Israel
answers the critics…
The
"Top Ten" claims
1.
Israel has repeatedly violated the international community’s
wishes, especially not agreeing to withdraw to the 1967 border,
as required by UN resolution 242.
2. The crux of the conflict lies in the 35+ years
of Israeli occupation and settlement building. The occupation
demeans, creates desperation and is contrary to the 4th Geneva
Convention and other human rights resolutions.
3. The proposals by Ehud Barak at Camp David
were not really serious, as they would have created a truncated
Palestinian state, with no territorial contiguity. In effect,
separate "Bantustans" would be created where no viable
independent entity could flourish.
4. Israel’s brutal army targets civilians,
including children. The Palestinians are engaged in a legitimate
resistance to an army with overwhelming firepower, including tanks,
helicopters and F-16 jets.
5. Israel constantly violates human rights and
is a racist, apartheid state. Many international organizations
have passed resolutions condemning Israel.
6. Palestinian homes are routinely demolished
and Palestinians are exiled from their homes. Are these the actions
of a democracy?
7. How can Israel claim to be a Jewish State
and still be a democracy?
8. Israel refuses to give the Palestinians a
tiny state, one that is only 22% of the original British mandate
for Palestine. Why can’t Israel give in to this basic request
for self-determination on such a small piece of land?
9. Israel is attempting to impose its will on
Jerusalem; a historically Arab city where Arabs have lived for
thousands of years.
10. If Jews are allowed to return to Israel and
settle there even though their family may not have lived there
for thousands of years, why can’t refugees from 1948 whose
families lived in Palestine return to their homes that is now
in Israel?
"Quick
facts" responses to the "Top Ten"
1.
UN resolution 242: The great myth of UN resolution 242 is that
it calls for Israel to withdraw to the cease-fire lines (it never
was an internationally recognized border) that existed prior to
the Six-Day War. Those cease-fire lines were established by the
armistice following the combined Arab invasion of the new state
of Israel in 1948. What the UN resolution does say is that there
should be withdrawal from "territories", not "the
territories" or "all territories". The authors
of the resolution intended this to be a document for negotiation,
where permanent borders will be established that will be "secure
and defensible". What is not often cited is Arab rejection
of the initial plan for partition, UN resolution 181 (1947) where
a Jewish and Palestinian state would be formed. More recently,
Lebanon has failed to prevent aggression from its territory and
violation of UN resolutions by Hizbullah, a terrorist organization,
following Israel’s compliance with UN resolution 425, having
withdrawn from all Lebanese territory. The Palestinian authority
has also failed to abide by UN resolution 1373, which calls from
refraining from providing aid to terrorist entities.
2.
Occupation, occupation, and occupation: The mantra of "occupation"
is repeated incessantly by Palestinian spokespeople. In truth,
terrorism and rejection of the State of Israel existed long before
the "occupation" following the 1967 war. Prior to 1967,
Jordan occupied the West Bank, illegally, and no countries other
than Pakistan and Great Britain recognized this territory as Jordanian.
During that time, Jews were prohibited from access to places of
worship, and Jewish holy sites and cemeteries were desecrated.
The Palestinian opposition to the existence of the State of Israel
pre-dates the "occupation", with thousands of terror
attacks taking place between 1948-1967. While the entire West
Bank and Gaza Strip is part of historical Israel, many towns and
settlements in those areas were Jewish owned and populated in
modern history as well. After the Oslo accords were signed, Israeli
troops withdrew from almost the entire West Bank and Gaza, including
all the major towns and commercial centers. There was no "occupation",
as Palestinian troops controlled those centers and no Israeli
control of education, taxes, municipal affairs and other aspects
of daily life were present in any form. Prior to the withdrawal,
and under Israeli administration from 1967, living conditions
for the Palestinian population improved dramatically. Infant mortality
and illiteracy dropped precipitously, unemployment went down,
and GNP and per capita income went up. Since the PA took over
in 1992, many of these gains have been reversed. Palestinian spokespersons
often cite the 4th Geneva Convention as being violated by Israel,
but a reading of the 4GC and interpretation by legal scholars
fails to maintain that interpretation. First of all, the territory
in question is disputed territory and never constituted an internationally
recognized independent country. Second, population transfers were
not forced, but voluntary movement of Israelis exercising legitimate
rights to resettle areas of unpopulated and unoccupied disputed
territory whose status would be determined in negotiations between
the parties. Also, contrary to popular belief, Arabs were not
moved out of their homes for Israeli settlers. Settlements were
built on unoccupied land, often on deserted hilltops where no
one lived and no one worked. The Palestinians do speak of "occupation",
but public opinion polls of the Palestinian population reflect
the feeling that the entire state of Israel is considered "
occupied". Maps of "Palestine" in the PA (including
the PA school system) continue to ignore the existence of the
State of Israel, with the entire territory depicted as Palestinian.
3. Camp David: Despite revisionist theories to
the contrary, the Israeli proposals at Camp David and following
it (including the Taba proposals) represented far-reaching proposals
that would have ceded the overwhelming majority of Israeli-held
land to Palestinian control, including major parts of Jerusalem.
A glance at the maps of these proposals clearly shows that there
is territorial contiguity between sections, and independent functioning
of all areas of Palestinian territory would be permitted. These
proposals were rejected, and shortly following Camp David, violence
erupted (with several incidents the week before Ariel Sharon’s
visit to the Temple Mount) marking the beginning of the Palestinian
"intifada" and reign of terror. Statements on the record
by President Clinton and US negotiator Dennis Ross have made it
clear that it was the Palestinians who failed to seize a historic
opportunity to end the conflict and establish an independent Palestinian
state.
4. Israel targets Palestinian civilians: While
media reports often focus on the tragedy of individual civilians
being killed or injured, the claims of "massacres" of
civilians are not only unsubstantiated, but also contrary to the
data collected. Unlike Israeli civilians who are intentionally
targeted as part of a strategy of terror, Palestinian civilians
are never the intended targets of any Israeli strike. Where causalities
are seen, these are the results of civilians unintentionally or
accidentally hit during the course of a strike against suspected
terrorists or combatants, or as a result of civilians placing
themselves in the midst of a combatant area, something that is
contrary to the Geneva convention. While Palestinians spoke of
the "Jenin massacre", the evidence later showed that
no such massacre took place. While Mohammad Al-Dura’s tragic
death was reported as an Israeli action, later evidence showed
that Palestinian fire might have been responsible. A study by
the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism in Israel
showed that 80 percent of those killed in Israel have been non-combatants.
While Israelis account for about 27 percent of the total "Intifada"
fatalities, they represent over 43 percent of the non-combatant
victims. Over 54 percent of the Palestinians killed were actively
involved in fighting – and this does not include stone-throwers
or "unknowns". And Palestinians are directly responsible
for the deaths of at least 203 of their own number – one
out of every eight Palestinians killed. All this while Israel
possesses unquestionable military superiority and the ability
to inflict significant losses, had she chosen to do so. The fact
that, in Jenin, 13 soldiers were killed in one ambush on terrorist
strongholds shows Israel’s restraint. As Major-General Yitzchak
Eitan said "…the army decided against using jets to
strike the camp because the area is mixed with a passive civilian
population. The army opted instead to have soldiers conduct house-to-house
searches, progressing slowly and cautiously."
5. Israel is a racist, apartheid state: Critics
of Israel point to the fact that Israel is a "Jewish"
state as proof of its racism. What is not mentioned is that, as
a democracy, Israel guarantees equal rights to every minority
group and every religious and ethnic persuasion. Arabs have full
civil rights, including the right to vote and choose representatives
to Israel’s Knesset (parliament). Although Israel, as any
democracy, struggles with internal social issues, it stands alone
in the region (and certainly in distinction to the Palestinian
Authority) allowing for full rights for all, including women.
Where measures are imposed on Palestinian population centers (closures,
curfews and roadblocks) these are not the result of a policy of
intentional discrimination and racism, but rather a reaction to
terror and violence and the need to impose difficult solutions
in order to protect innocent citizens. Were it not for the violence
and terror emanating from the Palestinian territories, none of
the measures deemed as " racist" would ever be need.
In fact, prior to the outbreak of violence, tens of thousands
of Palestinian workers traveled unfettered to Israel to work,
as did Israelis throughout the Palestinian territories that engaged
in commercial activity and relationships with Palestinians and
Palestinian companies. While international organizations do in
fact condemn Israel regularly, a close look at these groups show
that they are either Arab controlled or prone to an ideology that
is anti-West, anti-democratic and automatic in their criticism
of anything opposed to their ideology.
6. Expulsions and house demolitions: Israel’s
battle is not with the Palestinian people or Muslim world, but
only with those that refuse to accept its existence and use violent
means to attack it at every opportunity. While conventional warfare
is held on the battlefield, between standing armies, the war on
terror is more diffuse and involves an enemy that is unconventional
and, unlike conventional soldiers, blends into the local population
seamlessly. In many cases, these terrorists could not operate
without the support and assistance of other locals, including
family members. Where family members have been involved in supporting
terror (such as in sewing suicide bomber belts or serving as a
lookout), measures such as house demolitions and expulsions have
been employed. These measures are used as a last resort in specific
cases and only after Israel’s court system has heard and
approved each person that would be affected.
7. How can a "Jewish" state be a democracy?
This complex question has been debated in Israel for many years.
While the specific texture of Israeli democracy is unique, the
Jewish character of the state does not stand in distinction to
democratic principles. Elections are free and open, equal rights
are guaranteed for all, education and health benefits are provided
without discrimination and the court system includes attorneys
and judges of all ethnic backgrounds and religions. With a Jewish
majority and as the homeland of the Jewish people, Israel is unique
in that it serves as a model of integration between the demands
of religious conformity and the challenge of maintaining a state
based on freedom and equality for all. Israel, like all democracies,
is a "work in progress". The United States, the model
of democracy today, developed and continues to develop through
a system of constitutional amendments that insures the adjustment
of democratic principles to the needs of the society at large.
Israel too, as a government of the people and laws, continues
to adjust to meet the needs of the society while continuing as
a Jewish, democratic state.
8. All the Palestinians want is 22% of the original
British Mandate: The claim that the PA, in demanding a complete
Israeli withdrawal to the lines of pre-1967, is content with only
22% of mandated Palestine is false and misleading. The original
Balfour declaration called for the establishment of a Jewish state
in the area known as "Palestine", which at the time
encompassed today’s Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and the
Kingdom of Jordan. With time, the British government modified
the declaration, establishing two separate homelands, one for
Jews west of the Jordan River and one for Arabs, to the east of
it. The country to the east became known as Jordan, and constitutes
78% of the original British mandate. The land to the east, today’s
Israel (with the West Bank and Gaza) is only 22% of that total
area. The British proposal was again modified with UN resolution
181, which called for a partition of all land west of the Jordan
River into a Jewish and Arab state, in addition to the Arab state
of Jordan to the east. While Israel accepted the terms of the
resolution, the Arabs rejected it, declaring war on the newly
formed country of Israel. In the resulting war in 1948, cease
fire lines were established that held until to six-day war of
1967, when Israel was again threatened by her neighbors after
Egypt demanded the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping troops from Gaza
and blockaded the Straits of Tiran (an act of war under international
law). Jordan was asked by Israel to refrain from any military
action, but did not heed this call and attacked Israel after the
start of hostilities between Israel Egypt and Syria. The Golan
Heights, West Bank and Gaza were taken in the Six-Day War as part
of the Israeli defensive action against these acts of War. In
the Arab conference in Khartoum later that year (September 1967),
the delegates voted "no" to recognition of Israel, "no"
to negotiations with Israel and "no" to peace with Israel.
Israel has shown its willingness to agree to the establishment
of a Palestinian state, but has demanded that this state be one
that would not harbor terror or serve as an attack base against
Israel. Even with only 22% of the actual British mandate, Israel
is open to attack from hostile neighbors and a wider Arab world
that has still not accepted its existence.
9. East Jerusalem is historically "Arab"
land: Jerusalem has always been considered the holiest city in
Judaism and the capital of historic Israel, dating to David’s
time. While it contains a holy site (the Al-Aksa mosque), this
site is secondary to other holy sites in Islam. The temple mount,
on the other hand, is the holiest site in Judaism and carries
religious significance to Jews the world over. When an Arab country
maintained control over Jerusalem, Jews were prohibited from worshipping
at their holy sites, were forbidden to live in Jerusalem and were
forbidden any access at all. Since Israel’s sovereignty
over the city, people of all faiths and ethnic groups enjoy unfettered
access to all areas of the city. Arab residents receive and exercise
full rights in areas of social and health benefits as well. While
Jews have had an unbroken existence in Jerusalem from biblical
times, the Arab settlement of the area is relatively recent, with
the capture and building of the Al-Aksa dome in the middle of
the 7th century. In the early 11th century, Caliph Hakim ordered
the destruction of Jerusalem’s churches and synagogues.
Shortly thereafter, Arab rule ended, with a succession of foreign
powers ruling Jerusalem till the British took over in 1917.
10. The right of return for Arab refugees to
Israel: In order to maintain itself as a Jewish state, Israel
must be a homeland for the Jewish people. All democratic countries
place limits on immigration of non-citizens in order to protect
the rights of its citizens. Israel, too, would object to mass
immigration of an Arab population that would forcibly change the
demographic character of Israel. The refugee problem was created
when Arab countries refused to accept Arab refugees following
the War of 1948.This war began when the Arabs refused to accept
UN resolution 181 and attacked Israel. Israel, on the other hand,
has absorbed hundreds of thousands of refugees from Arab countries,
who left in the wake of hostilities. Moreover, those Arabs that
did not flee in 1948 and remained in Israel saw their homes remain
intact and became Israeli citizens with full civil rights. In
negotiations with the PA, Israel proposed that the refugee issue
be solved in the context of return to the newly formed Palestinian
state. That proposal was rejected by the Palestinians, as was
the original UN resolution (194) on the refugee issue rejected
by the Arab world.
--------------------------------
The
views above represent the personal views of the author and are
not necessarily the views of the ICI
