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

The violent repercussions of Trump's declaration

Trump’s speech sparked a new blood feud that claims the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians, unleashing forces destined to kill even more.

Israel was reeling this week after a shooting attack Tuesday evening that killed a 35-year old father of six near the West Bank outpost where he lived, called Havat Gilad. Although Rabbi Raziel Shevach lived in a community not even recognized under Israeli law, he was also a civilian: at the time of the shooting, he was not in a situation of active combat, and as far as is known, he was unarmed. His life in that territory was a highly political act, but his death is a crime with no justification.

And yet there is no escape from the political context of his death, both the causes and the consequences.

The attack that killed Raziel Shevach is part of a wave of violence that is the direct result of U.S. President Trump’s declaration recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. While neither Trump’s move nor anything else justifies killing civilians for political aims, the likelihood of escalation was so clear that even Trump had to call for calm in the very speech he knew would break it.

But since the declaration changed nothing for the U.S. or for Israel, what exactly was the point other than bloodshed? And if Trump doesn’t share the sorrow over the Palestinians who died over the last month, is the death of a Jewish Israeli father of six what he had in mind?

Despite the routinized Hamas mantra that the attack was about defending Jerusalem, it seems more like the next response in the month-long blood feud: revenge for 12 unarmed Palestinians, including two on Thursday alone, who have been killed since the speech. Most were killed during protests, which for Israelis proves that they were violent upstarts courting their own death. It is an image honed over decades of viewing Palestinians as rabble to be controlled by a military regime, rather than as individual human beings with the right to protest having been made to live as prisoners.

What is a demonstrator? As a child, I pored over the famous image of a protestor killed at the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations at Kent State University, fascinated by the iconic power of the photo to horrify America for what it had done. When a 16-year old Palestinian demonstrator, Nadeem Nawara, was killed in...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

How Trump energizes deniers of Palestinian independence

Taking their cues from the American president, right-wingers like Bret Stephens argue that the Palestinians don’t deserve a state. Here’s why they’re wrong.

President Trump could have made a tremendous statement last week had he recognized the claims of both Israel and the Palestinians to a capital in Jerusalem. Instead, he reinforced Israel’s already disproportionate advantage in the conflict. Right-wing hawks then took it further, seizing on his statement to revive the dusty arguments rejecting of Palestinian statehood altogether.

Conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens provides Exhibit A, with his decree that Palestinians have not proved sufficiently worthy of a state. To make his case, Stephens relies on several baffling points.

He claims that Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city “aligns the United States with the country toward which we are constantly professing friendship.” According to Stephens, the U.S. has somehow “stinted” Israel by withholding such recognition. Apparently propping up Israel with massive political, financial and military aid from 1948 to the present is worthless, compared to the sin of failing to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This despite the fact that just one paragraph earlier, Stephens claims that “most Israelis couldn’t care less where the embassy is ultimately located.” He does not explain why Israelis might have felt “stinted”, if they are indifferent to the matter.

Crowdfunding campaign banner

Then Stephens displays actual denialism, explaining why Palestinian independence must be suppressed, conditioned or otherwise thwarted.

Peace and a Palestinian state will come when Palestinians aspire to create a Middle Eastern Costa Rica — pacifist, progressive, neighborly and democratic — rather than another Yemen: by turns autocratic, anarchic, fanatical and tragic.

For the international community, that means helping Palestinians take steps to dismantle their current kleptotheocracy, rather than fueling a culture of perpetual grievance against Israel. Mahmoud Abbas is now approaching the 13th anniversary of his elected four-year term. Someone should point this out.

The contradiction is right there in his sentence: Yemen is going badly, but the Yemenis have their own state. The history of modern statehood is strewn with non-democracies and dysfunction. Referring to the wave of decolonization in the 1960s, the scholar...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Tens of thousands protest Israel's 'Crime Minister': Will it matter?

Nobody expected Saturday’s demonstration to be so enormous, but everyone was angry. Creative expressions of frustration were everywhere and demonstrators vowed to continue the protests — but what impact will they have? 

What started as a ripple on Israeli social media networks over the weekend burst out into a full-blown, massive demonstration against the government on Saturday night, in the heart of Tel Aviv, under the title of “the walk of shame.” Israeli news outlets estimated that tens of thousands turned out spontaneously to vent their anger against government corruption.

Police closed off sections of Rothschild Boulevard and surrounding streets for part of the evening as crowds packed into the area around Independence Museum, where statehood was declared in 1948. People streamed in from Tel Aviv and other parts of the country. After speeches on topics ranging from equality for Ethiopian Israelis to police violence, to the ongoing occupation, and the connection between corruption and the erosion of democracy, demonstrators marched in a thick procession to Habima Square. Their chants focused almost exclusively on corruption, calling for Netanyahu to either “go home” or “go to Ma’asiyahu” — a prison where politicians have served sentences. They hoisted signs reading “Crime Minister,” and “Hatikva – 1,000, 2,000, 3,000,” a pun on the name of the country’s national anthem, “The Hope,” and the “hope” that the police investigations into Netanyahu’s alleged corruption will bring him down.

The trigger for the demonstration was the “Recommendations Law,” a bill designed to prevent the police from providing summaries of its investigations or recommendations about indictment to the Attorney General. It would also ban the publication or leaking of police findings. The wording of the bill is tailored carefully to apply to the investigations against Netanyahu.  Despite widespread criticism, the bill passed a first reading in the Knesset on Monday, with an amendment that would allow the Attorney General to consult with the police on Netanyahu’s cases, but would still criminalize “unlawful” publication of police findings — with a jail sentence. The sponsors are fast tracking the bill; it is expected to face a second and third vote next week and could, if passed, go into effect almost immediately.

On Saturday night the anger was palpable. “They crossed a red line,” said Miriam Ziskind, a woman in her 70s who had come with friends from Beersheva. She was accompanied by Simcha Latman, an obstetrics nurse,...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Legal bullying in the service of the prime minister

The Knesset is fast-tracking legislation to hobble and hide corruption investigations against Netanyahu. The bill would further erode Israeli democracy, training citizens to accept that they do not have the right to know the facts about their leaders.

The Knesset raced toward adopting a law this week intended to constrain Israeli police from making recommendations about indictments based on its investigations, and to keep the findings of those investigations from the public. The law would apply retroactively to the current investigations involving the Prime Minister.

The bill represents another blow to democratic practice in Israel, along with laws in recent years that target Arabs, left-wing political expression, and civil society. Yet in some ways, the anodyne-sounding “Recommendations Law,” represents a new low for democracy in Israel.

It sponsors have “fast-tracked” the process; the bill won a critical first vote in the Knesset plenary on Monday with 46 in favor and 37 opposed; if it wins a second and third reading, the law could go into effect within two weeks.

The first version of the bill prevented the police from providing any summary of evidence, which is the basis for the attorney general to recommend indictment, imposing criminal liability on those who publish or leak such a summary. The restrictions apply specifically to investigations that are being “overseen by a prosecutor” – notably, those currently involving Benjamin Netanyahu.

These aspects elicited severe criticism of a “personal” bill; Yair Lapid called it “the Netanyahu law,” while Haaretz has referred to it as the “police-silencing law” in news stories. Following an outcry by opposition figures and civil society organizations, an updated version allows the attorney general to request “consultations” with the police regarding investigations already underway – once again, Netanyahu’s files – in which the police can presumably provide summaries of the evidence. But it still prohibits “unlawful” leaks (by police, investigators or prosecutors) on pain of jail time.

Crowdfunding campaign banner

Amir Fuchs of the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) noted in an email to +972 Magazine that the attorney general might still be allowed to publish investigation summaries at his discretion in the version that passed Monday’s vote.

But the intention is...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Pandering to the Right is a losing strategy for Labor

Israel’s Labor Party must decide what it stands for before the next round of elections. Without a true vision for the country, there’s really no reason it should win.

Avi Gabbay, the new head of Israel’s Labor Party, appears to be plotting a master strategy for winning elections, with laser-razor precision.

A largely unknown candidate, he is certainly aware that his first headlines will set voters’ image of him for years. His statements from the last few weeks leave little doubt about the first thing he wants them to know: I am no leftist.

First, he said Israel can have peace without dismantling settlements like Eli and Ofra—hard-core messianic settlements known for their ideology as much as their geography, deep inside the West Bank. Then he insisted he would not enter a coalition with the Joint List, the merger of three Arab parties. And this week, he lamented that the Left has been too committed to its liberal ways, at the expense of its Jewish heritage, reinforcing the notion, rather unique to Israeli Jewry, that the two are mutually exclusive.

It’s clear what he is trying to say, but it isn’t clear why Gabbay, the great blue-and-white hope of the Israeli Left, has taken the oldest and most brittle page from the dusty book of failed Labor strategy: convince right-wing voters to support Labor and shun the Left to win elections.

Far from a display of cunning strategic innovation, the move has been tried many times and failed just as many. Labor’s previous leader, Isaac Herzog, was the latest victim. In the 2015 campaign, certain advisors told him to beef up his security image, cutting an ad highlighting his military service in Israel’s intelligence and surveillance unit, and putting up billboards with giant, close-up photos of him squinting into the sunset. The colors and the crows’ feet were photoshopped; voters were derisive. In my day job as a pollster, I worked on that campaign. I always thought it was a mistake to try and out-security the Right.

Previous leaders fared no better. In 2013, Shelly Yachimovich dealt with the stigma of leftism by ignoring the conflict—she didn’t win. In 2006, Amir Peretz tried to prove his security mettle by accepting the post of defense minister, which nearly ended his career. In between, the great security symbol Ehud Barak briefly returned to lead the party, and in 2009...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Men, becoming Harvey Weinstein is not your destiny

No, men are not biologically programmed to terrorize women any more than women are programmed to invent accusations. Learned traits, in fact, can be unlearned.

Revelations about Hollywood director Harvey Weinstein and others before him have sparked a curious backlash against the demand to treat women respectably in the workplace. It’s curious because the new norms haven’t even kicked in yet, as Weinstein proves. One of the prominent backlash arguments is that men now fear all professional interactions with women, lest they be arbitrarily accused of sexual misdemeanors.

I’m writing to spread the good news: men are not biologically programmed to terrorize women any more than women are programmed to invent accusations. I know this from personal experience.

* * *

He wasn’t just my first mentor – he was a lifeline. I put on a brave face when he hired me, but he probably had no idea how much the job meant to me. I was in my mid-20s and until then had suffered from a professional identity crisis that was actually a general existential crisis. Where I came from, what you do is who you are, and I had no idea. I knew my skills and passions, and I was willing to work very hard – but couldn’t for the life of me fit the jagged pieces together.

He was (and is) nearly 30 years older. He had catapulted to the top of his game – an international star, at the the top of a niche field. I landed the dream job – being mentored by the best to do work I knew I would love, for high stakes, with important clients. I even got international travel.

One night barely half a year in, we finished work late, around 11pm – in Greece. He wanted to go for dinner; we found a good restaurant, he ordered the best bottle of wine. He asked me what I thought of the work that night, how I liked my job in general. We talked politics, which is what we both love and do. With a loose tongue and the excitement of being away, I spoke freely, tested out my emerging analytic personality. I probably sounded completely immature but he encouraged me to talk, think, and think critically. It got late. We went back to our hotels — and went to sleep.

This was my mentor: he cited my work diligently in one...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

The road from apartheid: Lessons, warnings and hope from South Africa

Democracy didn’t solve apartheid’s problems – it sparked a process of addressing them that could not start beforehand. South Africa should remind Israeli and Palestinian leaders that the road to transformation is long and imperfect – and it must start now.

With the possibility that four-term Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could one day fall due to corruption investigations, and succession speculation around aging Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, might a new generation of leadership finally boost the ossified peace process?

It’s hard to be optimistic. Israeli leaders have become too comfortable for too long doing nothing, while the Palestinian leadership seems intent on cannibalizing itself, with the help of the occupation. But future leaders may want to take a look at South Africa, as I did on a recent trip, for some comparative insights about why inaction is a terrible idea.

The first obvious comparison between the two regions made famous in 2006 by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s book, Peace, not Apartheid, was important at the time. The shock value (for some) helped place Israel’s occupation on a similar level of severity as the infamous regime. However, over a decade later, the debate over whether occupation should be considered apartheid has grown stale. The word has become a team insignia rather than a signifier, and the toxic argument obscures other valuable insights from South Africa about how a conflict can wane, end, and eventually  transform.

In South Africa today, one implicit question seems to run like a river beneath most conversations: is it working? Did ending apartheid bring a better life for the oppressed, while protecting the erstwhile oppressors and their descendants?

Apartheid’s bitter residue still stains the country. Although the policy ended over two decades ago, Peter Sullivan, former chief editor of The Star, South Africa’s premier daily newspaper, stated pointedly to me, “When did it really end?”

Apartheid’s legacy crops up in conversation about nearly all social issues. Young people live with post-conflict experiments designed to equalize educational and professional opportunities. Art exhibits address contemporary struggles of racial identity. The country seems to hover between the vibrancy of a new society building itself – similar to the spirit that drew me to Israel in my 20s – and a descent into grave ills of corruption and crime.

Thus the second main comparison is less about Israel-Palestine, but relates to other post-conflict societies where I have worked: when...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

As two-state solution appears less likely, support for it keeps dropping

A new poll of Palestinians and Israelis finds that with symbolic incentives, a majority on both sides can be convinced to support a two-state solution. But time is only eroding support for two states across the Green Line.

For years, a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians supported a two-state solution in principle. After years of atrophy, large swaths of both societies now believe such a resolution to be impossible. That doubt strongly corresponds to sliding support for two states.

If that trend injures the prospects for peace, the next finding of a recent survey of Israeli and Palestinian attitudes towards the conflict — which I conducted together with Palestinian researcher Dr. Khalil Shikaki — adds insult to injury: a slim majority on both sides still support the two-state solution despite everything.

And yet, the poll found that with realistic policy incentives, the attitudes of many who oppose an agreement are flexible and can be changed. Combined with those who already support two states on both sides, a majority is attainable. If Israeli and Palestinian leaders were to forge an agreement, sign it and throw all of their political behind selling it to their constituents, the public on both sides would very likely come along. But not for long.

The analysis here is based on our poll of 1,200 Palestinians and 900 Israelis, conducted in June and early July, through the PCPSR and the Tami Steinmetz Center at Tel Aviv University. The samples are representative of the total population of each side (Jews and Arabs in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank among Palestinians). The full results, full questionnaire, and all other survey details, can be found here.

Glass half-full

Fifty-three percent of Israelis and 52 percent of Palestinians support the concept of a two-state solution in theory. After all the detailed items of a two-state solution (based on details we know from previous rounds of negotiations) are read to the respondents, support is lower, and similar on both sides: 43 percent among Palestinians, 41 percent among Israelis. However, only a portion of those opposed are hard and inflexible — a large portion would change their minds in exchange for various policy incentives.

For example, if the agreement stipulated that Palestinians would recognize Israel as a Jewish state, with Jewish history and religious attachment, 43 percent of those who first opposed the detailed agreement would change their minds, and...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Is it 'unethical' to oppose the occupation in academia?

A new ‘code of ethics’ commissioned by Israel’s education minister seems to target left-wing politics in universities.

The Israeli Education Ministry, headed by far-right politician Naftali Bennett, recently commissioned an ethical code for political conduct in higher education in Israel. The resulting document (Hebrew) is a highly invasive set of political thought controls portrayed as high, dry ethical norms.

Following years of campaigns against left-wing academics, most famously by hyper-nationalist group Im Tirtzu, the new ethical code declares that its aim is to “protect students” from the political activity and views of academic faculty.

Penned by the same man who wrote the IDF’s controversial code of ethics, philosopher Asa Kasher, the code details “the limits of academic freedom,” touching on faculty and student political activity, and all other aspects of academic pursuits.

For example, on student political activity: “Freedom of expression” or “creative freedom” do not justify political activity if it harms the “dignity or political expression” of another group.

Translated in the current Israeli context, this unambiguously refers to the idea that boycotts in protest of Israel’s occupation policies could be interpreted as offensive to the dignity of students – and therefore can be prevented on campus. It could refer just as well to the commemoration of the Palestinian Nakba at Israeli universities, or questioning Zionism. It is hard to imagine the author considered right-wing activism, IDF support, or Im Tirtzu thought-bullies when drawing up that item.

The document also spends extensive space advocating “diversity” within disciplines. A chapter titled “cultivating diversity” states that an academic department — or conference or journal — that selects only a “narrow range” of “subjects or streams” (of thinking), must explicitly publicize that fact. For the uninitiated, this means: if too many faculty members are deemed left wing, they are to put up a sign. The concept closely resembles Israel’s NGO law, which seeks to shame left-wing NGOs through public markings on all their material.

At the same time, the code warns academics to teach and research only within their disciplines, through chapters with communist-sounding names: “preserving the distinctness of disciplines and their boundaries.” Another section admonishes lecturers to teach strictly according to the syllabus, which is “like a contract.” It rambles on with wordy chapters about every aspect of academia, from faculty hiring, to conferences, clinics and seminar courses, and a chapter on “other academic activity” for...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Fifty years of opposition

Each decade of the occupation has brought changing fortunes to prospects for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and varying levels of opposition to Israel’s military rule. After half a century, could there finally be a proposal that stands a chance?

Fifty-fever marking the anniversary since the 1967 war has swept both the Israeli Left and the Right. The Right is dreaming up ever more creative ways to celebrate Israel’s triumph — the culture minister recently wore a dress screen-printed with scenes from Jerusalem to the Cannes Film Festival — while the Israeli Left is grasping for ways to remind a largely-apathetic public about the ills of occupation.

Still, the often-overlooked fact is that 50 years of Israeli occupation is also a half-century of opposition. It is true that the core goal of ending occupation has failed and there is no political resolution in sight. But the history of opposition holds elements of success. In fact the often-derided “peace industry” has produced not just dialogues and demonstrations but has helped legitimize ideas in Israel that form the core principles for resolving the conflict.

In the beginning, there were doubts

The start of opposition to Israel’s policy in the territories captured in 1967 go back to the war itself. Its consequences have never been a consensus in Israel.

Shortly after the war, the scientist cum conscience-philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz railed against prolonged military rule over the Palestinians. He argued that Israel would lose its Jewish majority and Israelis would turn into security-obsessed occupiers, while destroying Palestinian society.

But even during the war, on its fifth day, a parliamentarian named Uri Avnery called openly on the prime minister to give the captured land to the Palestinians so that the latter could establish an independent state. In August 1967, the writer Amos Oz wrote an open letter calling to end the occupation.

This same phase saw the birth of the settlements. But in 1970, a nascent movement of IDF pre-recruits protesting their service in “the territories” emerged – some would later refuse. In 1978 a letter signed by several hundred officers protested government policy “perpetuating its rule over a million Arabs,” which they argued “could harm the Jewish-democratic character of the state.” The letter became a touchstone moment in the formation of Peace Now.

Today these words sound standard. But at the time, they were shocking. In...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

1968 poll shows what Jewish Jerusalemites thought of Palestinians

A survey of Jerusalem’s Jewish residents just months after the end of the Six-Day War showed that, even back then, the majority wanted little to do with their Arab neighbors — and as few reminders as possible that they were there at all.

At the close of the Six-Day War in 1967, Jerusalem’s Jewish residents were surely elated, like most Israeli Jews, by the famous words, “The Temple Mount is in our hands.” But when it came to daily life with their new Arab neighbors, most quickly decided they would have preferred a land without a people.

A survey conducted less than one year after the reunification showed deep suspicion, and large majorities who supported limiting the presence of Arabs in their lives to the fullest extent possible. The full survey (Hebrew) is being published here (English) for the first time in full; it was found by Akevot, a a human rights research and documentation center that publishes fascinating archival material. The poll had been described by Tom Segev in his book 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year that Transformed the Middle East, but the full data were not made available until now.

In 1968, surveys were a lengthy undertaking. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, and the coded responses were processed slowly. Even the relatively small sample of 283 respondents in this survey would have taken several months to conduct and process. The copy here includes a cover letter dated March 11, 1968, following a discussion of the results at a Ministerial Committee on Jerusalem. That means the survey was already completed and analyzed possibly by early March; most likely the interviews were conducted in January and February of 1968, or even December 1967 – just over half a year after the war.

Donate banner

Based on the findings, the overwhelming conclusion is that Jews wanted little to do with Palestinians of Jerusalem, other than to expand into their neighborhoods.

Nearly sixty percent said that Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to move to the Western part of the city. Eighty-five percent thought the unification would bring increased crime, and 81 percent said it would bring severe social problems. Although a small majority agreed that Arabs...

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

The Jewish-Arab love story that threatened Israel's national identity

‘All the Rivers,’ the latest book by Dorit Rabinyan, generated international headlines when it was banned from Israel’s high school curriculum for depicting a Jewish-Arab romance. On the occasion of its publication in English, +972 Magazine speaks with the author about the ban and its fallout, and about traversing boundaries.

In December 2015, Israel’s Education Ministry banned Dorit Rabinyan’s third novel, “All the Rivers,” from the high school literature curriculum on the grounds that it encouraged assimilation via the tale of a Jewish-Arab romance. If that was the reason, the ministry need not have bothered: The autobiographically-inspired relationship between a young Jewish Israeli woman, who is similar to Rabinyan, and a charismatic Palestinian artist is doomed all on its own.

Almost from the moment the protagonist, Liat, meets the irrepressible Hilmi on a blustery late fall evening in New York, voices are swirling in her head. They alternate between “what are you doing?” and “this cannot happen,” and they never totally go away. The book is a chronicle of the passion and sorrow of the impossible relationship through the ages.

At the request of numerous teachers, Haaretz reported at the time, a professional pedagogic committee recommended including the book in the high school curriculum based on its literary and thematic merits. But Education Ministry officials rejected it and the far-right Education Minister Naftali Bennett backed the decision. I suspect Bennett had not yet read the book; if he had, he might have realized that his master stroke did not suppress Rabinyan’s view of the prospects for a relationship between an Israeli and a Palestinian, but rather echoed it. Ironically, but predictably, the attention made her book a bestseller.

It also turned Rabinyan into a target. In an interview with +972 Magazine prior to the release of the English translation (published by Random House Hardcover & eBook), she described how Bennett’s public statements were a dog whistle to followers of right-wing thugs.

“[On social media] they wished me all manner of curses, rape and death, all kinds of death…There were phone calls in the middle of the night from people cursing me.” She avoided her phone for days that passed in a fog. She was spat on. “Spitting on the streets is sort of a symbol. They said, ‘you’re not worth the soles of IDF boots’… they were devotees of their shepherd, sheep who got the sign from their leader.”

...Read More
View article: AAA
Share article

Germany's foreign minister calls Netanyahu's bluff — and rightly so

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel will learn far more from his meetings with B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence.

Given an ultimatum of meeting with Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem or meeting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel very simply made the right choice to forego Netanyahu. And not in order to “defy” Netanyahu, as per a breathless Bloomberg headline, or to give any message at all.

He was right simply because what would he have actually learned from Netanyahu? Those organizations will give Gabriel concrete information: B’Tselem will update him on developments regarding the 50-year-old occupation and its most current manifestations, in the form of data, documentation and analysis. Breaking the Silence will give him human experiences of occupation, and tell the truth about growing attempts to intimidate and suppress the group for daring to oppose Israeli policies.

Now consider the meeting with Netanyahu. The two would probably have complimented each other on their great trade relations, something neither needs to see the other to know. Netanyahu, after all, got his submarines. On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Netanyahu would have fed him saccharin promises and empty calories about how Israel yearns for peace, without admitting how satisfied society and government are with the status quo.

Netanyahu might have paid tight-lipped service to a two-state solution, while he and his government take all possible measures on the ground to abort a Palestinian state. Netanyahu might have read some tweets from COGAT, which, together with the Civil Administration, governs Palestinian civilian life through the military — perhaps tweets about how kind Israel is to let some trucks pass into Gaza.

He would certainly have cited the cancer patients who were allowed to Israel for medical treatment and caught smuggling tubes of explosive material, or the stabbing attack in Tel Aviv by a teenager on Sunday. And he will expect these incidents to prove why Israel must never ever end the military regime in the West Bank or control over Gaza.

But anyone who cares to look knows that Netanyahu’s Israel is striving to own all the land. Any rational person can see the policies and conclude that Netanyahu — in his own and his ministers’ words — is against a Palestinian state.

Since any regular person can figure this out, not least a bright foreign minister, Gabriel would quickly have gotten bored. Then he might have gotten insulted....

Read More
View article: AAA
Share article