hamdan isn’t charged.

The Israeli Police’s internal affairs unit plans to close its investigation into the officer who was filmed shooting and killing Kheir Hamdan in Kafr Kanna last year, according to a Channel 10 report.

The shooting led to days of rioting and clashes with police last November when video of the incident surfaced hours after police put out a short statement saying they had fired a warning shot and believed their lives were in danger. The video showed Hamdan attempting to flee when he was shot, and appeared to show no warning shot.

According to the Channel 10 report, the officer who killed Hamdan was never questioned under caution during the internal affairs investigation and will likely not face any criminal charges.

Additionally, the Police Investigations Department (PID), reportedly planned to delay announcing the decision until after Nakba Day, May 15, in hopes of not fanning the flames on a day that traditionally sees large protests and commemorative marches.

“Arab society will not tolerate another case in which an Arab is murdered by the police, and yet there is no murderer,” MK Basel Ghattas of Balad responded to the report.

Calling on the police internal affairs to press charges against the officer, Ghattas warned of the “consequences of closing the case [without charges].”

The local council of Kafr Kanna declared a general strike Monday in protest of a home demolition carried out by Israeli police in the village overnight.

Clashes and riots broke out in Kafr Kanna Sunday night when police carried out the demolition of a home owned by Tariq Khatib. Six protesters, including the head of the local council, were wounded by tear gas, stun grenades and rubber-coated steel bullets.

The homeowner, Khatib, told Israeli news site Ynet, “The State has no right to demolish my home, and if they demolish it another 100 times I will build it again.”

Ghattas, who reportedly visited the demolished home on Monday, said that he had attempted to intervene with the planning authorities to help save the home, adding that “the regional council’s stubbornness and imperviousness is what caused this.”

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Netanyahu resurrects ‘no partner’ excuse for Iran deal

The Israeli government is pulling out all of its usual tricks. It is clear from Netanyahu’s demands that a nuclear deal include recognition of Israel’s right to exist and that it address Tehran’s support for Hezbollah and Iran, that the Israeli prime minister will never accept any deal with the current Iranian regime — much like his approach to the two-state solution.

One might be tempted to think that disagreements about technicalities and tactics aside, Israel and the United States are on the same page about the overarching goal of nuclear negotiations with Iran. They are not.

The goal of the United States and the other P5+1 states is simple: reach an agreement in which Iran willingly gives up any nuclear ambitions and implements tangible mechanisms to reassure the world it is doing so. In other words, to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

Israel, or at least Benjamin Netanyahu and those he has enlisted to his cause over the past 20 years, wants something entirely different. Netanyahu wants Tehran to change its entire regional strategic thinking — to throw its allies to the wayside and to embrace its enemies. He wants regime change.

That gaping divergence of goals and worldviews has been on full display in recent days as both the Netanyahu and Obama administrations went on the offensive to attack and defend the most basic precepts of the preliminary nuclear deal, respectively.

Speaking on primetime Israeli television Monday night, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes rebuffed the interviewer’s question as to whether the United States genuinely believes that as a result of the agreement, Iran will “suddenly become the local nice guy,” referring to its expanding sphere of influence in the Middle East, often times attained with the help of violence.

“The question is will they be supported in all that behavior in the region backed by a nuclear weapons capability,” Rhodes responded. In other words, the United States is not trying to change what Iran is, at least in the short term, but it believes it can change what weapons it possesses, thereby limiting the threat it can pose the region and Israel.

President Obama used much clearer words in response to Netanyahu’s surprise demand that the nuclear deal include Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

What Israel is demanding, Obama told NPR, “is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Israel media survey: Iran deal, not so bad after all?

A number of senior columnists and reporters say that Israel should be pleasantly surprised by the deal struck between the P5+1 and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program. Netanyahu — and his mouthpiece — digs in his heels.

Although the pushback from the Prime Minister’s Office was immediate and unchanged, many senior figures in the Israeli media appeared to be pleasantly surprised by the details of the Iranian nuclear deal Thursday night and Friday morning.

Ron Ben-Yishai, the senior military analyst for Israel’s most mainstream newspaper, Yedioth Aharonot, penned a column early Friday morning in which he said the deal was better than expected. Urging caution going forward, Ben-Yishai said that if the current framework reflects the final agreement, “even Israel could learn to live with it.”

“We could not have achieved a better outcome even if Israel, the United States, and other countries had carried out military strikes on the nuclear sites in Iran,” Ben-Yishai.

Haaretz diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid wrote that Israel will have a hard time fighting the agreement, the comprehensiveness of which caught many in Jerusalem by surprise.

“In contrast to the messages conveyed in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at Congress, the Israeli government’s public position over the last two years and the Pavlovian response that came out of Jerusalem on Thursday night, the framework agreement is not a bad deal at all,” Ravid wrote.

The newspaper’s Washington correspondent, Chemi Shalev, meanwhile, suggested that it might be worthwhile for Netanyahu to reassess his strategy of opposition to the deal.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his mouthpiece, however, appeared to be digging in — at least initially, at least publicly.

Sheldon Adelson’s staunchly pro-Netanyahu newspaper, Israel Hayom, ran a top headline on Friday’s edition reading: “The Iran Deal — A Historic Mistake”.

Netanyahu’s bureau published a readout of his conversation with President Obama early Friday morning, led by a quote: “A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel.”

“Such a deal would not block Iran’s path to the bomb. It would pave it,” Netanyahu said.

Labor party leader Isaac Herzog and political partner Tzipi Livni put out a cautious but conciliatory message following the framework deal. Saying that Israel must now move on to the next stage of tackling the Iranian nuclear threat, the two said in a statement: “We must ensure that the final deal...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

No, Bill Maher, Netanyahu's campaign was indeed racist

Citing example after example of racism and stoking ethnic tensions in U.S. history, the HBO host finds a way to justify Netanyahu’s warning that Arabs are voting.

American television personality Bill Maher addressed Israeli elections on his show a few days ago, specifically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s election-day warning that Arabs are voting en masse.

Maher, who has made a career shrugging off the constraints of politically correct discourse on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” argues that playing the race card in order to galvanize one’s base is an acceptable political tactic.

How do we know? Well, because it’s happened in the United States — so it must be okay.

“Like Reagan didn’t win [presidential] races with racism? Like Nixon, like Bush? They didn’t play the race card?” Maher posits. If those guys did it, what could be wrong?

But that was only the beginning.

Rejecting his own hypothetical in which Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney warns of black voters, Maher continued: “I think that would be a good analogy if America was surrounded by 12 or 13 completely black nations who had militarily attacked us many times, including as recently as last year. Would we let them vote?”

I think I see where you’re going, Bill. Would the United States allow its own citizens to vote if they were of the same race as a country that the U.S. recently fought? It certainly has done some ugly things we don’t like to bring up very often, but at the end of the day the arc of history bends toward justice, or something like that, and America is different today — right?

Not so much on Real Talk.

“I don’t know,” Maher continued. “When we were attacked by the Japanese we didn’t just not let them vote, we rounded them up and put them in camps.”

And there you have it. In an attempt to justify electoral race-baiting by Israel’s prime minister, Bill Maher suggests that arbitrarily putting over 100,000 American citizens in internment camps — on the basis of race — in response to a threat that never materialized was somehow justified?

When the world noticed Netanyahu’s racist campaigning last week I wrote about how Americans should rethink the idea that the bonds tying together Netanyahu’s Israel and the United States are cemented with shared values. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

The one thing that could have defeated Netanyahu — hope

There was a sense of misplaced joy on some parts of the Israeli Left as Netanyahu’s carefully crafted messaging began to unravel in the days leading up to elections. Finally, the world would see his true colors. But the same thing that keeps Netanyahu in power is the same thing that perpetuates the occupation: lack of an alternative vision.

It would have been pretty tempting to write a headline along the lines of, “Netanyahu rules out two-state solution, Israel votes for him anyway.” But that would have been silly. First off, Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t support the two-state solution when he was elected six years ago — and that was following the most intense and hopeful peace talks in a decade. Secondly, the voters whom he attracted with his last-minute confession were most likely going to vote for the Jewish Home, which has been far more adamant and open about opposing Palestinian statehood.

There was a nearly tangible sense of misplaced joy on some parts of the Israeli Left as Netanyahu’s carefully crafted messaging began to unravel in the days leading up to the elections. Finally, the world would see his true colors. Finally, all those Israelis who support peace and want their society to be more egalitarian will wake up and vote Bibi out of office.

The problem with that sentiment is, the reason Bibi waited until the last minute to publicize the less palatable points of his platform is that they were not ever issues in the election. His opponents did not campaign on a platform of equality or support for the two-state solution — it was simply not on the agenda.

It would be amiss at this point to condemn the 38 percent of Israelis who voted for right-wing nationalist parties (Likud, Israel Beitenu, Jewish Home and Yahad) on Tuesday. And sure, many of them, particularly supporters of Jewish Home and Yahad, are settlers and ultra-nationalist ideologues whose views are simply incompatible with contemporary values. The main point is that Netanyahu offers mainstream Israelis stability in a scary world.

Sure, Netanyahu fear-mongers and plays up threats for electoral and political gain. But Israelis aren’t stupid. There are real threats out there. ISIS, while not synonymous with Hamas, really is only an hour’s drive away. Enough Palestinians do want to harm Israelis that “peace” feels unsafe in the current climate. A nuclear-armed Iran, whether it...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

[Updated] Netanyahu soars ahead of Zionist Camp

Netanyahu has best chances to form a government but President Rivlin says will work for a unity government. (Updated below with 90% of votes counted.)

Update (4:30 a.m. local, 10 p.m. EST):
The following is the expected distribution of seats with over 90 percent of votes counted as calculated by Nehamia Gershuni, who runs independent polling site Project 61:

 

***

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and challenger Isaac Herzog came out tied with 27 seats out of 120 in the first exit polls in Israeli elections on Tuesday.

The Joint List received 13 seats in the initial exit polls, an increase of two seats for the Arab parties that individually had 11 seats in the past Knesset. The Joint List will most likely be the third-largest party in the next Knesset.

With the numbers released early on election night it would be much easier for Netanyahu to form a government, although President Reuven Rivlin said Tuesday night that he would work for a unity government.

The president grants one Knesset member the right to form a government so his inclinations have significant weight.

With even more power than Rivlin, however, is Moshe Kahlon of the Kulanu party. With nine seats and not clearly committed to either the right- or left-wing camp, Kahlon can — at least in theory — anoint the next prime minister. He is expected to initially support Netanyahu but is possible that he would also join a Herzog-lead government.

Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home settler party shrunk significantly to eight seats. Even smaller was Avigdor Liberman’s Israel Beitenu party, which had only five seats.

Left-wing Meretz held steady with five seats, dropping only slightly from its current six. Earlier in the day there were rumors that the party would not cross the threshold and make it into the Knesset.

The two ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism were predicted to have 13 seats between them.

Voter turnout in the election was 71.8 percent, over 4 percent more than in the previous elections. According to the Joint List, turnout among Arabs was reportedly up to 67 percent, a dramatic rise.

Election banner - new


View article: AAA
Share article

The next time Netanyahu talks about 'common values'

Hours after disavowing the two-state solution, the Israeli prime minister makes clear that his version of democracy includes as few Arabs as possible.

A few hours after the polls opened in Israeli elections on Tuesday, incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu published a message that offends the very spirit of democracy and equality.

Invoking military terminology, the prime minister warned that his own “right-wing regime” is in danger because “the Arabs are mobilizing in large numbers … to the polls.”

Lamenting that the Right doesn’t have its own get-out-the-vote movements, Netanyahu said it does have its “Order 8,” an emergency call-up order in Israeli military parlance.

The racism that capped off Netanyahu’s campaign on Tuesday followed an equally audacious statement the day before. In an interview Monday, Netanyahu made clear that no Palestinian state will come into existence on his watch should he be re-elected.

Next time the prime minister, in whatever capacity, talks about the shared values of the United States and Israel, the next time he accuses an Arab leader of saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, remember this.

Remember that Netanyahu’s version of democracy includes as few Arab voices as possible, simply because they are not Jewish.

Remember that the peace processes he has overseen for decades were not genuine, that he never had any intention of ushering in, let alone seeking, a two-state solution.

A government that values the voice of one group of its citizens more than others does not share the values espoused by the United States.

A state that has kept millions of people under military rule with no say in how they are governed, no say in their future, and which does not seek to end that disenfranchisement, that state does not share America’s values.

A leader who no longer even pays lip service to the values of democracy and civil rights is not a man with whom Americans shares common values.

Remember all of that next time Benjamin Netanyahu appeals to his supporters in Washington and says, you and I are the same.

I, Mr. Prime Minister, am nothing like you.

Election banner - new

View article: AAA
Share article

If Netanyahu is re-elected, Israel has a Europe problem

Nobody ever thought the window for a two-state solution would ever truly close — or be closed. Benjamin Netanyahu just declared it so in a last-ditched attempt to rally his base ahead of elections.

Forget whatever temporary crisis Benjamin Netanyahu created with the United States in his campaign speech on the Hill. If Netanyahu is re-elected on Tuesday, Israel is going to have a much more serious problem with Europe.

In an interview with Israeli news site NRG one day before elections, the prime minister made clear what he has only hinted at and skirted around for years.

The interviewer wasn’t going to have it. “If you are prime minister, a Palestinian state will not be established?” he asked.

“Indeed,” responded Netanyahu.

And therein lies the problem. The very foundation of Netanyahu’s strategy vis-a-vis the Palestinians and the international community has been to stall, to muddle, to talk the talk but not walk the walk.

His strategy has paid off thus far. Nobody in the world fully believes that Netanyahu ever earnestly went all-in to peace talks, but as long as the process continued, as long as there was a chance, the gravest consequences of Israel’s intransigence have been held at bay.

In Brussels last year senior EU bureaucrats crafting Europe’s policy in the Middle East made clear to me that the ongoing peace process was the only thing stopping them from implementing what can only be described as sanctions.

But if the Israeli government were to declare officially that two states were off the table and if the peace process were to be declared definitively dead, then there would be no more “business as usual.”

Last year, the idea seemed fantastical. No-one — neither diplomats nor analysts — believed the Israeli side would ever say say ‘game over.’ But things have changed.

And it is important to note that Europe is Israel’s largest trading partner, which gives it tremendous influence.

Netanyahu’s declaration, should he be re-elected, would also provide the Palestinian Authority with reasons beyond reproach to move ahead in the United Nations and other international institutions.

This will make things a bit awkward for the United States. How can it continue to veto anti-settlement resolutions in the UN Security Council if the Israeli government’s official position is that Palestinian statehood is off the table —  that the West Bank belongs to Israel and not...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Poll: Israelis don't believe either candidate will make peace

Six days before Israelis head to the polls, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his challengers, Herzog-Livni, are closer than ever. According to a new survey, most Israelis support a continued peace process, but don’t think it will succeed — regardless of who is at the helm.

The past two-and-a-half months of campaigning leading up to next week’s elections have been cast as a choice between “us and them,” between the stability of an incumbent and the change offered by his challenger.

While the latest polls show Israelis almost evenly split — both among so-called Left and Right blocs, but also among those supporting either Benjamin Netanyahu or his challengers, Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni — the public at large doesn’t actually expect much change, regardless of who wins the election.

Nearly 60 percent of those polled said they believe there will be no progress on the peace process regardless of who forms the next government, “because there is no solution to the disputes between the two sides.”According to a poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), a full full two-thirds of Jewish respondents said they agreed that no progress will be made.

An identical number of respondents (taking into consideration the margin of error) said they support continuing to hold peace negotiations. Maintaining the contradictions that have become so enshrined in public polling on the peace process, however, 65 percent of respondents said they do not believe such negotiations will lead to peace in the coming years.

The IDI poll also found a significant gap in the public’s hopes and expectations regarding the elections. While 38 percent of those polls said they want a center-Left bloc to form the next government, only 23.7 percent said the center-Left has a better chance of forming a ruling coalition than the Right. Roughly one-fifth of the respondents, however, were undecided or declined to answer.

The two main candidates, Netanyahu’s Likud and Herzog and Livni’s Zionist Camp, are closer than ever in the most recent polls, as published by Project 61, an independent polling project that aggregates and attempts to correct biases in the major pre-election surveys.

The Zionist Camp has a slight lead over Likud, but the possible blocs necessary for forming a government are closer than ever. A possible center-Left coalition consisting of the Zionist Camp, Yesh Atid, Meretz and Kulanu would garner 47 out of the necessary...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

50,000 Israelis show up at the wrong protest

Imagine what would happen if tens of thousands of Israelis marched on the Qalandia checkpoint demanding that the occupation end immediately.

Some 50,000 people showed up on Saturday at a rally demanding change: a change in government, a change in attitude toward the Palestinian issue, a change in the state’s approach to social issues.

The main theme in most of the speeches at Saturday night’s rally in Rabin Square was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lack of strategic vision on the Palestinian issue, and the need to reach an agreement to end the occupation and the conflict. Two former senior security officials, ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Amiram Levine, both warned that Israel is heading toward a reality of apartheid if it continues its 47-year-old regime of military rule over 4 million Palestinians.

But if those 50,000 people truly wanted change, if they wanted to unequivocally demonstrate that the occupation must end, then they showed up at the wrong rally.

Earlier that day in Jerusalem, some 1,500 Israeli and Palestinian women marched toward both sides of the Qalandia checkpoint — that separates Jerusalem and Ramallah — with more articulate demands for change: an end to the occupation.

Imagine if 50,000 Israelis marched on Qalandia to demand an end to Israel’s undemocratic military rule over Palestinians, an end to the checkpoints that restrict Palestinian freedom of movement while allowing Israelis to drive through unhindered, an end to separate laws and permit regimes that do indeed bring up images of South African apartheid.

Imagine if all of those people who are angry enough about Netanyahu’s lack of vision on the Palestinian issue directed their anger at the occupation itself instead of the leader who administers it, conveniently ignoring that their leader has no vision for ending it either.

Imagine if it became socially acceptable in the Israeli mainstream for Israelis to peacefully march on checkpoints manned by Israeli soldiers, demanding that said checkpoints be dismantled and that full equality be Israeli society’s primary goal. Imagine if that were something society as a whole cared enough about to demand.

That is the brilliance and tragedy of the occupation. While half of Israelis consistently express that they want the occupation to end (in the framework of a two-state solution), only a marginalized few, so-called radical activists, take any action against the occupation...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article
© 2010 - 2015 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website powered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel