Excerpt from… Arutz 7 Op-Ed: NY Federation has Its Own Boycott of Judea and Samaria Ron Jager, July 23, 2013 …The New York Federation does not cross the ‘green line’ (known as the pre-1967 borders) unless of course it’s to assist Palestinian Arabs, meaning that Jews who could benefit from the many programs that are funded and provided by the New York Federation for the citizens of Israel are effectively barred if they reside in Judea and Samaria. Jews living beyond the green line have been voluntarily boycotted by the New York Federation despite the fact that there is no legal prohibition to support organizations or communities located in these areas, not only according to Israeli law, but also in accordance with American tax law. Any American dollar donated is fully tax deductible to the extent provided by law. This has not stopped the New York Federation from voluntarily boycotting 700,000 Jews along with the Europeans and the many enemies of Israel who have been behind the boycott movements throughout the world. (MORE)
I’ve asked that question, too:-
The entire world denounces the “apartheid roads” in Judea and Samaria, although in broad daylight Jews and Arabs share every road open to Jews. On the other hand, large signs in bright red ban Jews from traveling on roads in areas specified by the Oslo Agreements for Palestinians. Route 443 has been opened to Arabs as well following a High Court order, but a nearby road – which would have cut the time it takes to travel from Gush Dolev-Talmonin to Jerusalem by at least 30 minutes – remains closed to Jews to this very day. Both apartheid and racism: Israel’s Arab citizens are free to enter Jenin, while a Jew will be prosecuted.
When was the last time a state official took journalists on a tour on the ground, to get them to realize that the apartheid on the roads of Judea and Samaria is exclusively against Jews. And which of our media outlets ever exposed the shamefulness of their apartheid: That God forbid should a Jewish-Israeli set foot in Nablus or in 90% of Hebron or in any Arab village? Because that’s the rule: The state of the Jews should be brought to trial. Why? Because it put itself there in the first place.
Time for some more research into what really happened here
The Arabs don’t like Palestinians
October 23, 2012 17:02 by Simon Plosker
Ha’aretz is a major source of critical and anti-Israel stories for the international media. In the latest example, Ha’aretz’s radical left-wing commentator Gideon Levy has deliberately fed the international media a skewed and biased reading of a poll that claims “Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel“.
Gideon Levy regularly demonizes the Jewish state to foreign audiences and in his own newspaper columns. He regularly goes beyond legitimate criticism of Israel, crossing red lines and allying himself with those who refer to Israel as a racist “apartheid state”, promote boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and wish to see the very destruction of Israel.
On the basis that Levy promotes the canard of Israeli “apartheid”, he is the last journalist who could give an objective analysis of this polls results.
His article opens with the following premise:Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.
But let’s take a look at the findings:
Gideon Levy’s entire premise is based on a hypothetical situation where Israel annexes the West Bank. However, perhaps the real story here is that a plurality of the Israeli public does not favor annexing West Bank settlements let alone the West Bank in its entirety.
This makes the question of voting rights for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank entirely moot. That such a large majority of the Israeli public would deny such a right to Palestinians is unsurprising given that this would effectively lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state if it allowed Palestinians to vote as equal citizens or the end of Israel as a democratic state if it denied Palestinians those rights.
Which is exactly why the Israeli public does not support such a policy, precisely because the majority of Israelis do not want to be associated with apartheid.
Other statistics are casually tossed in by Levy to support his view of Israel as an apartheid state:A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”
What Levy fails to clarify is that this form of separation is not done on a racial basis but solely on citizenship. Israeli Arabs have as much right as Israeli Jews to travel on any roads they so wish. Any separation on the West Bank road system (and there are plenty of shared roads) is solely due to security and has nothing whatsoever to do with claims of apartheid.
Levy chooses to highlight significant minority opinions where it suits him. For example:
This article is continued on Page 2
This passage made me wonder whether he gets it yet.
The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.
So let me get this straight: Israel’s rule in the West Bank Judea and Samaria is not “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group” only because we have “agreed in concept to the existence of a ‘Palestinian state’ in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank?” And every country that does not agree to cut off part of its land is promoting apartheid? And every ethnic group that decides it’s entitled to a ‘state’ is a victim of
apartheid if it doesn’t get that state? And were we one day to decide that we have had enough of the ‘Palestinians’ being unwilling to negotiate with us (and we all know why they are unwilling to negotiate with us), and we withdraw whatever offers of ‘statehood’ have been made, would we then be practicing apartheid?
Goldstone still has a lot to learn.