Quite Unreasonable

A guest columnist in the Jerusalem Post, a financial commentator, wrote an op-ed, entitled "Ariel and us", in which he claimed that while boycotting is a perfectly reasonable tactic, the question is whether either Israel or Ariel is a fair target.

On the face of things, who can argue the rationality of that. After all, we all were brought up to admire Ghandi.

We can, however, argue about whether indeed there is a reasonableness abut this boycott policy.

But does the author do that?

First, he writes:

The town isn’t even particularly objectionable as settlements go: It isn’t an unauthorized settlement and its residents don’t spend their off hours pulling up Palestinian olive trees.

Of course, that is a nasty swipe at Jewish residency in Judea and Samaria, that throw-away about uprooting olive trees. Not only are no trees uprooted - have you ever tried to uproot an olive tree? - but most, not all, of the reports are either false or highly exaggerated and never take into account what the other side is doing. There has been much hype about a few incidents and a line like that is not only not helpful but is an act of disdain which I never expect one Jew to practice to another, even in an ideological argument. And especially to play up to a group that truly hates and despises like the radical left who practice boycott do towards my friends, my neighbors and I.

Next, the writer makes a truly silly statement:

The settlers are Israeli citizens, and the government has done everything it can to make it seem as if the settlements are no different than Holon or Kiryat Ono. Indeed, settlers are not just equal citizens, they are more equal. If they choose, Ariel’s residents can pass quickly through the checkpoints and enjoy an evening at Habimah or Cameri in Tel Aviv, just like the rest of us. But how many towns of fewer than 20,000 people inside the Green Line can have the evening out in a NIS 40 million arts center?

Any town, really, if their Mayor is energetic and active and knows how to raise money. But moreover, the government does make such theatrical presentations to towns even without such an edifice. Is the author revealing some jealousy that has no true basis? Should Ariel residents be prohibited from building a cultural center?

He then move on to legalities:

...Ariel and the rest of the West Bank settlements are not a part of Israel. After 43 years, there is still a Green Line. And, if that isn’t clear enough a signal, the history of the last two decades is a history of gradual separation.

True, they are not included in the sovereign territory of the state of Israel. But all of united Jerusalem is and I would suggest that whatever boycott is directed against the Yesha communities is also done or will be done in the city. Will the author defend that? On what foundation? Legal? Historical? Justice? But more important, the point is that even if Shiloh, for example, is not ruled by Israel in a civil political sense but through the mechanism of a military governor, by what principle does anybody have to tell me I have no right to reside here? I would claim that any historical process of separation can reverse itself just as it started. Between 1937 and 1967, one could say that partition was the only geo-political agenda item and yet in 1967 it was reversed and then reversed again. Fluctuations are the rule is all we can comprehend.

In claiming that the artists’ boycott's initiative

...came from the bottom up rather than the top down. It wasn’t the prime minister, the cabinet or some international agreement that was treating settlers as people living outside the borders. It was private citizens protesting. But the settlers should have recognized a long time ago that while official Israel was cutting them adrift, so was the Israeli street.

I am confused. Artists think themselves the elite. They are the top. And "official Israel" has not cut us adrift. And neither is the "Israeli street":-

77% of Israeli Jews oppose artist's boycott of performances at settlements

And read this.

The author writes an untruth:-

When the mass demonstrations against Oslo took place 17 years ago, it was settlers alone who rallied.

That is simply not true. I was there. The rallies were in dozens of cities and towns, Thousands stood at traffic junctions. Tens of thousands joined the rallies and mass demonstrations.

He then proceeds to further malign:

...ordinary Israelis – the ones who hadn’t been tempted by cheap housing and other subsidies and an easy commute to Tel Aviv that places like Ariel offered – had no love for the settler enterprise.

I would suggest that it is the inordinate Israeli who does not have appreciation for the Yesha residents even if they do not support them and the supporters are the majority as every election has proven in giving pro-Yesha political parties the ability to form almost all the coalitions since 1977.

He then states a personal political opinion:-

It’s in our deepest interest that the separation from the settlements continue in anticipation of the inevitable divorce ahead.

"Our"? Well, if he is in a covenant with Meretz, Peace Now, B'tselem, etc., I can understand that use of a possessive determiner adjective. But he has to prove that "our".

And at the end, her returns to a writing that disdains, that deprecates, that generates the emotions of hate:-

...The settlements and everything they represent – the refusal to make peace (or at least to offer anything to the Palestinians that would lead to an agreement), the routine skirting of the law and the double standards it requires to build and expand them – taints all of Israel. They are a function of deliberate policy to take land at the expense of a Palestinian population with no intention of giving it back....for the ordinary Israelis who oppose them, like the actors and other artists did last week, it’s high time to draw the line.

There is no tainting involved unless the writer is unstable as to the history of the region. Jews have the natural and legal right to reside in Judea and Samaria, and had the same in Gaza. No less a right than Arabs to live in Israel despite the attempt by the United Nations in 1947 to establish an "Arab state" and a "Jewish state". Today's reality is that Jews and Arabs live in Israel but the peace the write seeks has him ignoring statements by Arabs that Jews cannot live in their future sought-after "Palestine" and for sure, they cannot enjoy culture there.

If these are the partners he seeks, who then should be his partners?


Unreasonable is he. And quite disappointing intellectually.



- - -