Our position is that settlements are immoral, illegal, and cause incredible damage to state security. As long as the damage was to security, the economy, and democracy, it was ignored by the Right. But then came Ben & Jerry's announcement it would no longer sell ice cream in the Palestinian territories, and the ostrich removed its head from the sand. For years, Israeli soldiers have been called to risk their lives to protect the settlements. Ice cream is nothing in comparison. It's hard to complain about a policy that distinguishes between Israel and the territories when the State of Israel, having never applied Israeli law there, does the same thing itself. Similarly, all of the countries in the world differentiate between the occupied territories and sovereign Israel.

The only thing is that a commercial company now wants to do the same and is demanding its Israeli licensee stop sell its products outside Israel and in illegal settlements in the occupied territories in particular. The move is only logical: An Israeli licensee should only sell in Israel, just as a French licensee should only sell in France.

How should the licensee have responded?

When the Europeans, within the framework of the Horizon 2020 funding program for research and innovation, demanded, as they did in previous projects, their money not be transferred to the settlements, the Israeli government under then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "folded." Even the Netanyahu government didn't dare harm Israel's glorious scientific field over the spoke in the wheel that is the settlements.

This is precisely how the Israeli licensee should have responded, by expressing their political views, protesting, and possibly trying to overturn the decision. Ultimately, though, they should have agreed that the license only applied to Israeli territory and protected their employees. After all, absent the settlements, there would be no boycott: The employees would be protected, and Israel's citizens would have their ice cream.

The State of Israel has controlled the territories for ideological purposes for 54 years through the economic exploitation of the Palestinians' cheap labor and natural resources.

Ben & Jerry's, a Jewish-owned US company that chose to set up one of its few overseas factories in Israel, cannot be accused of antisemitism. If anything, the opposite is true. Distinguishing between sovereign Israel and the settlements is an expression of support for sovereign Israel and Israeli interests. This is Meretz's worldview, and the current coalition is no weaker due to the existence of disagreements on the path to achieving the common goal of a better Israel.

The ice cream debacle is just a sign of things to come. Ben & Jerry's is not boycotting Israel but the settlements. Continued construction in the settlements and the blurring of the Green Line will force us to repeatedly decide between working for the settlements or all of Israel's citizens.

The post Yes, Meretz does differentiate between Israel and settlements appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In his op-ed piece from March 16, Dan Schueftan attacks Meretz and claims that its decline in the polls is the result of its diplomatic positions and its alignment with important organizations such as B'Tselem and Breaking the Silence. He is mistaken.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Allow me to preface by saying that Meretz's position comes from and should come from what is right, and not what is right in order to scoop up a few more votes. Schueftan's moral position is wrong, and so is his electoral analysis.

Schueftan complains that Meretz continued to support peace even after former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's 2008 proposal. Meretz did so, rightfully. Meretz is the only party that presented the public with a peace plan based on Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The main points of the initiatives are a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders and an equal, mutually agreeable exchange of territories. That is not what Olmert proposed. No prime minister in Israel has yet made any proposal like that. When an Israeli prime minister accepts it, there will be a real chance for peace. This model will improve security, is supported by thousands of reservists, and also had the backing of the late IDF Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, as well as men and women from academia, civil society, and politics.

The two-state model that Meretz proposes also has the support of most of the Israeli public, even if some of them think that it is not feasible in the near future or do not accept the principle of the 1967 borders with an exchange of territories. Support for this model actually bolsters Meretz.

For decades, Meretz has warned that building up the settlements not only causes security to deteriorate, but is also illegal and against the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as the International Criminal Court charter. And now a probe has been launched because of the Right's policies. We do not want to see any Israeli on trial in The Hague. The way to prevent that does not include enabling the crime of the settlements. The way to prevent Israelis from being tried in The Hague is to stop the settlement crime and reach a mutually agreeable end to the occupation.

To parse what has befallen Meretz's electoral strength, one needs to look at the whole picture: Meretz's loss of strength is not detached from the weakening of the Labor party and that of all social-democratic parties worldwide. Social democracy, as a social idea, is less popular today. To examine the electoral drop, it is necessary to examine how Israel has changed. Since 1992, the number of settlers has increased by a factor of five, and other sectors that don't tend to vote for social-democratic parties, such as the Haredim, Russian-speaking immigrants, and religious and traditional voters also make up a larger percentage of the population.

Meretz's sister party, Labor, has dropped from 44 seats in 1992 to five seats in 2019 (six if you count Orly Levy-Abekasis), a decline of 88%. In that same period, Meretz has dropped from 12 seats to four, a loss of 67%. This begs the question, why has the Labor Party collapsed even harder than Meretz? Labor didn't support Breaking the Silence, did not support B'Tselem, and did not support the ICC. Labor fell apart because of the weakness of social democracy and the demographic changes in Israel. Meretz weakened less because, unlike Labor, it continued to fight the occupation, continued to defend human rights, and continued to align itself with human rights groups. This is our commitment.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Meretz's positions are its strength, not its weakness appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.