Why Amanda Gelender is WRONG

The Stanford Daily published an article from undergraduate Amanda Gelender, who stated that she was Jewish and therefore could not be accused of anti-Semitism. She then went off on a column length rant on the evils of the Jewish state of Israel. Her article is here http://stanforddaily.com/article/2007/11/5/opedIsraeliOccupationInjusticeInOurName and she discusses Israeli policy as it reflects herself as a Jew. The article was completely unbalanced and some of the more egregious parts were corrected in a reply here http://stanforddaily.com/article/2007/11/6/opedABroaderPerspective . Kudos to the author of the piece.

However, the article still has a number of assertions that need to be refuted. First, the issue is simply that Jews cannot be antiSemitic (consider the case of Torquemada, among others). Nor is it that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, according to contemporary studies, are more or less synonymous, at least in Europe http://hnn.us/articles/28503.html. Nor is it that Amanda ought to join Peace Now, a Jewish peace group, instead of lending her name to forces that are overtly enemies of Israel.

Rather, the basic issues are whether the assumption, that the occupied territories ought to become an independent Palestinian state, are correct. The withdrawal from Gaza has led to one Israeli city . S'derot, becoming a war zone due to Palestinian shells. One sovereign power, Hamas, teaches that Israel should not exist, and the other, Fatah, pretends that it can reach an agreement with Israel despite having limited power. All indications are that an independent Palestinian state would lead to the rest of Irael becoming a war zone as Palestinians would then revert to the maximalist position of rejecting a two state solution. Palestinians could shell Israeli cities including Tel Aviv. So, the logical Israeli position is to reject the assumption, further withdrawals, and a Palestinian state. This issue is not addressed by the Daily editorials.