In light of the recent discussion/handwringing regarding apartheid and Israel/Palestine, it was interesting to see this reaction (Feb 7, 2005 issue of The New Yorker) from one settler:

Unlike some of the settlers, [head of the Binyamin regional council Pinchas] Wallerstein said that he did not favor the old absolutist solution to the Palestinian problem – forced transfer of the Arab population to Jordan. But, for him, a two-state solution, whether along the 1967 borders or in the vastly more limited, interim sense propounded by Sharon’s allies, was still unthinkable.

I asked him how long he thought the Palestinians would tolerate living in islets of territory surrounded by troops, checkpoints, and Jewish settlements, and whether he imagined a Bantustan arrangement, like in South Africa under apartheid. Wallerstein was not offended by the analogy. “Bantustans? Maybe. If you want to be honest, the problem is not just the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. It’s the Arabs throughout the country. The part that is hardest to swallow about the withdrawl from Gaza is that it is not being done for peace. The potential to attack Israel will now increase.”

Is Wallerstein’s comment typical of Yesha Council leadership? Perhaps the taint of apartheid isn’t so strong on the far right…

Either way, Jewschool can reject the “A” word, but when you see it in the New Yorker twice in nine months, it’s already in the mainsteam…