3 min read
Anthony Melnikoff asks whether I have in mind an apartheid state, in my proposal as to how to deal with the”West Bank” (A bad idea, Letters, August 9). I assume that he agrees that the present status quo is neither desirable, nor tenable?
That said, there are just three options. The first is to create a sovereign Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, which would mean the end of Israel because it would be rendered indefensible, as high ranking US experts testified post 1967.
The second is to give full citizenship to the Arabs living in the enlarged sovereign state, beyond the former Green Line. That too, would mean the Jewish state’s demise, as Arabs would soon outnumber Jews, thus becoming a real apartheid state, should the Jews seek to maintain its Jewish identity.
That leaves my original proposal, namely, to apply Israeli civilian law (to use the correct term) to the “West Bank”, so that Israel’s border becomes the Jordan River, as stipulated by the still extant The Mandate for Palestine Document 1922, and as required by The Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance law, 5708-1948, passed by the Knesset after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War to extend Israeli land laws to the liberated parts of Palestine held by the IDF.
The Palestinian Arabs would continue to enjoy autonomy to run their own affairs as at present, but without full citizenship, enjoying their civil and individual political rights, (not to be confused with a collective political right).
That is exactly Miklós Cseszneky’s proposal in his letter last week. Indeed, there are 6.5 million US citizens in their island territories living under such a system.
As to Melnikoff’s concerns re the UN’s definition of an apartheid state, almost certainly crafted to demonise Israel, I recall Sir Humphrey’s classic line in the Yes, Prime Minister episode on The Arabs and Israel: “The UN is the accepted forum for the expression of international hatred.”
The only apartheid system operating in the West Bank is that by the Arabs against Jews, who display large signs outside their villages forbidding entry to Israelis.
James R Windsor
Ilford, Essex
In his response to me, Mr Grossman (A bad idea, Letters, August 9) states that the only solution is for Israel’s neighbours to enter into neighbourly relations with her. However, this is an essential pre-condition to a solution, not a solution itself.
It is difficult to see how a Greater Israel would be both Jewish and democratic, and extending the status quo in perpetuity is very unattractive, so it is right to be ready with alternatives.
I proposed two options that could be mixed and matched, therefore four ideas: The West Bank could be an independent state or return to Jordan, and Gaza could be an independent state or return to Egypt. The cold peace with Jordan and Egypt, as Mr Grossman calls it, is at least peace, and could lead to a fuller accord.
Mine might be bad ideas but where are the good ideas? In their absence, all ideas should remain on the table until the least bad one emerges rather than have them stifled by the persistent call for a two state solution. And if that were such a good idea, it might have progressed further after over thirty years.
Howard Erdunast
Pinner, Middx
Xxxxxxx
Rabbi Sam Millunchick extols all that the Temple represents in Judaism and, implicitly, advocates its return, spiritually at least (The Temple was our beating heart - we should mourn its loss, 9 August).
He writes: “Many modern Jews…recoil at the idea of returning to a system of animal offerings. Some even argue that the practice is barbaric”.
Although unrelated to Temple custom, would the Rabbi also consider the penalty of stoning, for capital offences, to be an acceptable practice?
Stuart Goodman
Brentwood
What an old grouch Stan Labovich, is, complaining so bitterly about eruvim (Ghetto mentality, Letters, 9 August). This is a case of ancient biblical law being used not "to justify the erection of a wire boundary" but rather to make life a little easier and more convenient for some of our Jewish neighbours. The eruv itself is almost unnoticeable, fences no-one off from anyone else and no more contributes to a ghetto mentality than does the erection of a mosque in one street, a Hindu Temple in another and and a synagogue in a third.
Gerald Rothman
London NW8