Ariel University’s victory is a disaster for both nations

Declaring Ariel a university may meet academic criteria, but it does not meet the criteria of international law. Ariel is a settlement in occupied territory in every way; a settlement established in order to annex the West Bank to Israel, to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Moshe Dayan put forward the idea, and Menachem Begin carried it out.

Since then, rivers of blood have been spilled and the conflict has become, according to PM Benjamin Netanyahu and the Labor Party’s Shelly Yachimovitch, “insoluble”. Israel came up with the term “settlement bloc” to make the settlements kosher, but the world stubbornly refuses to recognize the settlements, especially the “settlement blocs,” precisely because their purpose is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state with territorial continuity. Former PM Ehud Barak, who came up with the expression “there’s no partner,” led Israel towards disaster and left behind him a bleak reality which benefits Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett alone. They lead us on towards calamity and the opposition is silent.

But this is no time for silence. We need a clear voice in the Knesset, a voice willing to speak the unspoken: the settlement blocs are a disaster, and the logic of Ariel leads to Apartheid. Israel has no future as long as the occupation continues. On Ariel’s victory, it has been said: “Another such victory and we are undone.”


Translated by Yonatan Preminger

About Da'am Workers Party

The Da’am Workers Party (DWP) here sets forth a program for revolutionary change in Israeli society, based on the principles of integration, equality, and social justice
This entry was posted in Da'am, Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Ariel University’s victory is a disaster for both nations

  1. Evgeny says:

    The general leatligy of the law is supported by the American parallel law from the ’70s. It’s surprising that Israel waited so long.Assuming that democracy doesn’t need to include a self-destruction manual and assuming that boycotting is a legitimate protesting tool, what’s wrong with a country defending itself using legitimate legal means against those trying to recruit external power to override internal democratic decisions?.If Mairav wants to boycott, by all means – do it; you may want to extend your boycott to Made in China & Turkey for good measure and credibility, or focus on your own country claiming that others don’t interest you. But expecting to be financed by the government when calling for external “support” and in general expecting to pay no price – that’s a bit ridiculous..With all due respect to the people involved, NGOs don’t have the authority to define what’s right and wrong, even when they add the label “human rights” to their name.

  2. daniel says:

    “Ariel is a settlement in occupied territory in every way” — in fact no, this place was not belonged to any country so it was not an occupation, it was an acquisition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>