The decision by Ben & Jerry’s to discontinue sales of its products within the Territories, is by extension, a full-throttled support for the BDS movement. Let’s be clear on the salient point to this controversy: The BDS movement is quite transparent in its goal of the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, through economic boycotts and other forms of diplomatic and public relation campaigns aimed at isolating Israel.
Over time, a strong majority within the U.S. Congress, a majority of state governments and a majority of countries in Europe, Canada and Australia, among others, recognizes BDS for what it is: a virulent form of antisemitism.
As mentioned in your article, the BDS movement, among other positions, seeks to force Israel to admit any Palestinian claiming to be a descendant of a person who formerly resided within the current borders of the State of Israel (the so-called “right of return”). At present, an estimated 7 million Palestinians could potentially assert legal status within Israel were this to be a legitimate demand.
The scenario depicted above would be tantamount to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Since your article glosses over this egregious demand, as if it is just another in a series of negotiating points for reasonable parties to sort through, it would be helpful for your publication to clarify its position in this regard: namely, does the Manhasset Times support the “right-of-return” and along with it, the reality that it would result in the evisceration of the Jewish State of Israel?
It would be instructive to examine how we arrived at this point: a stalemate in the Territories with no seeming forward movement toward a two-state solution. Your article references statements by Presidents Bush and Obama, both critical of extensions of settlements in the Territories. You conveniently ignore what preceded this: In 2000, nearing the end of the Clinton administration, an agreement was brokered among the parties that gave the Palestinians 98 percent of what they had asked for, while providing Israel with safe and secure borders, along with recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state.
The Clinton accords were initialed by the delegates from Israel and the Palestinian Authority (in both cases, the respective parties were then tasked to obtain full approval from their governing bodies). The Palestinians subsequently rejected the Clinton Accords and shortly thereafter launched the second intifada, which resulted in the killing of over 1,500 Israeli civilians over a two-year period, before calm was restored.
There has not been a serious discussion among the parties since that time. The Palestinian Authority insists that it will not negotiate with Israel unless Israel agrees to the so-called “right of return,” which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Moreover, the Clinton Accords, which assured Israel of defensible borders (and in turn, ceded areas within Israel to a new state of Palestine), have been rejected in their entirety; the Palestinian Authority’s current and intractable position is that Israel must return to its 1967 borders, something that was recognized by every U.S. president since President Clinton as unworkable.
Finally, any discussion of how the two sides have arrived at this stalemated position cannot ignore the fact that the current governing body over the Palestinians (The Palestinian Authority) is corrupt to the core. Its leader, President Abbas, over time has forced out talented civil servants and replaced them with family members and cronies. Much of the aid it receives from the EU and America disappears and cannot be accounted for. Basic services barely function in Palestinian-controlled areas, despite lavish amounts of foreign aid provided it. And President Abbas has refused to allow elections to take place, as prescribed over 20 years ago. In short, the PA does not enjoy the support of the people it rules over.
The Israeli authorities realize that, absent their presence in the Territories, the current regime in the Palestinian-controlled area within the Territories would be forced out, either through an election or through a civil war. The model for a “transition” of government in this case would sadly be patterned as played out in Gaza 16 years ago: a takeover by Hamas or another terrorist organization.
Given the choice of the status quo or having Hamas-controlled territory on two sides of Israel, it is not difficult to understand why Israel opts for the current arrangement. With or without the endorsement of Ben & Jerry’s.
David Nemschoff
Manhasset, NY
