Bookstore Glossary Library Links News Publications Timeline Virtual Israel Experience
Anti-Semitism Biography History Holocaust Israel Israel Education Myths & Facts Politics Religion Travel US & Israel Vital Stats Women
donate subscribe Contact About Home

Myths & Facts: Online Exclusives Archive

Online Exclusives Archive (2005-2016)

“The Palestinian Authority held a free, democratic election in 2005.”
“Israel is building the security fence as part of a land grab to control the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.”
“The demographic threat to Israel posed by Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is overrated and therefore Israel need not make territorial compromises.”
“Israel is killing Palestinians with radiation spy machines.”
“Unlike other Arab women, Palestinian women are not killed for dishonoring their families.”
“Israel has moved the border so it will not withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip.”
“Hamas should be permitted to participate in Palestinian Authority elections.”
“Israel's disengagement from Gaza was a victory for terror.”
“Israel is obstructing Palestinian elections.”
“Academic freedom means any criticism of Israel is permissible in a university.”
“The Palestinian Authority held a democratic election and Israel and the rest of the world must accept that Hamas was the victor.”
“Israel is digging under the al-Aqsa mosque and intends to destroy it.”
“Israel is responsible for disparaging cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.”
“The Palestinians have maintained a truce and ceased terror operations against Israel.”
“The PA is entitled to international aid because Hamas was democratically elected and the Palestinian people should not be made to suffer because Israel doesn’t like the election outcome.”
“Saudi Arabia has ended its boycott of Israel.”
“Israel is knowingly desecrating a Muslim holy place in Jerusalem by building a museum on top of a cemetery.”
“Hamas is a threat only to Israel.”
“Palestinians have the right to sell land to Jews.”
“Israel has no justification for withholding tax monies due to the Palestinian Authority.”
“If Israel ends the occupation, there will be peace.”
“Israel deliberately targets Lebanese civilians.”
“Israel should exchange Arab prisoners for soldiers kidnaped by Hamas and Hizballah.”
“The media is fairly and accurately covering the war in Lebanon.”
“Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians during the war instigated by Hizballah.”
“A unity Palestinian government will reinvigorate the peace process.”
“Saudi Arabia has proposed a new formula for a comprehensive peace.”
“A new report proves Israeli settlements are built on Palestinian land.”
“The overwhelming majority of casualties in the war with Hizballah were civilians.”
“Abbas is helpless to stop the terrorists.”
“Israel is obstructing progress toward a Palestinian state.”
“Israeli Arabs are unpatriotic.”
“Women are not recruited to become suicide bombers.”
“Palestinian terrorist groups are committed to a cease-fire.”
“Israel is damaging the Temple Mount and threatening Islamic shrines.”
“Palestinians are moderating their views toward Israel.”
“The Arab peace initiative reflects the Arab states’ acceptance of Israel.”
“Israel is denying health care to Palestinians.”
“The Hamas takeover of Gaza poses no threat to Christians.”
“Lebanon has abided by UN Resolution 1701 and poses no direct threat to Israel.”
“Israel is once again expelling Arabs from Palestine.”
“The ‘occupation’ has sapped Israel's morale as reflected by the decline in Israelis willing to serve in the IDF.”
“Israel has nothing to fear from a nuclear Iran.”
“Israel’s presumed nuclear capability is stoking an arms race.”
“Iran’s nuclear program threatens only Israel.”
“No state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity.”
“Arab participation in the Annapolis conference signaled a new attitude toward Israel.”
“Palestinians prefer to live in a Palestinian state.”
“Israel and the Palestinians agree a future Palestinian state will have an army.”
“Gaza settlers’ greenhouses have bolstered the PA economy.”
“The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is Israel's fault.”
“Israel's actions in Gaza were disproportionate and unprovoked.”
“Israel's enemies must recognize the Jewish state's right to exist.”
“Palestinians are driven to terror by poverty and desperation.”
“Israel must negotiate with Hamas.”
“Mahmoud Abbas has rooted out the corruption in the Palestinian Authority .”
“Hizbollah is a resistance movement whose only interest is fighting Israel.”
“Palestinian terrorist groups agreed to a cease-fire to advance the peace process.”
“Olmert's resignation means the end of peace talks with the Palestinians.”
“Arabs cannot vote in Israel.”
“Israel is intolerant of homosexuality.”
“Hamas will not break a ceasefire.”
“Arab states' sincerity in promoting their peace initiative is reflected in their positions in international forums.”
“Charles Freeman was the right choice for chair of the National Intelligence Council and the Israel lobby was responsible for his not being appointed.”
“Arab states support Iran.”
“Netanyahu is not an advocate for peace.”
“The United States missed an opportunity to address the issue of global racism in its non-participation in Durban II.”
“Abbas is ready to accept a Jewish state in the framework of a two-state solution.”
“Khaled Meshaal seeks peace, not the destruction of Israel.”
“The pope’s trip to Israel shows that issues between Israel and the Vatican have been resolved.”
“Obama and Netanyahu have irreconcilable visions of peace.”
“Netanyahu's government refuses to honor past agreements on settlements.”
“There is urgency to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict.”
“Palestinian leaders are committed to peace.”
“Fatah's Sixth Congress proved the party's rejuvenated committment to peace.”
“Saudi Arabia is on the path to normalizing relations with Israel.”
“The Goldstone Report proves Israel is guilty of war crimes in Gaza.”
“In exchange for a settlement freeze, Arab states are offering overflight rights as a peace gesture to Israel.”
“Jews were responsible for the defeat of Egypt's candidate for UNESCO.”
“The enemies of Israel will not misuse the Goldstone Report.”
“Amnesty's water report fairly portrays Israel.”
“The threat Hizbollah poses to Israel has diminished.”
“Syria is ready for peace with Israel.”
“Settlements are an obstacle to negotiations.”
“Egypt's blockade of Gaza has provoked international criticism.”
“George Mitchell threatened Israel.”
“The U.S. is maintaining Israel's qualitative edge.”
“The Israelis and the Palestinians share equal blame in creating recent obstacles to peace.”
“Israel is an apartheid state.”
“Israel’s Inclusion of Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs as Jewish Heritage Sites is an attack on Palestinian sovereignty and Islam.”
“The re-dedication of the Hurva Synagogue is an affront to Palestinians.”
“The Palestinian Authority promotes a culture of tolerance and peace.”
“The flotilla bound for Gaza was on a humanitarian mission.”
“The naval blockade of Gaza does not affect Hamas and only hurts innocent civilians.”
“UNIFIL has kept the peace in southern Lebanon.”
“Palestinian Authority leaders have a mandate from the people to pursue peace.”
“Ending the moratorium on settlement construction is designed to torpedo peace negotiations.”
“Renewed settlement construction in the West Bank proves Israel is uninterested in peace.”
“Israel has instituted a racist loyalty oath requiring immigrants to pledge allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.”
“The Palestinians can pressure Israel into negotiating on their terms by unilaterally declaring statehood."
“Israel cannot be both a democratic state and a Jewish state.
“The UN helps preserve Jewish holy sites in the Palestinian Territories.
“Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate interested in compromise.”
“Israel is the only country in the Middle East that feels threatened by Iran's nuclear ambitions.”
"Saudi Arabia is an ally of the West in the war on terror."
“The viability of a future Palestinian state is severely hampered by the continued construction of Israeli settlements."
“Israel illegally demolished a Palestinian national landmark in East Jerusalem."
“Israel is required by international law to supply goods and services to Gaza - its blockade is collective punishment."
“Israel must accept the demand of Palestinian refugees to 'return' in order for there to be peace."
“The Egyptian revolution has no impact on Israel's security.”
“Turmoil in Egypt is a result of the failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
“America's veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning settlements undermined peace talks.”
“American media coverage of Israel is proportional with coverage given to the rest of the Middle East.”
“'Israel Apartheid Week' promotes peace.”
“Palestinian terrorism is a byproduct of the 'cycle of violence' perpetuated by Israel.”
“Israel unnecessarily maintains checkpoints to control and humiliate the Palestinians.”
“Rockets shot from Gaza at southern Israel do not cause enough damage to justify military retaliation .”
“Justice Goldstone remains convinced that Israel committed war crimes documented in the Goldstone Report.”
“The Iron Dome Missile Defense System negates the need for Israel to engage in military operations against Hamas in Gaza
“The targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is a counterproductive military strategy
“Hamas-Fatah reconciliation paves the way to peace negotiations with Israel.”
“Israel unjustly responded with violence to the protests of Nakba day.”
“Israel must withdraw to the June 4, 1967 boundaries.”
"Gaza does not receive necessary humaitarian supplies due to Israel's blockade.&l's blockade."

"Palestinian protestors staged non-violents demonstrations on the Israeli-Syrian border."
"The 'Flotilla 2' is intended solely to relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza."
"The United Nations repudiated the claim that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal."
"A Unilateral Declaration of Independence is the Palestinians’ only avenue to advance the Peace Process."
"Palestinian leaders claim that the future Palestinian state will welcome Jews and Israelis."

"Mahmoud Abbas is working toward reaching peace with Israel."
"Due to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's economy has been suffering."
"Gaza does not receive necessary humaitarian supplies due to Israel's blockade."
"The 'Flotilla 2' is intended solely to relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza."
"The United Nations repudiated the claim that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal."
"A Unilateral Declaration of Independence is the Palestinians’ only avenue to advance the Peace Process."
"Palestinian leaders claim that the future Palestinian state will welcome Jews and Israelis."
"Mahmoud Abbas is working toward reaching peace with Israel."
"Time is not on Iran's side vis-a-vis its acquiring the atomic bomb."
"Due to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's economy has been suffering."
"Of the Palestinian prisoners released in the Shalit deal, most who have spoken out say they will renounce terror."
"Israel's proposed rebuilding of the Mughrabi Gate leading to the Temple Mount is an act of religious war."
"The Palestinian leadership wants to normalize ties with Israel."
"The Palestinians agreed to negotiate with Israel without preconditions."
"Palestinians terrorism is no longer a threat to Israel."
"Israel no longer faces any threats from Gaza."
"The rights of Palestinian women are protected in the Palestinian Authority."
"Palestinians are talking about peace with Israelis in Jordan."
"Terrorism against Jews is limited to attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories."
"Israeli democracy is threatened and Americans need to speak out to save it."
"Iran is the only Muslim nation in the Middle East seeking to develop nuclear technology."
"Women do not have equal rights in Israel."
"Israel's policy of targeted killings is immoral and counterproductive."
"Israel does not support humanitarian development and sustainablity in the Palestinian territories."
"Israel is whitewashing history to promote the judaization of Jerusalem."
"The State Department knows the capital of Israel."
"Israeli policy has caused an exodus of Christians from the West Bank."
"The United States is committed to ensuring a complete halt to the Iranian nuclear program."
"Israel's new unity government reduces the prospect for continued peace negotiations with the Palestinians."
"Palestinians no longer object to the creation of Israel."
"Mahmoud Abbas has rooted out corruption from the Palestinian Authority."
"The rise of Islamists in Egypt's government does not pose a strategic threat to Israel."
"The Palestinian Authority promotes a culture of tolerance and peace toward Israel."
"Egyptian-Israeli security cooperation is at it weakest point in years."
"Israel is culpable in the 2003 death of American activist Rachel Corrie."
"Intelligence about Iran's nuclear program may be as faulty as the information about Iraq's."
"We will know when Iran has a bomb and can take action at that time."
"Iran should be allowed a nuclear weapon since Israel has one."
"Anti-Semitism is on the decline around the world."
"Iran does not believe it can win a nuclear war."
"Iran wants to control its nuclear stockpile and would never give a bomb or nuclear material to terrorists."
"We are seeing accurate media coverage from Gaza."
"Israel is deliberately targeting the media."
"Israel's war in Gaza was immoral because more Palestinians died than Israelis."
"The Israeli construction plan called the E1 project threatens the two-state solution and the contiguity of a future Palestinian state."
"Israeli policies are obstructing peace."
"If Iran has a bomb, it can be deterred the way the U.S. deterred the Soviet Union."
“Israeli settlements are an obstacle to Mideast peace.”
“The Palestinians are now ready to make peace with Israel.”
“Attacking Iran will create more instability in the Middle East.”
“If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was solved, the Middle East would be at peace.”
“Israel has created separate bus lines to segregate Jews and Palestinians.”
“The European Union has no reason to name Hezbollah a terrorist organization.”
“Non-lethal Palestinian rocket attacks have no impact on Israel's civilian population.”
“Israelis overreact to harmless rock-throwing by Palestinians.”
“The Palestinian Authority is committed to reforming Palestinian society.”
“Now is a good time to revive the Arab peace initiative.”
“Syria’s chemical weapons pose no threat outside of Syria.”
“Israel has refused to discuss a compromise on the future of Jerusalem.”
“'Nakba Day' has nothing to do with the peace process.”
“An Israeli attack on Iran would endanger U.S. interests in the Middle East.”
“The United States helped Israel defeat the Arabs in six days in June 1967.”
“The election of Hassan Rouhani eliminates the Iranian nuclear threat.”
“The U.S. must be involved in any successful peace process between Israel and her neighbors.”
“Israel 'occupies' the West Bank.”
“Palestinian leaders enter peace talks with Israel sharing a common desire for democacy.”
“Israel must make concessions for the peace process to succeed.”
“Christians are a protected minority in the Middle East.”
“Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is disinterested in peace with the Palestinians.”
“Palestinians support the boycott and divestment movement against Israel.”
“Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a fatwa against producing nuclear weapons.”
“Iran is isolated because of the international sanctions regime.”
“Israel is responsible for expelling the Arabs of Palestine during the 1948 War of Independence.”
“The Palestinians have made concessions to advance the peace process; Israel has remained uncompromising.”
“A third intifada will erupt if Israel does not satisfy Palestinian demands.”
“The negotiated compromise with Iran removes Tehran's nuclear weapons threat.”
“The Iranian government is committed to fulfilling the terms it agreed to in the Geneva nuclear deal“
“Following Operation Protective Edge Hamas abandoned its goal of destroying Israel.” 
“European recognition of 'Palestine' will advance the peace process.” 
“Muslims recognize the Temple Mount as sacrosanct to Muslims and Jews.” 
“Israel denies medical treatment to its enemies.” 
“Palestinians support the boycott and divestment movements against Israel.”
“Iran has moderated its hostility and should be an ally in the fight against ISIS.”  
“All nations have the same policy about avoiding civilian casualties in war.” 
“The Palestinian's Peace Negotiator wants peace.” 
“The Palestinian Authority believes in a secular Palestinian state.”  
“UN peacekeepers can be relied upon to keep the peace between Israel and its neighbors.” 
“Iran is an ally in the fight against the Muslim extremist group ISIS.”
“Israel was responsible for the 2014 war with Hamas.”
“Israel should now accept the Arab Peace Initiative.” 
“Israel must end its illegal blockade of Gaza to end the war with Hamas.”
“There are no terrorist attacks on Israel originating from the West Bank anymore.” 
“UNRWA is a humanitarian organization that remains neutral in the conflict.”
“Journalists are never deceived by Palestinian propaganda.”
“Hamas never endangers Palestinian civilians; it is the Israelis who target them.” 
“Hamas is firing rockets at Israel to end the 'occupation.'” 
“Israel is indiscriminately attacking Palestinian targets in Gaza.”
“Summer camp for Palestinians in Gaza is a fun escape for children like American camps.”
“Human rights organizations use reliable information in reports criticizing Israel.”
“Human rights organizations present unbiased reports on Israel.”
“Mosques are sacrosanct and never used by terrorists.”
“Hamas-Fatah reconciliation paves the way to peace negotiations with Israel.
“Jonathan Pollard's conviction for espionage proved that Israel works against American interests.” 
“The Arab world and Palestinians have changed since the three ‘noes’ of 1967.” 
“The Palestinians have recognized Israel as the state of the Jewish people.”
“If Israel makes peace with the Palestinians the other Arab states will normalize ties with Israel.” 
“The Palestinian Authority no longer engages in terrorism against Israel.” 
“Jews will be welcome in a future Palestinian state.” 
“Arab militaries do everything possible to protect civilians in war zones.” 
“Academic boycotts of Israel are popular in America.” 
“Palestinian workers suffer under Israeli rule.” 
“Mahmoud Abbas never turned down a peace offer from Israel.” 
“The terrorist atrocities in Paris are completely different from the violence by Palestinians against Israelis.”
“Israel is framing Palestinians for murder to justify shooting them and then leaving the wounded to die.” 
“Prime Minister Netanyahu has backtracked on Prime Minister Rabin's positions regarding peace with the Palestinians.” 
“Israel boycotts Palestinian academics.” 
“The Western Wall is a part of Al-Aqsa Mosque.”
“Iran's missile research does not violate UN sanctions or the nuclear agreement.”
“Muslims revere the Al-Aqsa Mosque and treat it with the respect it deserves.”
“Israel remains the only Middle East country with a separation fence.” 
“Summer is a time for Palestinian children to enjoy camp like Israelis and Americans.” 
“There are no terrorist attacks on Israel originating from the West Bank anymore.”
“The Israeli government wants to destroy the al-Asqa mosque.” 
“Israel praises terrorists who attack Palestinians.”
“The Palestinians' top priority is peace with Israel.” 
“The United States, the West and America’s regional allies were the big winners in the Iran deal.” 
“Israel is exaggerating the threat of a radical Islamic takeover of the West Bank to avoid territorial compromise.” 
“The Iran deal reported in the media is the best the West can get.” 
“Israel was guilty of war crimes during the 2014 Gaza War.” 
“The IDF commits attrocities because former soldiers from 'Breaking the Silence' say so.” 
“Jerusalem is not Israel's capital.”
“Abbas is finally prepared to negotiate with Israel.”
“The Pope considers Mahmoud Abbas an 'angel of peace'.” 
“Myths & Facts Regarding the 'Framework Deal' With Iran.”
“Palestinian reconciliation makes the Palestinian Authority a partner for peace.” 
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the creation of a Palestinian state.”
“Israeli Arabs have been denied political representation in the Knesset.” 
“Israel systematically violated the laws of war during Operation Protective Edge.”  
“Israel opened dams to flood Gaza.” 
“Reported negotiations with Iran will make the Middle East safer.”
“The Palestinian public opposes terrorism and supports negotiations with Israel.”
“Palestinians all support asking the UN to recognize Palestine.” 
“A Palestinian state will not be part of the Islamic State's caliphate.”
“Muslims are encouraged to visit Israel and meet Israelis.” 
“The International Criminal Court will inevitably indict Israelis for war crimes in Gaza.” 
“The Palestinian application to join the International Criminal Court is a response to Israels failure to negotiate peace.” 
“Israelis overwhelmingly support withdrawal from the West Bank.” 
“Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance.” 
“Jews have no historical connection to Jerusalem.”
“Israel is the obstacle to peace.” 
“Israel 'occupies' the West Bank.” 
“Israel must dismantle all the settlements or peace is impossible."
“Palestinian swimmers have no access to Olympic size pools.” 
“The Iran nuclear deal is working as expected.” 
“Iran has moderated it's hostility and should be an ally in the fight against ISIS.”
“Palestinians oppose terrorism.” 
“Israel is illegally demolishing Palestinian homes built with EU funds.” 
“American policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be evenhanded.”
“Israel's rejection of the French peace initiative proves it does not want peace.” 
“Convicted Palestinian terrorists do not receive payments from the Palestinian Authority.” 
“Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.” 
“The Palestinians have aboriginal rights to Palestine.” 
“Human rights activists care deeply about the Palestinian people.” 
“The United States has the formula to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.” 
“Hezbollah is only a threat to Syria.” 
“The media is accurately portraying the current wave of violence against Israelis.” 
“The Palestinians are now ready for peace talks.” 
“The Palestinian Authority prevents and condemns terrorism.” 
“Labeling products manufactured in West Bank settlements promotes peace.” 
“Israel discriminates against it's Arab citizens.” 
“Palestinians would never do anything to help Israeli settlements.” 

MYTH

“The Palestinian Authority held a free, democratic election in 2005.” top

FACT

Elections are not synonymous with democracy. Several Arab countries hold elections, including Egypt and Syria, but they have only one candidate, and there is no doubt about the outcome. The dictators are always reelected with nearly 100 percent of the vote. In those nations, no one seriously claims the elections are democratic.

In the case of the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections held in January 2005, the standards were higher. These were advertised as an example of democracy and, compared to other Arab states, the voting was a considerable advancement toward free elections.

Still, the election could hardly be called competitive as the outcome was never in doubt. Seven candidates ran for president, but the only question was the size of Mahmoud Abbas’ margin of victory. He won with 62.3 percent of the vote. His nearest challenger was Mustafa Barghouti with 19.8 percent.1

The election had a much lower turnout than expected (62 percent), and supporters of the Islamic terrorist organizations largely boycotted the vote, as did Arabs living in east Jerusalem. Thus, Abbas was conservatively estimated by al-Jazeera to have received the support of only about one-third of the eligible voters.2

The election process went smoothly and, despite Palestinian predictions of Israeli interference, international observers reported that Palestinians were not obstructed by Israel from participating in the election. In fact, Palestinian and Israeli officials were said to have worked well together to facilitate voting.3

 

“Free elections can only take place in societies in which people are free to express their opinions without fear.”

Natan Sharansky4

Immediately after the election, however, 46 officials from the PA Central Election Committee resigned, confirming suspicions of voting irregularities and fraud. The Committee had come under pressure from Abbas’ staff to extend the vote by an additional two hours and to allow non-registered voters to cast ballots to guarantee a larger turnout and improve Abbas’ chance of a “landslide” victory.

The day of the election, gunmen stormed the Committee offices to demand that Palestinians who were not registered be allowed to vote. The deputy chairman of the Committee, Ammar Dwaik, said he “was personally threatened and pressured” and confirmed that some voters were able to remove from their thumbs the ink that was supposed to prevent double voting.5

While Abbas is now seen as a legitimately elected leader by most Palestinians and the international community, the PA has no history of democratic institutions, so it remains in doubt whether the various terrorist groups will also accept his leadership, and whether the security services will enforce the president’s will.

Natan Sharansky observed that “It is important that these elections took place, because it important that the new leadership comes, or will come, not through violence. That can be the beginning of the process of democracy.”6 To move closer to true democracy, Abbas will also have to remove his predecessor’s restrictions on the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and the press. Then perhaps the next election will be truly free and democratic.

MYTH

“Israel is building the security fence as part of a land grab to control the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.” top

FACT

The purpose of the security fence is the prevention of terror. Its route has been carefully plotted to maximize the security it provides to the citizens of Israel and minimize the inconvenience and harm to Palestinians. The route of the fence must take into account topography, population density, and threat assessment of each area. To be effective in protecting the maximum number of Israelis, it also must incorporate the largest communities in the West Bank.

After the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the government had to more carefully balance security concerns and harm to the Palestinians, the route of the fence was adjusted to run closer to the “Green Line.” When completed, the fence will now incorporate just 7 percent of the West Bank — less than 160 square miles — on its “Israeli side,” while 2,100 square miles will be on the “Palestinian side.”

If and when the Palestinians decide to negotiate an end to the conflict, the fence may be torn down or moved. Even without any change, a Palestinian state could now theoretically be created in 93 percent of the West Bank (and the PA will control 100 percent of the Gaza Strip after the disengagement is complete). This is very close to the 97 percent Israel offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000, which means that while other difficult issues remain to be resolved, the territorial aspect of the dispute will be reduced to a negotiation over roughly 90 square miles.

MYTH

“The demographic threat to Israel posed by Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is overrated and therefore Israel need not make territorial compromises.” top

FACT

A study was recently published that suggested the assumption that Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza pose a demographic threat to Israel has been exaggerated because the actual population in the territories is significantly lower than what is reported by Palestinian Authority (PA) officials. According to a study by a team of independent researchers, the 2004 Palestinian-Arab population was closer to 2.4 million than to the 3.8 million cited by the PA.7

The independent study comes up with its figures largely by deconstructing PA statistics, but Israel's leading demographer, Professor Sergio DellaPergola of Hebrew University, has challenged the result, saying his estimate of 3.4 million Palestinians is based on Israeli data (the CIA estimates the population for the West Bank and Gaza at 3.6 million). According to DellaPergola, 4.7 million Arabs now live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River out of a total of 10,263,000. The Jewish proportion of this total is 51 percent. DellaPergola argues that because of the higher rate of birth in the Arab community, they have the demographic momentum, and that by 2020, the proportion of Jews is likely to drop to 47 percent and could fall to 37 percent by 2050.8

Even if the new study is more accurate, it only has a minimal impact on the demographic reality. According to Israeli census figures, the population of Israel today is approximately 6.8 million. If we add the 2.4 million Arabs the new study says live in the territories, the total population from the river to the sea would be 9.2 million (including about 1.3 million Israeli Arabs). The Jewish population is roughly 5.2 million or 57 percent, slightly better than DellaPergola’s estimate of 51 percent.

These overall statistics also distort the debate over the disengagement from Gaza where the demographic picture is crystal clear. According to the new study, the Arab population there is more than 1.07. The Jewish population, according to the State Department, prior to the evacuation was 7,500, which means the the percentage of Jews in Gaza was a fraction of 1 percent.

The independent study focuses solely on discrediting the PA statistics and does not address the crucial issue of future trends, which DellaPergola shows are clearly in the Arabs’ favor. The new report argues that the growth rates in Israel and the territories have been lower than previously forecast (though they use figures for only the last four years), but even the new figures show that the growth rate for the Arabs remains higher than that of the Jews, so the proportion of Jews should continue to decline.

Recent data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics suggests the situation may be even worse. The Bureau said that the proportion of Jews within the current borders of Israel is expected to decline from the present figure of 78 percent to 70 percent in 2025 because of the higher birth rate among Israeli Arabs. According to Industry and Trade Ministry data released in March 2007, Jewish women in Israel on average have 2.69 children each and give birth to the first at age 30. Muslim women have an average of four children and give birth to the first at age 27.9

Many proponents of territorial compromise argue that these demographic trends make it impossible for Israel to remain both a Jewish and democratic state if it holds onto the West Bank and Gaza. If a majority of the population of Israel, or even a significant minority, were non-Jews, then the Jewish character of the state would likely change. In fact, the new report states that “As in 1967, Israel faces a very real issue on the status of a large minority population in the West Bank and Gaza” (emphasis in the original). Extremists have suggested that non-Jews could be prohibited from voting, but this would make the state undemocratic. Since no Israeli leader – even those labeled as right-wing fanatics who dream of “Greater Israel” – have found a way to square this circle, Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Gaza. And now one of those “hardliners,” Ariel Sharon, was moved by the demographic reality to initiate the disengagement plan.

Many people argue that it is impossible to predict the future, and that most past projections were proven inaccurate. Earlier doomsday predictions were upset by large influxes of immigrants, and many Israelis still believe this will be their demographic salvation. After more than one million Jews from the former Soviet Union arrived in the 1990s, this view was temporarily vindicated, however, there only about 8 million Jews in the entire world outside Israel, and a large number would have to decide to move to Israel to offset the demographic trend. This is especially unlikely given that roughly 75 percent of the Jews outside Israel live in the United States from which very few emigrate.

The demographic issue is still only one variable in the Israeli political calculus related to territorial compromise. The other principal concerns are whether Israel can have greater peace and security without controlling some or all of the territories. That is a matter of great debate within Israel. For now, the majority of Israelis have come to the conclusion that withdrawal from Gaza and part of Samaria is in Israel’s best interest.

MYTH

“Israel is killing Palestinians with radiation spy machines.” top

FACT

Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the “big lie” tactic in which a lie, no matter how outrageous, is repeated often enough that it will eventually be accepted as truth. It is a propaganda tool the Palestinians have repeatedly tried to use to tar Israel. Past examples have included specious claims that Israel “massacred” 500 people at Jenin,10 infects Palestinians with the AIDS virus,11 and drops poison candy for children in Gaza from airplanes.12

The latest calumny from the Palestinians is the claim that Israel is using a “radial spy machine” at checkpoints, and that the device killed a 55-year-old Palestinian woman.13The charge is apparently related to the Palestinian Authority’s decision to close a checkpoint on their side of the border in Gaza to protest Israel’s use of advanced radio-wave machines for searching Palestinian travelers.14

The device is the SafeView Millimeter Wave Radar, an American-made portal system that uses millimeter a safe wave holographic technology to screen travelers from Egypt for weapons and explosives. Unlike metal detectors, this system is capable of detecting virtually any man-made object, regardless of the type of material, by transmitting ultra-high frequency, low-powered radio frequency waves as people pass through the portal. The waves penetrate clothing and reflect off of the person’s skin and any items being carried. A sensor array captures the reflected waves and uses a desktop computer to analyze the information and produce a high-resolution, 3-D image from the signals.15

Since the allegation is coming from the official Palestinian media, it represents a violation of the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to end incitement against Israel.

MYTH

“Unlike other Arab women, Palestinian women are not killed for dishonoring their families.” top

FACT

Maher Shakirat learned that one of his sisters was thrown out of the house by her husband for an alleged affair. Shakirat strangled his sister, who was eight months pregnant, and forced two other sisters he accused of covering up the affair to drink bleach. One of those was badly injured but escaped, but the third sister was also strangled by her brother.

Palestinian women who bring dishonor to their families may be punished by male family members. The punishments may range from ostracism and abandonment to physical abuse to murder. “Honor killings” may be carried out for instances of rape, infidelity, flirting or any other action seen as disgracing the family. By killing the woman, the family’s name in the community is restored.

Women are usually not allowed to defend themselves; they are considered “minors” under the authority of male relatives, and may be killed based on a family member’s suspicions. An allegation of misbehavior is sufficient to defile a man’s or family’s honor and justify the killing of the woman. Men who carry out these murders in the Palestinian Authority typically go unpunished or receive a maximum of six months in prison.16

Because these crimes often go unreported, it is difficult to determine the actual number of victims in honor killings, but the Palestinian Authority’s women’s affairs ministry reported that 20 women were murdered in honor killings in 2005, 15 survived murder attempts, and approximately 50 committed suicide, often under coercion, for shaming the family.17

According to a June 2005 poll, 24% of Palestinians said that if a family discovered that one of its daughters was involved in a case of family disgrace (e.g., adultery), the family should kill the daughter to remove the disgrace.18

MYTH

“Israel has moved the border so it will not withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip.” top

FACT

Mohammed Dahlan, the Palestinian Authority’s Minister of Civil Affairs, has claimed that Israel moved the northern border of the Gaza Strip about 1.2 miles, and that Israel's disengagement will not be complete unless it withdraws to the 1949 armistice lines.19 By suggesting that Israel is holding onto a piece of Gaza, the Palestinians are threatening to create a Shebaa Farms issue that could undercut the prospects for peace created by Israel's courageous decision to evacuate all its citizens and soldiers from the area.

Substantively, Dahlan’s claim is inaccurate. The border of Gaza was originally determined during the 1949 Rhodes Armistice negotiations with Egypt. A year later, Israel agreed to move the border southeast, creating a bulge in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. In exchange, Egypt redrew the border in the north, moving it more than a mile southwest. According to Israel's National Security Council chief, Giora Eiland, the border was reconfirmed in the Oslo accords.20 Today, Netiv Ha’asara, a community of 125 families, many of which were evacuated from settlements in the Sinai as part of the peace treaty with Egypt, is located in the area Dahlan wants included in Gaza.

In the case of Shebaa Farms, the Lebanese terrorist group, Hizballah, has speciously maintained that Israel did not fully withdraw from Lebanon, despite the UN's verification that it has, and used Israel’s presence in the Shebaa Farms area as the pretext for continuing its terror campaign against Israel. If the Palestinians adopt a similar policy toward the sliver of land they claim to be part of Gaza to perpetuate their image as victims, and to try to win propaganda points by claiming to still be under “occupation,” they will once again demonstrate that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

If the Palestinians continue terrorist attacks against Israel, and make claims to additional territory, rather than focusing on state-building within Gaza and meeting their road map obligations, Israel will have little interest in pursuing negotiations regarding the West Bank.

MYTH

“Hamas should be permitted to participate in Palestinian Authority elections.” top

FACT

The second Oslo agreement (Oslo II) between Israel and the Palestinian Authority prohibits the “nomination of any candidates, parties or coalitions” that “commit or advocate racism” or “pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or non-democratic means” (Annex II, Article II).21 Under this agreement, Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians alike, cannot legally participate in Palestinian national elections. The Covenant of Hamas says nothing about democracy or elections. It does say that when “enemies (the Jews) usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad.”

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has warned that Israel will not cooperate with the Palestinian Authority during elections if candidates from Hamas are allowed to participate. “An armed organization doesn't become democratic once they participate in the election,” Sharon said.22

Yossi Beilin, the leader of the Meretz-Yahad Party, and one of the architects of the Oslo accords, said that recognizing Hamas as a legitimate political entity “is a gross violation of the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement,” and that in the global struggle against terrorism, “it would be surprising indeed if Israel, paradoxically, were to acquiesce in the legitimization of a terrorist organization under its very nose.”23

The United States has left it up to the Palestinians to decide who can participate in the Palestinian Legislative Council; however, National Security Council spokesperson Frederick L. Jones II said the U.S. would never have diplomatic relations with candidates from a terrorist organization.“We do not believe that a democratic state can be built when parties or candidates seek power not through the ballot box but through terrorist activity,” Jones said.”24

MYTH

“Israel's disengagement from Gaza was a victory for terror.” top

FACT

Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank was applauded by the international community as an important and painful step toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even the United Nations, which rarely has anything positive to say about Israel, praised the “determination and political courage” shown by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon25 in implementing the disengagement plan peacefully and successfully.

In an effort to bolster their standing with the Palestinian public, groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad claim it was their terror campaign that forced Israel to withdraw.26 In fact, the terrorist groups did nothing but bring death and destruction to the people of Israel and their fellow Palestinians. Israel was not driven from the territories, it made a calculated decision to leave based on its own interests.

The 8,000 civilians who lived in Gaza were viewed by the terrorists as targets, and Israel had to devote a great deal of its human and material resources to protect these innocent people. In addition, Sharon agreed with those who concluded it would make no sense for Israel to hold on to an area with a Palestinian population exceeding one million. By withdrawing, Israel's security has been enhanced, and the Palestinians have been given the opportunity to govern themselves and demonstrate whether they are able and willing to create a democratic society that can coexist with Israel.

At the time of the disengagement, Israel had dramatically reduced the level of terror, and the security fence around Gaza had a nearly perfect record of preventing the infiltration of suicide bombers. Israeli forces had severely damaged the terrorist infrastructure and killed or jailed most of the leaders of the major terror groups. The disengagement took place after Israel won the Palestinian War the Palestinian Authority had instigated in 2000, and the withdrawal took place from a position of strength, not weakness.

Palestinian extremists can claim whatever they want, but even they know the truth. As Zakariya Zubeidi, the leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorist group observed, “Not only was the intifada a failure, but we are a total failure. We achieved nothing in 50 years of struggle; we've achieved only our survival.”27

And the Palestinian people are not fooled by the rhetoric of the terrorists, as is evident by this comment by Mohammed Ahmed Moussa, a grocer in Jabaliya, who said, “Let's be frank. If Israel didn't want to leave Gaza, no one could have forced them out. Those who claim the rockets and attacks made them leave are kidding themselves.”28

MYTH

“Israel is obstructing Palestinian elections.” top

FACT

Israel is a democracy and believes in free elections as the best means of insuring representative government. Consequently, Israel has been supportive of the idea of democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority. In the 2005 presidential election, international observers reported that Israel made no effort to impede the vote. To the contrary, it took a number of measures to facilitate the election.

Similarly, Israel has no intention of interfering in the upcoming legislative elections in the PA. While there is some dispute about whether and how Palestinians living in Jerusalem may participate, a similar issue was resolved before the last election.

The Jerusalem issue, however, is being used as a smokescreen by the Palestinians to obscure their internal divisions. Palestinian officials have been talking for months about delaying the elections scheduled for January 25 because of chaos and disorder throughout the PA, and because of fears that they will lose power and that Hamas will take seats from the dominant Fatah party.

Many Palestinians also legitimately fear the election will not be fair. With just three weeks to go before the election, the Palestinian election commission resigned because the commissioners said Prime Minister Ahmed Korei was interfering with their work. After the last election, 46 officials from the PA Central Election Committee resigned to protest voting irregularities and fraud.

The problem for the PA today is not any Israeli interference in their affairs, it is the Wild West climate that now dominates the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank. So long as the PA is unable to insure the safety of its residents, it will be unable to hold a free democratic election.

MYTH

“Academic freedom means any criticism of Israel is permissible in a university.” top

FACT

The one place in America where anti-Semitism is still tolerated is in the university, where “academic freedom” is often used as a cover to sanction anti-Israel teachings and forums that are anti-Semitic.

In an address on the subject of academic freedom, Columbia President Lee Bollinger quoted from a report that described a professor as someone whom “‘no fair-minded person’ would even suspect of speaking other than as ‘shaped or restricted by the judgement . . . of professional scholars.’” He also spoke about the need for faculty to “resist the allure of certitude, the temptation to use the podium as an ideological platform, to indoctrinate a captive audience, to play favorites with the like-minded, and silence the others.”

Many faculty, however, do not resist temptation; rather, they embrace their position as an ideological platform. Those who abuse their rights, and insist they can say what they want, hypocritically denounce others who exercise their right to criticize them. To suggest that a professor’s views are inappropriate, or their scholarship is faulty, is to risk being tarred with the charge of McCarthyism.

Legality is not the issue in evaluating the anti-Israel, sometimes anti-Semitic speeches and teachings of faculty and speakers on campus. No one questions that freedom of speech allows individuals to express their views. The issue is whether this type of speech should be given the cover of “academic” freedom, and granted legitimacy by the university through funding, publicity or use of facilities.

For the last several years, for example, an anti-Semitic forum has been held at different universities by the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM). In 2004, the conference was held at Duke University. Organizers were asked to sign an innocuous statement before the event calling for a civil debate that would “condemn the murder of innocent civilians,” “support a two-state solution” and “recognize the difference between disagreement and hate speech,” but refused to do so. By hosting a group that could not bring itself to object to the murder of Jews, Duke gave their views legitimacy and tarnished the university’s academic reputation. The 2006 PSM conference is being held at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

It is sometimes suggested critics seek to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. There is a clear distinction, however, between criticism of Israeli policy, which you can read in any Israeli newspaper, and anti-Semitism, in which the attacks against Israel challenge its right to exist, or single Israel out among all other nations for special treatment, as in the case of the PSM’s call for the end to Israeli “occupation” in all of Palestine and divestment from Israel.

A related question is whether the presentations are in any way academic or scholarly. Few people would claim that a conference in which anti-black, anti-gay, or anti-woman sentiments were expressed would be protected by academic freedom, and yet that is the shield used to permit attacks on the Jewish people.

 

“Palestine means Palestine in its entirety - from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, from Ras Al-Naqura to Rafah. We cannot give up a single inch of it. Therefore, we will not recognize the Israeli enemy's [right] to a single inch.”

— Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar29

MYTH

“The Palestinian Authority held a democratic election and Israel and the rest of the world must accept that Hamas was the victor.” top

FACT

Winston Churchill said that “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” It was a step forward, then, for the authoritarian Palestinian Authority to hold elections that by all accounts were conducted fairly. Nevertheless, so long as the Palestinian people continue to be denied by their leaders the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and the press, the election cannot be considered truly free and democratic.

While democratic outcomes are preferable to the alternatives, the rest of the world is not obligated to have a relationship with elected leaders whose policies and views are dangerous. Adolf Hitler was elected by the German people, but few people would suggest today that the rest of the world should have ignored his genocidal views and treated him as an equal just because he emerged from a democratic process. Similarly, the current Iranian president was elected and is still widely viewed as a pariah because of his threats to destroy Israel and to pursue nuclear weapons in defiance of the rest of the world.

The Palestinian people chose to elect members of an organization whose avowed purpose is the destruction of Israel by violent means. Hamas is recognized throughout the world as a terrorist organization. Since the election, Hamas leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to the Hamas covenant calling for the liberation of all of Palestine and they have made clear it they have no intention of disarming.

Israel now has on its borders a quasi government run by people who oppose negotiations and compromise. Hamas can now take over all of the security services and weapons that have previously been given by Israel and others to the Palestinian Authority to keep the peace. The institutions that were bound by agreements to stop the violence, confiscate illegal weapons, end smuggling and cease incitement are now controlled by the very people most responsible for terror, gun running, and the use of the media and schools to demonize Israel and Jews.

Most of the world understands that Hamas is not a partner for peace and that it is a terrorist group that threatens the stability of the region. The United States and other countries rightly have said that it must recognize Israel and renounce terror before any diplomatic or economic support can be given to the PA. Of course, we went through a similar exercise in 1993 when similar demands were made of the PLO. Yasser Arafat made the necessary commitments in a letter to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, but he never matched the words with deeds. The world will be wise not to make the same mistake with Hamas.

“Palestinians need to understand that the exercise of self-government carries consequences. For too long, the international community has failed to extract a price for the Palestinian recourse to terror. That failure has not brought peace, but far worse it has produced the "Palestine" we have now: destitute, savage against both Israelis and moderate Arabs, and, so far, incapable of managing its internal affairs peacefully and competently. By refusing to render Hamas respectable, the U.S. and Israel aren't punishing the Palestinians. They're educating them.”

— Wall Street Journal30

MYTH

“Israel is digging under the al-Aqsa mosque and intends to destroy it.” top

FACT

The Palestinians and other Muslims routinely accuse Israel of threatening their holy places in Jerusalem and have discovered that this is a good way to provoke local violence and international condemnation. The tactic goes back to the 1920s when the Mufti of Jerusalem made similar charges that provoked widespread rioting. The latest example of using this method of incitement (which violates the road map and Oslo agreements) came when Sheikh Mohammad Hussein, the director of the al-Aqsa Foundation, accused Israel of excavating under the Temple Mount with the intention of destroying the al-Aqsa mosque.31

As in the past, the charge is a total fabrication. The most recent construction involved the development of a new visitors center built around new findings excavated near the Western Wall. Discoveries at the new site include a ritual bath from the period of the second Jewish Temple, destroyed in 70 C.E., and a wall archaeologists say dates to the first Jewish Temple, destroyed in 586 B.C.E.32 The work was done in the already tunnel area that has now been open to tourists for several years. It is not underneath the Temple Mount and nowhere near the al-Aqsa mosque. What really bothers the sheikh is that the center will “show a fabricated heritage that might help them to deceive foreign visitors into believing Jerusalem as a historical place of the Jews....” 33

Israel denied the accusations, but official government denials rarely satisfy those who are ready to believe any libel emanating from the Palestinian Authority. In this case, however, UPI reporter Joshua Brilliant attended the Foundation press conference during which a misleading film was shown purporting to prove the charges. Brilliant independently investigated the tunnel and found no evidence of any excavation in the direction of the mosque. A Hamas website nevertheless said that a synagogue was under the mosque and “We will spill blood and offer souls in defense of the mosque.”34

MYTH

“Israel is responsible for disparaging cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.” top

FACT

Iran’s Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed that the cartoons first published in Denmark, which have sparked widespread Muslim protests, were part of a “conspiracy by Zionists who were angry because of the victory of Hamas.”35

Sometimes the myths propagated by Arabs and Muslims are so outrageous and ridiculous that it would seem to be a waste of time to respond. This is one of those instances. Unfortunately, history has proven that one cannot underestimate the capacity of people to believe even the most absurd charges when they are applied to Israel. After all, large numbers of Muslims still believe that Israel was responsible for the atrocities committed on 9/11.

The cartoons, of course, haven’t anything to do with Israel. They were solicited by a Danish publication, Jyllands-Posten, and have subsequently been reprinted widely. In fact, one blogger posted images from an Egyptian newspaper that published the cartoons.36Khamenei’s conspiracy theory also has a minor flaw — the cartoons were published in September 2005, six months before the Palestinian election.

In a juvenile and bizarre effort to retaliate for what they consider an affront to Islam, Iran is now soliciting cartoons lampooning the Holocaust. This really is nothing new as Iran and other Muslim nations routinely publish vile anti-Semitic cartoons in their state-controlled media. Sensitivity and tolerance are a one-way street in those countries.

MYTH

“The Palestinians have maintained a truce and ceased terror operations against Israel.” top

FACT

The number of successful Palestinian terrorist attacks has fallen dramatically in the last several months. This is not because of any actions on the part of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority continues to refuse to fulfill its road map obligation to stop violence, dismantle terrorist infrastructures, and confiscate illegal weapons. The decline in violence is due primarily to the efficiency of Israel’s security forces and the presence of the security fence. It has little to do with a supposed cease-fire during which there has been no lull in the effort to murder Israelis.

Prior to construction of the security fence, the Palestinians carried out 73 suicide bomb attacks that killed 293 Israelis. Even with the fence only about one-third completed, it has helped significantly reduce the carnage. Since construction began in July 2003, 11 suicide attacks have been launched that killed 54 people. In 2005, only seven suicide attacks were successful, which has taken terror against Israelis off the radar of the international media and given the perception that all is quiet. The reality is far different.

According to the Shin Bet, a total of 2,990 attacks were launched against Israel during 2005 following that January’s truce announcement by Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees, and Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Each month, Israel has more than 70 terror alerts.37

To give just a few examples of the ongoing terror campaign:

• On February 2, 2006, soldiers prevented two Palestinian teenagers from smuggling 12 pipe bombs through a checkpoint. The next day two Palestinian teenagers were captured carrying explosive belts.38

• On February 19, 2006, border police arrested three Palestinians from Bethlehem on their way to carry out a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. That same morning, two Palestinians attempted to place a bomb near the southern Gaza security fence.39

• On February 20, 2006, the Shin Bet chief revealed that the IDF uncovered a launcher and eight mortar shells in Bethlehem, which were planned to be fired at the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo.40

• On February 21, 2006, an IDF force found a large bomb factory in Nablus.41

• Since Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Palestinians have continued to fire rockets into Israel on an almost daily basis (more than 450 have hit Israel in less than six months42), and increasingly threatened strategic targets, such as the power station in Ashkelon.

• Smuggling of weapons has accelerated in the Gaza Strip. The head of the Shin Bet reported that the number of rifles smuggled each month has increased from 200-300 to 3,000 since disengagement, and that the Palestinians have also smuggled in anti-aircraft missiles and tons of explosives.43

Israel may have won the Palestinian War started by the Palestinian Authority in September 2000, but that does not mean that it has ended all terror threats. Cease-fires and truces mean little when those who declare them continue to arm themselves for the next battle, and their comrades continue to wage war.

The situation is likely to grow more dangerous now that the security forces responsible for enforcing the law in the Palestinian Authority will be infiltrated and probably controlled by the terrorists from Hamas who have made no secret since the Palestinian election that they are committed to their covenant’s call for the destruction of Israel. Moreover, the Palestinian people continue to support terrorism according to the latest poll, which found that 56% of Palestinians support suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians.44

MYTH

“The PA is entitled to international aid because Hamas was democratically elected and the Palestinian people should not be made to suffer because Israel doesn’t like the election outcome.” top

FACT

Billions of dollars of aid have flowed to the Palestinian Authority (PA) over the last 13 years despite the fact that most of it was siphoned off by corrupt officials and very little has actually reached the people. Now the PA is led by a party that pledged to fight corruption, but it also promises to continue to use terror as a means of achieving the objective of destroying Israel. Why does anyone believe the United States or any other country has an obligation to underwrite terrorism and programs for genocide?

The New York Times noted:

America cannot bankroll a Hamas government that preaches and practices terrorism, denies that Israel has any right to exist, and refuses to abide by peace agreements signed by previous Palestinian governments....the United States would make a resounding diplomatic and moral point by cutting off aid. It would demonstrate in the clearest possible terms that the American people are not prepared to support governments, elected or unelected, that proclaim the annihilation of other nations as their goal and embrace terrorism as an acceptable tactic for achieving it.

It is true that the PA has financial problems, but that is not the rest of the world’s responsibility. Had the PA not misspent the billions it had received already from international donors, it would not be in this predicament. Moreover, as the Times editorialized, “Continuing United States subsidies while Hamas is in power will not move the region one step closer to a fair and sustainable peace.”

The Times and others are wrong in suggesting that Israel be pressured to pay tax and customs funds to the PA. These are funds that Israel agreed to pay as part of the Oslo agreements, which the PA has not fulfilled, and Hamas says it does not accept. Moreover, what government would give money to an authority that is calling for its destruction? Can you imagine the Israeli prime minister speaking to his Hamas counterpart: “We are very upset that you say that you are committed to destroying our nation, and we’re disturbed that you are launching terrorist attacks against us each day, but here’s the money we owe you. Don’t spend it all on one suicide bomb.”

The Palestinian people aren’t going to starve. Even if the United States, Israel, and other Western nations were threatening to withhold all aid until Hamas either is driven from power or completely reforms and renounces its covenant, Iran and other nations will provide the minimum required to sustain the Palestinians, a group which already receives substantially more aid than far needier populations around the globe. And the United States and others are not even talking about cutting off all aid; they all say they will continue to provide humanitarian funds.

The Palestinian people will blame the world for their predicament, as they have for the last 58 years, but perhaps a cutoff of some aid will be the consequence that finally teaches them the lesson that the path to statehood requires them to make a different choice – peace over violence.

MYTH

“Saudi Arabia has ended its boycott of Israel.” top

FACT

In late 2005, Saudi Arabia was required to cease its boycott of Israel as a condition of joining the World Trade Organization (WTO). After initially saying that it would do so, the government subsequently announced it would maintain its first-degree boycott of Israeli products. The government said it agreed to lift the second and third degree boycott in accordance with an earlier Gulf Cooperation Council decision rather than the demands of the WTO.46

Saudi Arabia continues, however, to prohibit entry to products made in Israel or to foreign-made goods containing Israeli components and hosted a major international conference aimed at promoting the boycott in Jidda in March 2006. The Organization for the Islamic Conference’s (OIC) Islamic Office for the Boycott of Israel is based in Jidda and the head of the office is a former Saudi diplomat.47

In hearings in February 2006 before the Senate Finance Committee, U.S. trade representative Rob Portman insisted that the Saudis “have a responsibility to treat Israel as any other member of the WTO” and added that the U.S. had received assurance “they will abide by their WTO commitments.”48

While the Saudis were presenting themselves in the media as peacemakers in early 2007 by resurrecting their 2002 peace plan, the government continued to bar entry to products manufactured in Israel or to foreign-made goods containing Israeli components.48a This is in addition to the ongoing political boycott whereby Saudi officials refuse to meet with Israelis. The Saudi behavior is inconsistent with their rhetoric and raises questions about the sincerity of their peace proposals and whether a government that has reneged on its promise to the WTO to end the boycott can be trusted to fulfill commitments to peace with Israel.

MYTH

Israel is knowingly desecrating a Muslim holy place in Jerusalem by building a museum on top of a cemetery.top

FACT

An offshoot of the Islamic Movement in Israel petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court to halt the the Simon Wiesenthal Center from constructing a new Museum of Tolerance in the center of Jerusalem. The petitioners, from a group called “the Al-Aqsa Corporation,” claim the museum is being built on part of an ancient cemetery where 20,000 soldiers from Saladin's army are buried, and want the area recognized as an Islamic waqf. This would give them exclusive rights to any decisions regarding use of the land. This claim is very controversial because it would in effect place a Muslim enclave in the heart of West Jersualem.

Over forty years ago, an Islamic court ruled that the land was no longer sacred and could be used for construction or other purposes. Even four decades before that ruling, in 1922, the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, built a luxurious hotel on part of the land. The Mufti ruled that construction was possible if the tombs were removed and reburied in another place, and he made plans to build a Muslim university on the same tract of land.49

The cemetery has been abandoned for well over a century and, in 1964, an Islamic court ruled that its status was mundaras (erased), meaning that its holiness had expired. Muslim scholars and religious leaders have allowed the “recycling” of cemeteries that have not been used for more than a generation. The Islamic Movement, however, sees the dispute as an opportunity to claim part of Jerusalem as a Muslim enclave.

The Israel Antiquities Authority has been especially careful in removing remains found at the site for reburial. The Wiesenthal Center has also offered to re-inter all of the remains in the part of the cemetery that still exists, and plans to renovate and fence off the area.

MYTH

Hamas is a threat only to Israel.top

FACT

While attention is correctly focused on the threat Hamas poses to Israel because of its commitment to the destruction of the Jewish State, and its active involvement in terrorism to accomplish that goal, the radical Islamic organization also is viewed as a grave danger to the stability of Jordan.

The Jordanians have no illusions about Hamas and, in late April 2006, arrested several members of the organization it suspected of planning a terrorist attack against senior members of the government on orders from Hamas leaders in Damascus.50 This followed an earlier threat uncovered when Jordanian officials learned that Hamas had smuggled weapons, including bombs and rockets, into the kingdom. That discovery led Jordan to cancel a planned visit by Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar of Hamas.51

Tensions between Hamas and Jordan are nothing new. In 1998, the government warned leaders of the Islamic resistance movement in Jordan to refrain from making statements inciting violence or obstructing the Palestinian-Israeli Wye River peace deal that had just been signed. The admonition came after a Hamas bomb attack on an Israeli school bus in the Gaza Strip, and a statement by the Hamas politburo chief in Amman, Khalid Mashal, condemning the Wye agreement and vowing to continue the war against Israel.52

In 1999, five commercial offices in Amman registered under the names of Hamas leaders were closed, several of its members were detained and arrest warrants were issued for several Hamas leaders. On September 22, 1999, Khalid Mashal, Ibrahim Ghousheh, Mousa Abu Marzook, Sami Khater and Izzat Rasheq were arrested after returning from a trip to Tehran. Marzook, who held a Yemeni passport, was deported. Mashal, Khater, Rasheq and Ghousheh, all Jordanian citizens, were given the choice of being tried for membership in an illegal organization or leaving Jordan. Ultimately, the four men were deported to Qatar.53

Jordanian officials were growing increasingly worried about the close ties that Hamas was developing with the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the group’s close ties with Iran and Syria. Computer files confiscated from the Hamas offices contained sensitive information about the kingdom and Jordanian figures, records indicating that around $70 million had been transferred to Hamas from abroad over the previous five years, and the locations of arms and explosives caches around the kingdom.54

Subsequently, Hamas became an “illegal and non-Jordanian” organization whose presence was no longer tolerated.55

MYTH

“Palestinians have the right to sell land to Jews.top

FACT

In 1996, the Palestinian Authority (PA) Mufti, Ikremah Sabri, issued a fatwa (religious decree), banning the sale of Arab and Muslim property to Jews. Anyone who violated the order was to be killed. At least seven land dealers were killed that year. Six years later, the head of the PA’s General Intelligence Service in the West Bank, General Tawfik Tirawi, admitted his men were responsible for the murders.56

On May 5, 1997, Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein announced that the death penalty would be imposed on anyone convicted of ceding “one inch” to Israel. Later that month, two Arab land dealers were killed. PA officials denied any involvement in the killings. A year later, another Palestinian suspected of selling land to Jews was murdered. The PA has also arrested suspected land dealers for violating the Jordanian law (in force in the West Bank), which prohibits the sale of land to foreigners.57

During the Palestinian War, few, if any Palestinians tried to sell land to Jews, but the prohibition remained in effect. Now that the war is over, the persecutions have begun again. In April 2006, Muhammad Abu al-Hawa was tortured and murdered because allegedly sold an apartment building in Israel’s capital city to Jews. Since the Mufti forbade Muslims accused of selling land to Jews from being buried in a Muslim cemetery, al-Hawa was laid to rest in a makeshift cemetery on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho.58

In April 2009, the Chief Islamic Judge of the Palestinian Authority, Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, issued another warning against selling homes or properties to Jews.  Sheikh Tamimi reiterated that those who violated the ban, including those who rented to Jews and real estate agents and middlemen facilitating transactions, would be accused of high treason and face the death penalty. 58a Later that month, a Palestinian Authority military court found a Palestinian man guilty of selling land to Jews and sentenced him to death by hanging.58b

“There are no words to adequately condemn the despicable attack in Tel Aviv. Not only because it is contrary to the interests of the Palestinian people...[but] because of the philosophy that is behind it....A racist philosophy that is based on the cruel principle of killing Jews because they are Jews.”

— Colunnist Nazir Majali 59

 

“Hamas faced its first concrete choice this week between its ambition to govern the West Bank and Gaza and its extremist commitment to terrorism -- and it chose to side with the suicide bombers. The sickening Passover attack at a Tel Aviv restaurant Monday, which killed nine Israelis and injured dozens, was carried out by Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed extremist group that refuses to observe the shaky cease-fire Hamas has followed for more than a year. Yet, though the attack violated its own policy and undermined its interests, several of Hamas's spokesmen quickly defended it. The result was to put the Palestinian government on record as an outlaw and to raise dangerously the chances of a major new outbreak of Middle East violence.”

Washington Post 60

 

MYTH

“Israel has no justification for withholding tax monies due to the Palestinian Authority.” top

FACT

Under the Oslo interim agreement, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza are in a customs union administered by the Israeli government. Israel collects a duty on any foreign imports destined for the West Bank and Gaza as welll as a value added tax on goods and services from Israel destined for the Palestinian territories.

At the beginning of 2001, Israel decided to withhold more than $50 million in taxes it owed to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in response to the ongoing violence. U.S. officials, and others, pressured Israel to transfer the money because of the PA's dire financial straits and inability to pay many of its bills. Israel recognized that its action was harsh, but believed it was necessary to demonstrate to the Palestinians that the inability or unwillingness to stop the violence had a cost. Israel must use whatever leverage it can to protect its citizens and this economic sanction was a milder response than a military one.

While Israel's action was blamed for the sorry state of the Palestinian economy, the truth was the Arab countries suspended the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars, collected as donations, meant for the PA. The justification for the Arab states' action was their concern that the funds would be embezzled and encourage further corruption in the PA.61 For example, a Kuwaiti newspaper reported that Yasser Arafat stole more than $5 million in foreign aid intended for needy Palestinians.62

In July 2002, Israel agreed to transfer some of the tax revenues to the Palestinians as a confidence-building measure after Palestinian violence subsided, and an agreement was reached to set up a committee of U.S. representatives to oversee the transaction.63 Israel subsequently began to forward the taxes it collected to the PA, after deducting the amount owed for electricity and water bills that many Palestinians refused to pay Israeli utilities.

Case Study

The speaker of the Palestinian legislative council, and later Prime Minister, Ahmed Korei, suddenly vacated the villa he built for $1.5 million in Jericho after President Bush raised the issue of PA corruption. A sign on the door was posted that said the villa had become a welfare institution for the relatives of Palestinians killed in terror attacks.64

Following the election of Hamas in 2006, Israel again began to withhold tax revenue on the grounds that it had no obligation to help finance a government that was calling for its destruction. Furthermore, Israel argued that the agreement to remit these taxes to the PA was part of the Oslo accords that Hamas explicitly said it would not honor. The United States, the European Union and other countries also froze funding because Hamas is a terrorist group that does not recognize Israel as a country.

While Israel wants to deny Hamas the resources it needs to wage a terrorist war, the government does not want to harm the Palestinian people and therefore agreed in May 2006 to release tax revenues for humanitarian purposes, such as medicine and health needs.65

MYTH

“If Israel ends the occupation, there will be peace.” top

FACT

The mantra of the Palestinians and their supporters since 1967 has been “end the occupation.” The assumption underlying this slogan is that peace will follow the end of Israel’s “occupation.” The equally popular slogan among critics of Israeli policy has been that it should “trade land for peace.” Again, the premise being that it is simply Israel’s presence on land claimed by the Palestinians that is the impediment to peace.

The experience in Gaza has offered a stark case study of the disingenuousness of these slogans. When Israel announced the plan to evacuate Gaza, rather than cheer the unilateral end to the occupation, the Palestinians denounced disengagement and refused for months to cooperate or to take measures to ease the transition. If the Palestinians’ fervent desire was really to end Israeli control over their lives, why didn’t they cheer the disengagement and do everything possible to make it a success?

Israel has withdrawn from every inch of Gaza; not a single Israeli soldier or civilian remains. The evacuation came at great emotional and financial cost. And what has the end of “the occupation” brought Israel? Has it received peace in exchange for the land? No, to the contrary, the Palestinian answer to meeting their demands has not been quiet, but a barrage of rocket fire. Since September 12, 2005, 770 Kassam rockets have been fired, more than 100 since the weekend of June 10, 2006.66

Fortunately, these rockets are relatively inaccurate and have caused minimal death and destruction, but that is beside the point. What nation would hold its fire if its population was under daily attack from missiles? The ongoing rocket fire disrupts the lives of Israelis, traumatizes the children, and amounts to an act of war.

It has been a testament to Israel’s restraint that it has not mounted a large-scale military operation to this point to end the threat to its citizens. The Palestinian Authority has ceased to exist in Gaza; now it is simply a wild west outpost for terrorist factions to fight for power and provoke Israel. Time is running out for the Palestinian leadership to exert control or face the consequences.

Slogans are good for bumper stickers and sound bites, but they are irrelevant to the future of Israel and its neighbors. Israelis have repeatedly shown a desire for peace, and a willingness to make painful sacrifices, but nothing they do will end the conflict. The escalation of violence not only has occurred following Israel’s evacuation of Gaza but after the Israeli Prime Minister expressed his intention to withdraw from virtually the entire West Bank. Peace will be possible only when the Palestinians and other Muslims and Arabs demonstrate by their deeds their willingness to live beside a Jewish state.

“I extend my hand in peace to Mahmoud Abbas, elected President of the Palestinian Authority. On behalf of the State of Israel, we are willing to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority.”

— Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Speech to Congress67

 

“If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we've had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals....If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach.”

— Al-Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh on academic boycotts of Israel 68

 

“The responsibility for this escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rests with the Palestinians who have yet again turned their backs on peace. Rather than take the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza as an opportunity to build a future for their children, they instead refused to relinquish their embrace of a culture of hate and death.”

— Editorial, Chicago Sun Times69

 

“When Cpl. Gilad Shalit was abducted by the military wing of Mr. Haniyeh's Hamas movement last weekend, his administration faced a choice. It could behave like a civilized government — and work to free the hostage — or align itself with a terrorist operation. It chose the latter. Hamas government officials endorsed the militants' demand that Israel release Palestinian prisoners it has legally arrested in exchange for a soldier who was attacked while guarding Israeli territory. Hamas justified this position by citing the terrorist movement Hizballah, which has extracted prisoners from Israel in exchange for hostages, as well as governments that exchange POWs in wartime. Fair enough. But if Hamas wants to be equated with Hizballah or define itself as at war with Israel, then Israel has every right to try to destroy the Islamic movement's military capacity, to capture its leaders...and to topple its government. Isn't that what happens in war?”

— Editorial, Washington Post 70

 

MYTH

“Israel deliberately targets Lebanese civilians.” top

FACT

Israel does not target civilians. Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and no dispute with the people or government of Lebanon. Israel’s enemy is Hizballah, a terrorist organization that has been launching unprovoked attacks against Israelis since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000.

It is one of the horrible consequences of war that civilians die. In Lebanon, Israel has gone to great lengths to avoid harming civilians. What other army drops leaflets telling civilians to leave an area, thereby giving away the element of surprise, in the interest of protecting innocents?

Let the critics of Israel’s campaign explain how they would respond to a barrage of more than 1,400 rockets on their cities. How would they stop the rockets without hurting any noncombatants when the rockets are being fired from civilian neighborhoods rather than military bases?

Meanwhile, look carefully at the television pictures of the destruction in places such as Beirut. While the commentary by reporters often suggests Israel has bombed targets indiscriminately, what is remarkable is how precise the attacks actually have been. Frequently you see only a single building or a couple of structures damaged while the rest of the area is untouched. Israel could have easily leveled entire neighborhoods, but it did not.

Listen carefully as well. When reporters go to neighborhoods in Lebanon they are being guided by men from Hizballah who show them only what they want the reporters to see and tell them what Hizballah wants them to hear. The Hizballah terrorist says the building was a civilian residence, but the reporter has no way of knowing what was in the buildings, whether it was a rocket workshop, a hiding place for katyushas, the home of a Hizballah leader, or a command center. In fact, he doesn’t even know if the Israel was responsible for the destruction that he is shown. Does it make any sense that Israel would pick out a single residence in a Beirut neighborhood to bomb for no reason?

And notice too that the only people around are from Hizballah. The civilians are gone, so when the Hizballah terrorist tells the reporter they have to keep moving because the Israelis might strike, he knows that he and his fellow terrorists are the only targets.

Tragically, many civilians have died, but history has shown that the terrorists are very good at fabricating statistics. At one point, it was reported that something like 300 civilians had been killed and only one member of Hizballah. Does it seem plausible that in all of Israel’s attacks it only managed to kill one terrorist? Is everyone a civilian that the Lebanese claim is a civilian?

In war, mistakes are sometimes made. In some cases, troops kill each other in friendly fire incidents. In others, civilians die, as was the case when the United States killed 48 people at a wedding during fighting in Afghanistan. No one seriously believed the United States bombers had targeted people celebrating a marriage and no one should believe Israel has any reason to target trucks of food and medicine as the Lebanese president has alleged, or any other purely civilian target.

Besides the ethical and moral restraints, Israel has very good political reasons not to hurt noncombatants. Israeli officials know that a mistake leading to a large number of civilian casualties will hurt their image and provoke greater demands that they cease-fire before accomplishing their military objectives. An Israeli pilot openly admitted this consideration:

 

It’s strange how the focus in these missions is not to succeed, hit the target precisely, but rather – not to make any mistakes. The message is clear all the way from the Squadron commander to the last pilot. One mistake can jeopardize the whole war, like Kfar-Kana, in one of the last operations in Lebanon, where artillery bombarded a refugee camp, killing over 100 people, which resulted in international pressure that halted the operation. Hitting the target is expected, no misses are acceptable.71

The main reasons Lebanese civilians are in danger have nothing to do with Israel. First, the Lebanese government failed to fulfill its obligation under UN Security Council Resolution 1559 to disarm Hizballah and deploy its army in southern Lebanon. Second, Hizballah has so little regard for civilians that it purposely bases its weapons and fighters in their homes and neighborhoods where they will be put at risk. Third, the civilians themselves have allowed Hizballah to create a state within Lebanon and to carry out terrorist attacks. Finally, if Hizballah had not attacked Israel, not a single Lebanese civilian would have been hurt. If Hizballah returns the soldiers it kidnaped and disarms, not one more civilian will die.

“The criticism that Israeli attacks aimed at Hezbollah are disproportionate is lazy and facile in several ways, especially in implying a moral relativism between the two sides that does not exist. This is not the contest between misguided equals that many in the West seem to see. One is the region’s lone democracy, which for much of its existence has faced a very real existential threat and would like, if possible, to live in peace with its neighbours. The other is a terrorist organization, bent on preventing such a future. ”

— Editorial, London Times72

 

MYTH

“Israel should exchange Arab prisoners for soldiers kidnapped by Hamas and Hizballah.” top

FACT

The fighting that broke out between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and Israel and Hizballah in Lebanon in 2006, was provoked by longstanding threats by the terrorist organizations against Israel’s civilian population. The final straw that stimulated Israel’s military campaign was the kidnapping of three soldiers. The kidnappers demanded that Israel release prisoners in exchange for the soldiers they were holding.

The people in Israeli jails are there because they were involved in terrorist activities and many committed heinous crimes. In an effort to win greater sympathy for their gambit, Hamas asked for the release of women and children, giving the impression that housewives and toddlers were being unfairly imprisoned. Out of the 109 women and 313 juveniles then in prison, 64 women and 91 juveniles “have blood on their hands.” Palestinian prisoners under the age of 18 threw Molotov cocktails, transported weapons and associated with terrorist organizations. The women planned suicide attacks, prepared bombs and assisted suicide bombers; they also attacked Israeli soldiers and joined terrorist organizations. Ahlan Tanimi, for example, brought the bomb that murdered 16 in the Sbarro pizza restaurant in Jerusalem. Kahira Sa’adi drove a terrorist to King George Avenue, where he blew up three people. Hanady Jaradats killed 21 in the Maxim restaurant in Haifa.73

The focus of Hizballah’s demand was the release of Samir Kuntar. He was captured in 1979 and tried and convicted for the murder of Danny Haran and his 4-year-old daughter Einat, and for killing two Israeli policemen. Upon taking them hostage, Kuntar shot the father dead at close range in front of his daughter. He then smashed the girl’s head, killing her. He was sentenced to multiple life terms, amounting to 542 years in prison.73a

It is true that Israel has exchanged prisoners for soldiers in the past, often in lopsided trades of dozens of prisoners for a handful of Israelis. Sometimes the Israelis have already been killed and the nation is just trying to retrieve the bodies of its soldiers. These cases demonstrated how much Israel values the lives of its citizens, and reflect the IDF policy of leaving no soldier — dead or alive — on the battlefield.

This sense of obligation explains the deal struck on July 16, 2008 in which Israel agreed to trade Samir Kuntar, along with five other Lebanese militants, in return for the bodies of its fallen soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, both killed after being kidnapped by Hizballah, and information regarding missing Israeli airman Ron Arad, who disappeared when his jet went down over Lebanon in 1986. The report on Arad contained no new information and said Hizballah did not know what happened to Arad, but they believe he is dead.

Meanwhile, Kuntar, the murderer, was given a hero’s welcome in Beirut and his release was praised by Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas.

The decision to make the trade was a painful and difficult one for Israel. The idea of releasing prisoners like Kuntar is odious to Israelis. Moreover, prisoner exchanges are dangerous because they increase the risk that the terrorists will see kidnapping as a weapon to use repeatedly to force Israel to make concessions. It also lessens the terrorists’ incentive to keep hostages alive.

The latest prisoner exchange has emboldened Hamas to increase its demands for the return of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. “We have to take advantage of this to release our prisoners,” said Gaza strongman Mahmoud Zahar.73b

MYTH

“The media is fairly and accurately covering the war in Lebanon.” top

FACT

During the last war in Lebanon, disinformation was the norm and Israel’s enemies learned that they could disseminate lies that the media would not investigate, that they could exaggerate Israeli actions, and that reporters could be manipulated by controlling their access. This pattern is now repeating itself in coverage of Israel’s war with Hizballah terrorists.

Reporters covering the war from Lebanon have been particularly egregious in revealing their own biases based, it seems, on having been based in the country and developing sympathies for their subjects. More serious, however, has been the way some of these correspondents have allowed themselves to be used by Hizballah. In the first Lebanon war, the PLO threatened reporters and made favorable coverage the price of access. Hizballah learned from their example and now influences much of what reporters can see and say.

CNN’s Nic Robertson, for example, was taken to an area of Beirut and told that the rubble of buildings was a result of Israeli air strikes on civilian targets. He repeated the allegation as fact. He had no way of knowing what was in the buildings, whether it was a rocket workshop, a hiding place for katyushas, the home of a Hizballah leader, or a command center. In fact, he didn’t even know if Israel was responsible for the destruction that he was shown.

Robertson later admitted that his report had been influenced by his Hizballah guide. He acknowledged that he had been told what to film and where. “They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath.” Robertson said Hizballah controls south Beirut. “You don’t get in there without their permission. We didn’t have enough time to see if perhaps there was somebody there who was, you know, a taxi driver by day, and a Hizballah fighter by night.” Unlike what he said on air during his guided reports, Robertson told CNN’s Reliable Sources, “there's no doubt that the bombs there are hitting Hizballah facilities.”74

Robertson’s CNN colleague, Anderson Cooper, is one of the journalists who has been consistently fair and balanced. He also has not hesitated to point out Hizballah's mendacity. He said the group was “just making things up,” and gave as one example a tour he was given in which Hizballah had lined up some ambulances. They were told to turn on their sirens and then the ambulances drove off as if they were picking up wounded civilians when, in fact, they were simply going back and forth.75

Time Magazine contributor Christopher Albritton made clear that reporters understand the rules of the game. “To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hizballah is launching Katyushas, but I’m loath to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.”76

Under no duress whatsoever, the Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks made perhaps the most outrageous charge of the war when he claimed that Israel is intentionally leaving Hizballah launchers intact because having Israeli civilians killed helps Israel in the public relations war.77

Israel’s image is also being tarred by suggestions that it is targeting Lebanese Christian areas, intimating that Israel is killing innocent Christians and is not restricting its attacks to the Shiite Muslims of Hizballah. CNN reported, for example, an Israeli strike “on the edge of the city’s mostly Christian eastern district” that killed 10 people. In the next paragraph, however, the report says Israel hit “a building near a mosque” (emphasis added)78

Photographs can be especially powerful, but they can also be misleading or outright fakes. In the last Lebanon war, for example, the Washington Post published a photograph (August 2, 1982) of a baby that appeared to have lost both its arms. The UPI caption said that the seven-month-old had been severely burned when an Israeli jet accidentally hit a Christian residential area. The photo and the caption, however, were inaccurate. The baby did not lose its arms, and the burns the child suffered were the result of a PLO attack on East Beirut.

A similarly dramatic photo of a baby pulled from the rubble of a building in Qana that appeared on front pages around the world is now being challenged as a fake.79 One of the photographers involved, Adnan Hajj, was discovered to have doctored at least two photographs, one of which was changed to show more and darker smoke rising from buildings in Beirut bombed by Israel, and the other changed the image of an Israeli jet so it showed three flares being discharged instead of one. Reuters admitted the photos had been changed, suspended the photographer, and removed all of his photographs from its database.80 This incident should make editors and viewers alike suspicious of images being disseminated by freelance Arab photographers and videographers who are engaging in propaganda rather than photo-journalism.

It is also conceivable that some of the scenes that reporters are being shown have been staged. It is difficult to prove without access to the raw footage of the photographers, but anyone who doubts that this is part of the strategy of Israel’s enemies need only look at the examples of Palestinians choreographing events in the territories documented on The Second Draft web site.

Reporters in Lebanon also continue to exaggerate the destruction in Beirut and elsewhere by showing tight shots of buildings hit in Israeli air strikes and rebroadcasting the same images repeatedly. “You would think Beirut has begun to resemble Dresden and Hamburg in the aftermath of Second World War air raids,” observed former Sunday Telegraph correspondent Tom Gross. But, Gross notes, “a careful look at aerial satellite photos of the areas targeted by Israel in Beirut shows that certain specific buildings housing Hizballah command centers in the city’s southern suburbs have been singled out. Most of the rest of Beirut, apart from strategic sites such as airport runways used to ferry Hizballah weapons in and out of Lebanon, has been left pretty much untouched.”81

Qana was also an example of how the press immediately reports whatever statistics they are fed by Lebanese officials. Again, we learned in the last war that these figures are usually inflated and the press rarely bothers to verify them. Front page stories around the world said that 57 civilians were killed when Israel bombed a building it believed to be empty. While still tragic, the actual casualty figure was only 28. Moreover, most accounts failed to mention the building was in an area where 150 rocket attacks on Israel had originated.

While an Israeli strike that killed UN observers drew headlines, little attention was given to reports that Hizballah was using the UN posts as shields. A Canadian soldier with UNIFIL, for example, reported that his team could observe “most of the Hizballah static positions in and around our patrol base” and noted that Israeli ordnance that fell near the base was not a result of deliberate targeting, but “has rather been due to tactical necessity.”82

Over the years, the Arabs have learned one sure-fire way to get media attention is to scream “massacre” when Israelis are in the neighborhood. On August 7, news outlets repeated Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s claim that Israel had committed a “massacre” by killing 40 people in an air raid on the village of Houla. Later, it was learned that one person had died.83 Throughout the fighting Siniora’s statements to the media have suggested that Israel has unique weaponry that only hits civilians and never terrorists.

Turning momentarily away from the carnage of war, some reporters have suggested that Israeli attacks have created environmental problems in Lebanon. Meanwhile, little attention has been devoted to the ecological damage caused by fires sparked by Katyusha rockets that have destroyed 16,500 acres of forests and grazing fields.

The press is also spending a great deal of time talking to Lebanese civilians and their relatives in the United States and highlighting the difficult conditions they are enduring. This is no doubt the case since they are living in a war zone; however, the media has spent almost no time talking to the Israelis living under the constant threat of rocket attacks. Few reporters have gone into the bomb shelters to interview the frightened Israeli families. No one seems interested in how the relatives of Israelis in the United States feel about their loved ones living under siege.

Similarly, initial reports focused on the Americans living in Lebanon while no one seems interested in the 120,000 North Americans living in Israel. It is terrible that tourists and students had to be evacuated from Lebanon, but what about those same groups in Israel? How many reporters talked to the hundreds of students on summer tours and programs in Israel, many of whom were in the north when the violence escalated? While the complications of leaving the country may not be as severe as in Lebanon, it is still very difficult to arrange a quick exit from Israel, and many American parents are in a state of panic worrying about their family and friends in Israel.

Here are some facts that the media has neglected:

  • Two million Israelis are now living under threat of rockets, including approximately 700,000 Israeli Arabs.
  • Altogether, more than 300,000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes.
  • Fifteen percent of the entire Israeli population is living in bomb shelters.
  • Approximately 5,500 homes have been damaged by Hizballah rockets.
  • Israel’s tourist industry, which had finally started to recover from the Palestinian War, is again being devastated.
  • Towns that are home to important sites of the three major religions have come under fire, including Tiberias, Nazareth and Safed.

Wars are never easy to cover, and each side of a conflict wants to make its case through the media. A responsible press, however, does not repeat whatever it hears, it first makes every effort to insure the accuracy of its reporting. That is the standard expected of journalists covering the war between Israel and Hizballah.

MYTH

“Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians during the war instigated by Hizballah.” top

FACT

Three weeks after the beginning of the war initiated by Hizballah on July 12, 2006, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report that charged Israel with indiscriminate attacks against civilians in Lebanon.”84 Nothing in the report was based on first-hand knowledge of HRW; rather it was gathered from interviews with “eye-witnesses and survivors” of Israeli strikes who “told HRW that neither Hizballah fighters nor other legitimate military targets were in the area that the IDF attacked.” The HRW staff added for emphasis that they did not see “any signs of military activity in the area[s] attacked, such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers, other military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters.”

If the investigators did not find evidence of Hizballah’s presence at bomb sites, it does not necessarily follow that the terrorists had not been there since it is possible that any weapons, documents or bodies were removed before HRW arrived on the scene. As Joshua Muravchik observed, “There was no dependable method by which HRW could assess the veracity of what it was told by the ‘witnesses,’ many of whom were in areas where the population was sympathetic to, or intimidated by Hizballah. Indeed, there was no means by which it could be sure that they were not Hizballah cadres, since members of the group do not ordinarily wear uniforms or display identity badges.”85

HRW also has no evidence for the scurrilous accusation that civilians were “deliberately” killed. Unless the investigators are mind readers, they could not divine Israeli intentions. Moreover, it is easy to find a great deal of evidence to show the efforts Israel made to avoid harming noncombatants, such as the dropping of leaflets to warn civilians to evacuate locations before they were attacked, the pinpoint attacks of buildings in neighborhoods that could more easily have been carpet-bombed, and the reports of Israeli pilots and others who withheld fire because of the presence of civilians in target areas.

When challenged about the group’s methods, HRW director Kenneth Roth said, essentially, trust me. Anyone watching TV, however, saw the images of rockets being fired from civilian areas, and the photos of weapons and armed men in what should have been peaceful neighborhoods. Numerous witnesses also told reporters very different stories than those reported by HRW, giving examples of weapons caches in mosques and fighters using UN troops as shields.86 HRW had no trouble accepting the word of the Lebanese people it interviewed, but gave no credence to evidence presented by Israel, such as weapons captured in fighting in civilian areas or videos showing the deployment and launching of rockets from areas that were attacked.

Two days after the release of their report on Israel, and while being subjected to serious criticism for having double standards, a relatively short statement (7 pages compared to 51 on Lebanon) was released by HRW.87 Rockets had already been falling on Israel for three weeks before Roth managed to call on Hizballah’s to stop its attacks and declare that “Lobbing rockets blindly into civilian areas is without doubt a war crime.” Even in this report documenting strikes on Israeli hospitals, educational institutions, businesses and civilian homes, HRW couldn’t resist reiterating its charges against Israel.

The decision by HRW to treat Israel as the main culprit in this war also entailed a studied refusal to make basic moral and legal distinctions. The group did not differentiate between Hizballah’s action in initiating the conflict and Israel's reaction in self-defense, nor between Hizballah’s openly announced and deliberate targeting of civilians and Israel’s efforts to avoid civilian casualties by, for example, appealing to Lebanese civilians to evacuate areas it intended to attack (and thereby giving up the element of surprise and increasing the risk to its own troops).

Most remarkably, HRW did not take note of the contrasting goals of the combatants. One of Hizballah’s declared aims is to destroy Israel, while Israel's goal was to survive and to protect its citizens. HRW justifies this self-imposed moral blindness on the grounds that its touchstone is law, not morality.

The spurious allegations made by HRW, as well as similar ones published by Amnesty International, were further undermined by a report issued in November 2006 by the Intelligence and Terrorism Center at the Israeli Center for Special Studies. This publication provides extensive documentation and photographic evidence of “Hizballah’s consistent pattern of intentionally placing its fighters and weapons among civilians.” It also shows that Hizballah was “well aware of the civilian casualties that would ensue” from this activity.

MYTH

“A unity Palestinian government will reinvigorate the peace process.” top

FACT

Israel has been hoping since the death of Yasser Arafat that a Palestinian leader who would emerge with the vision and courage to pursue peace negotiations. The hope was that Mahmoud Abbas was that leader, however, he has proven over the last two years to be unable to control the Palestinian Authority, and he is therefore incapable of negotiating any agreement that Israelis could expect to be implemented.

The election of Hamas to power further undermined the position of Abbas, and worsened the overall situation of the Palestinians as the international community has withheld most of its financial and political support for the PA unless and until Hamas agrees to recognize Israel, end its campaign of terror and agree to fulfill past agreements signed with Israel. Though Abbas has repeatedly offered to form a unity government with Hamas, and said that it was prepared to meet those conditions, Hamas has adamantly refused to do so.

As recently as September 21, 2006, Abbas told the UN General Assembly that a Hamas-Fatah government would recognize Israel. Hamas denied this, however, and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh reiterated his opposition to recognizing Israel’s right to exist and reasserted the Palestinians’ intention to continue their “resistance.” Haniyeh also urged moderate Arab countries not to support U.S. policy just as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was meeting in Egypt with Arab allies in an effort to revive the road map.88

The only way that a unity Palestinian government can become a partner for peace is if the Hamas half of the government effectively ceases to reflect the core values of the organization expressed in its covenant, which calls for Israel’s destruction.

For now, the Palestinians cannot even make peace among themselves. Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades threatened to kill all of Hamas’ leaders, including Haniyeh, and 11 Palestinians were killed and more than 150 were wounded in battles between the rival Palestinian groups.89 In addition to either instigating the violence or being unable to stop it, Abbas has also failed to secure the release of the Israeli soldier still being held by Hamas. None of these developments inspire confidence that an Abbas-led government, unified or not, can advance the peace process.

MYTH

“Saudi Arabia has proposed a new formula for a comprehensive peace.” top

FACT

In an effort to jumpstart the peace process, Saudi Arabia has resurrected the idea of negotiating with Israel on the basis of a formula outlined by then Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002. Abdullah’s ideas were revised and adopted by the Arab League as a peace initiative that offered Israel “normal relations” in exchange for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders and resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue.

In response to the renewed discussion of the plan in March 2007, Prime Minister Olmert expressed a willingness to talk about the Saudi initiative. When the plan was brought up a few months earlier, Olmert reportedly met secretly with a member of the Saudi royal family.90 More recently, Israel tried to persuade the Saudis to modify the plan’s position on the refugees to make it more palatable, but the Palestinians objected to any changes.

For the plan to have any chance of serving as a starting point for negotiations, the Saudis and other Arab League members will have to negotiate directly with Israel. In 2002, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he would go the Arab League summit to discuss the plan, but he was not invited. The Saudis were also been invited to Jerusalem to discuss their proposal, but they rejected this idea as well.

As it is, this initiative is nothing more than a restatement of the Arab interpretation of UN Resolution 242. The problem is that 242 does not say what the Saudi plan demands of Israel. The resolution calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the war, not “all” the territories in exchange for peace.

In addition, Resolution 242 also says that every state has the right to live within “secure and recognizable boundaries,” which all military analysts have understood to mean the 1967 borders with modifications to satisfy Israel’s security requirements. Moreover, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw before the Arabs agree to live in peace.

The Arab plan calls for Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. The Israeli government has offered to withdraw from most, if not all of the Golan in exchange for a peace agreement; however, Syrian President Bashar Assad has so far been unwilling to negotiate at all with Israel.

The demand that Israel withdraw from “the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon” is at odds with the UN conclusion that Israel has completely fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from Lebanese territory.

The Arab initiative calls for a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem based on the nonbinding UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Today, the UNRWA says that 4.3. million Palestinians are refugees. The current population of Israel is approximately 7 million, 5 million of whom are Jews. If the Palestinians all returned, the population would exceed 10 million and the proportion of Jews and Palestinian Arabs would be roughly 60-40. Given the higher Arab birth rate, Israel would soon cease to be a Jewish state and would de facto become a second Palestinian state (along with the one expected to be created on the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This suicidal formula has been rejected by Israel since the end of the 1948 war and is totally unacceptable to all Israelis today. Israel does, however, recognize a right for all the refugees to live in a future Palestinian state.

Israel has agreed to allow some Palestinian refugees to live in Israel on a humanitarian basis, and as part of family reunification. Thousands have returned already this way. In the past, Israel has repeatedly expressed a willingness to accept as many as 100,000 refugees as part of a resolution of the issue. In fact, one government report said that Israel accepted 140,000 refugees in the decade following the Oslo agreement of 1993.91

The refugee issue was not part of Abdullah’s original proposal and was added at the summit under pressure from other delegations. Also, it is important to note that Resolution 242 says nothing about the Palestinians and the reference to refugees can also be applied to the Jews who fled and were driven from their homes in Arab countries. Another change from Abdullah’s previously stated vision was a retreat from a promise of full normalization of relations with Israel to an even vaguer pledge of “normal relations.”

The Arab demand that Israel accept the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital has been part of the negotiations since Oslo. Israel’s leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have accepted the idea of creating a Palestinian state in part of those territories, and Israel has even offered compromises on the status of Jerusalem, but the Palestinians have rejected them all.

It is also worth noting that most of the Arab League nations have no reason not to be at peace with Israel now. Israel holds none of their territory and is more than willing to make peace with the members of the League. Several members of the League had already begun to normalize relations with Israel before the latest outbreak of violence, and their principal critic was Saudi Arabia.

MYTH

“A report proves Israeli settlements are built on Palestinian land.” top

FACT

A report disseminated by Peace Now charged that “Palestinians privately own nearly 40% of the land on which the settlements have been built.”92 This sensational allegation, however, is not supported by any evidence and was subsequently undermined by data released by the government. The Peace Now study stated as fact data that it admitted was leaked to the organization by a government official. When asked to produce any of the data to backup the claims, the coauthor of the study said he could not do so and that it was up to the Israeli government to release the information. The result is that the organization has put an inflammatory allegation out before the public without presenting any documentation to back it up.

Without giving readers any information to evaluate the report’s accuracy and reliability, it is impossible to verify the conclusions. If the data was made available, it is likely that arguments would be made about the ownership of the land. As Steve Erlanger noted in the New York Times, “The definitions of private and state land are complicated, given different administrations of the West Bank going back to the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate, Jordan and now Israel. During the Ottoman Empire, only small areas of the West Bank were registered to specific owners, and often villagers would hold land in common to avoid taxes. The British began a more formal land registry based on land use, taxation or house ownership that continued through the Jordanian period.”93

Palestinians can and often do challenge Israeli land seizures in court. In fact, the Peace Now report reviews the case of Elon More in which Palestinians petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice and the justices prevented private land from being seized for the establishment of a settlement. Often, however, the Palestinians cannot prove ownership of land they claim. Moreover, while Peace Now makes a distinction, the Palestinians do not see any difference between the West Bank and Israel proper, which they also claim was stolen and belongs to them.

The Civil Administration, from which the data was leaked, also challenged the report’s accuracy, noting that much of the land believed to be privately held was actually state land. The government agency also said it carries out “an in-depth reexamination of the status of the land in order to ensure that no harm comes to or use is made of privately held Palestinian land for the needs of Israeli settlement.”94

Not surprisingly, the Times put the incendiary story on the front page, but, as has become typical of the “Paper of Record’s” shabby reporting, Erlanger failed to verify the information. He said only that the paper “spoke to the person who received it from the Civil Administration official.” So Erlanger did not see the original documents and did not get a second source, as journalistic ethics require, to verify unsubstantiated claims put out by a partisan organization.

Several months later, the government released data that cast the entire Peace Now report in doubt. One of the findings the original report sensationalized was that 86 percent of the largest Israeli community in the West Bank, Ma’ale Adumim, was built on private Palestinian land. The government data, however, showed that only 0.5 percent of the settlement is on private land. The response of the Peace Now study’s author was to blame the military for not releasing the data earlier.94a

At one level, the accuracy of the report is irrelevant. The authors’ primary interest was in tarring the Israeli government, and that goal was aided by the Times, which cooperated by publishing the story in advance of the report’s official release, before anyone could respond and without checking its veracity. Furthermore, even if the data would have shown that 100% of the land belonged to Jews, it would not have mattered because Peace Now believes, despite nearly 60 years of evidence to the contrary (including the recent disengagement from Gaza), that settlements are the obstacle to peace.

Every Israeli wants “peace now,” but it will not be achieved by trying to embarrass the government. Even if data is eventually released to substantiate some or all of the claims in the Peace Now report, it will not change the dynamics of the region; Hamas, Hizballah and Iran will be no more likely to accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. It will not even have much impact on the settlements as the tens of thousands of Jews living in the larger consensus settlements such as Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel, whose land is alleged to belong in part to Palestinians, will not be evacuated. If Palestinian claims could be proven, at worst, Israel would be expected to compensate the landowners, as it has in the past, and it will deservedly receive a black eye. Most people, however, will also understand that the situation that exists in the West Bank has always been first and foremost the result of the decision of Jordan to attack Israel in 1967 and has persisted because of the refusal of any Palestinian leader to trade peace for land.

“It's easy enough for global leaders to issue flowery appeals for action on the Middle East or to imply that progress would be possible if only the United States used its leverage with Israel. The stubborn reality is that there can be no movement toward peace until a Palestinian leadership appears that is ready to accept a two-state soluiton.”

— Editorial, Washington Post 95

MYTH

“The overwhelming majority of casualties in the war with Hizballah were civilians.” top

FACT

Throughout the 2006 war with Hizballah, the media reported casualty totals offered by Lebanese officials as facts with no apparent effort to verify them. When the number of Hizballah terrorists killed was mentioned at all, it was invariably with a qualifier such as “Israel says” or “Israel claims.” The evidence suggests, however, that it is likely that half or more of the casualties were not innocent civilians, but Hizballah fighters.

According to Lebanon’s Higher Relief Council, the total number of Lebanese who died in the war was 1,191.96 No distinctions are made between civilians and terrorists. Press reports usually ignored the fact that it was in Hizballah and the Lebanese government’s interest to exaggerate the number of civilian casualties to blacken the image of Israel and support their contention that Israeli attacks were disproportionate and indiscriminate. Simultaneously, Hizballah sought to conceal its casualties to enhance its prestige and make propagandistic claims about the damage it was inflicting on Israel while suffering few losses of its own.

The truth did dribble out, though it was largely ignored. For example, the Daily Telegraph reported: “Lebanese officials estimate that up to 500 fighters have been killed in the past three weeks of hostilities with Israel, and another 1,500 injured. Lebanese officials have also disclosed that many of Hizballah’s wounded are being treated in hospitals in Syria to conceal the true extent of the casualties. ‘Hizballah is desperate to conceal its casualties because it wants to give the impression that it is winning its war,’ said a senior security official. ‘People might reach a very different conclusion if they knew the true extent of Hizballah’s casualties.’”97 The Kuwait Times quoted a report that said Hizballah “buried more than 700 fighters so far, with many more to go.”98 Military expert John Keegan said Hizballah losses might have been as high as 1,000 out of a total strength of 5,000.99

These sources are consistent with information provided by Israel. Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror, a former senior officer in Israeli military intelligence, said “Israel identified 440 dead guerillas by name and address, and experience shows that Israeli figures are half to two-thirds of the enemy’s real casualties. Therefore, Amidror estimated, Hizballah’s real death toll might be as high as 700.”100 A subsequent report three weeks later said that Israel had identified the names of 532 dead Hizballah terrorists and estimated at least 200 others had been killed.101

These reports suggest that at a minimum, roughly half the casualties in the war were combatants. It is more likely the figure approaches 60 percent, which would mean the majority of dead were terrorists. This reinforces the Israeli position that it did indeed inflict heavy losses on Hizballah and that the civilian casualties were not a result of deliberate or indiscriminate attacks. Tragically, many civilians were killed, but as Israel has also shown, many of them died because they were used as human shields. Of course, there would have been zero casualties if Hizballah had not attacked Israel and kidnaped its soldiers (who have still not been returned or visited by the Red Cross).

“The major difficulty is that the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist.”

— British Prime Minister Tony Blair102

 

“What is urgently needed is decisive steps by the U.S. and its allies to counter the extremists and to force them to pay a price for their aggression. Passage of a UN sanctions resolution against Iran cannot be put off any longer. The Security Council should also be prodded to investigate whether Damascus has respected its resolutions calling for Hizballah's disarmament and an end to Syrian weapons trafficking. ‘Realism’ in the Middle East means understanding that Syria and Iran won't stop waging war against the U.S. and its allies unless they are given reasons to fear they might lose.”

Washington Post editorial 103

 

“We offered the Syrians peace four times, including withdrawing from the Golan Heights, and it didn’t happen four times. It's true that this was during the days of his father Hafez, but now he has to prove that this is what he wants. A statesman is examined according to his deeds, not according to his declarations.”

— Shimon Peres104

MYTH

“Abbas is helpless to stop the terrorists.” top

FACT

The media has helped create the misperception that the Palestinian Authority (PA) cannot dismantle the terrorist network in its midst because of the strength and popularity of the radical Islamic Palestinian terrorist groups.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not huge armed forces. Together, the armed wings of both organizations total fewer than 5,000 men. By contrast, the PA has 45,000 people in a variety of police, intelligence, and security forces.105 Not only does the PA have overwhelming superiority of manpower and firepower, it also has the intelligence assets to find most, if not all of the terrorists.

Given the disparity of forces, the Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian affairs correspondent, Khaled Abu Toameh, asked “Why then, doesn’t [PA President Mahmoud] Abbas simply order thousands of his policemen to deploy along the border with Israel to halt the Kassam attacks? How come he hasn’t even made the slightest effort to stop the smuggling of tons of explosives from Egypt into the Gaza Strip?”106

Toameh answers the questions himself. “Abbas lacks the will — not the ability — to take harsh decisions. In fact, he appears comfortable with the image of a weak leader low on funds and resources.”

Despite the suffering the terrorists have brought them, the Palestinian public has not called for an end to the violence. No equivalent to Israel’s Peace Now movement has emerged.

Still, on an individual basis, it is possible for Palestinians to say no to terror. When the suicide bombing recruiter phoned the wife of former Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi to ask if her son was available for an operation, she turned him down.107

In other countries, including Israel (where they helped prompt a withdrawal from Lebanon), mothers have often helped stimulate positive change. When enough Palestinian mothers stand up to the terror recruiters, and to their political leaders, and say that they will no longer allow their children to be used as bombs, the prospects for peace will improve. So long as they prefer their children to be martyrs rather than doctors, bombers rather than scholars, and murderers rather than lawyers, the violence will persist, young Palestinians will continue to die needlessly and peace will remain a dream.

MYTH

“Israel is obstructing progress toward a Palestinian state.” top

FACT

Newspaper headlines in mid-January 2007 said it all: “Palestinian Opposes Provisional State” (New York Times, January 14) and “Abbas Rejects ‘Temporary Borders’ for Palestine” (Washington Post, January15). Israel once again offered to move the peace process forward and advanced ideas to allow the Palestinians to achieve independence before the thorniest issues are resolved, but Mahmoud Abbas, following in the footsteps of his mentor Yasser Arafat, chose to prove again the Palestinian penchant for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Abbas not only rejected the chance for peace and interim statehood, he declared his continued support for violence against Israel. Speaking at the 42nd anniversary of the founding of Fatah on January 11, 2007, in Ramallah, Abbas said, “Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let our rifles, all our rifles, all our rifles, be aimed at the Occupation.” Paying tribute to Arafat, Abbas continued, “I say to the master of the martyrs your sons will continue your march. I say to you, your lion cubs will continue this struggle, this battle until a Palestinian state is established on the land of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Abbas also used the type of anti-Semitic rhetoric normally associated with Hamas. While criticizing Israeli counter-terror operations, he said, “The sons of Israel are mentioned as those who are corrupting humanity on earth.”108

At the very moment when the United States, Israel and Europe are trying to strengthen his position against Hamas in the belief that he will act to stop terror, Abbas was condoning attacks against Israel. Just days before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived to ask him to fulfill his commitments under the road map for peace, Abbas announced he supported the very actions the road map calls for him to stop. This is the familiar tactic of Palestinians who pretend to be moderates in English for the Western press and then express their true feelings in Arabic to the Palestinian public.

The priority for Abbas today is not peace or improving the lives of the Palestinian people that he is responsible for as president of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas is now just trying to survive. To do so, he must unify the factions fighting for dominance. Since he is unwilling to confront his opponents militarily, he hopes to cajole them to cease their mutiny against him by playing the Israel card. He is asking for unity to fight against their common enemy – Israel. Simultaneously, he seeks the means to stay in power from the West by presenting himself as the only alternative to Hamas. And it is working because he is being armed and financed even as he continues to allow the attacks against Israel to continue.

The Palestinians’ latest rejection of an offer for statehood can now be added to the long list of missed opportunities starting as far back as 1937. Will the Palestinian people ever choose a leader who will put their interests first and choose prosperity over power, peace over violence and the future over the past?

MYTH

“Israeli Arabs are unpatriotic.” top

FACT

While Jimmy Carter and other critics of Israel attempt to paint the country as intolerant and discriminatory toward Arabs based on their ill-informed and distorted views of both the past and present, Israeli Arabs themselves have a very high opinion of their country. According to a new poll released in January 2007109, 82 percent of Israeli Arabs said it is “better to be a citizen of my country than others.” By comparison, 90 percent of Americans agreed with the statement and 88 percent of Israeli Jews.

In addition, 77 percent of Israeli Arabs agreed “my country is better than others,” which was only slightly less than the 83 percent of Australians and 79 percent of Canadians and Americans who felt the same way. Interestingly, the figure for Israeli Arabs was 11 points higher than that for Jews.

While almost everyone in the survey from Ireland and the United States said they were proud to be a citizen of their country, 83 percent of Israeli Jews said they were proud and 44 percent of Israeli Arabs. Another 27 percent of Israeli Arabs said they were willing to fight for their country, an increase from 22 percent in 2000. While still well below the overwhelming 94 percent of Israeli Jews who are prepared to fight (Finland was second with 83 percent and the U.S. third with 63 percent), it is significant that more than one-quarter of Israeli Arabs, who are exempt from military service, are still prepared to defend their nation.

Analyzing the survey data it is clear why Israeli Arabs are adamant about remaining citizens of Israel and express no desire to be part of a Palestinian state. The results also illustrate why Palestinian Arabs in the territories express a high regard for Israel in polls. They see how their fellow Arabs are treated and the type of society Israel has built and wish to emulate it.

It is too bad the Jimmy Carters of the world do not see Israel the way its citizens – Jewish and non-Jewish – view their nation. If they did, they’d recognize that Israeli society can serve as a model, albeit an imperfect one, for the values they espouse.

MYTH

“Women are not recruited to become suicide bombers.” top

FACT

In the perverse world of Islamic fanaticism, women who become suicide bombers are viewed as noble and heroic feminists acting out the collective desire of Muslim women to defeat the enemies of Islam. These women, however, are usually pawns of psychotic men who do not have the courage to kill themselves and who instead prey on the vulnerabilities of women who have often already been victimized by the norms of Muslim society.

Hamas leader Ahmad Yassin ruled that women should not become suicide bombers because it was more important for them to “ensure the nation’s existence” by reproducing. He nevertheless approved suicide actions by women who stained their family honor. In one case, for example, a married mother of two small children requested Yassin’s permission to carry out an attack after her relationship with a lover became known.

The first female suicide bomber was Wafa Idris, who blew herself up in Jerusalem on January 27, 2002. Idris was 25 years-old and had been divorced after failing to have children. “Her status as a divorced and barren woman, and her return as a dependent to her parents’ home where she became an economic burden, put her in what is a dead end situation in a patriarchal society,” explained Ben-Gurion University Professor Mira Tzoreff.110 Idris believed the way out of her inferior status was by becoming a martyr.

Roughly 70 women have followed in her footsteps, though only eight succeeded in blowing themselves up. These are not uneducated women; more than one-fifth, for example, had more than a high school education.111 Tzoreff notes that women who are childless, divorced, and “unbetrothable” are targets of recruiters. Some younger women are seduced by terrorists and then are blackmailed if they become pregnant. Those who do not become pregnant are still viewed as having shamed themselves and their families by having violated the society’s norms regarding modesty. They are then offered the opportunity to redeem themselves by dying for the terrorists’ cause.

It is not only the young, however, who can be turned into murderers. In what the National Post called a “new low,” even by the standards of Palestinian terrorists, a woman thought to be over 60 with more than 40 grandchildren was recruited by Hamas to attack Israeli soldiers in Gaza. The Post editorialized that the good news was that the woman didn’t kill anyone but herself, but the bad news was that “there are Muslims on this earth who think Allah wants them to turn grandmothers into walking bombs.”112

MYTH

Palestinian terrorist groups are committed to a cease-fire.” top

FACT

In November 2006, Israel and the Palestinian factions in Gaza announced a cease-fire following an agreement reached between Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian factions. As part of the agreement the Palestinians had agreed to stop Qassam rocket fire, suicide bombings and the digging of tunnels.113

Despite the cease-fire, Qassam rockets continue to be launched frequently into Israeli territory and tunnels are dug along the border with Egypt. Such a tunnel provided the opportunity to conduct a deadly suicide bombing attack in Eilat on January 29, 2007 , which took the life of three innocent people.

Two Palestinian groups, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (the military wing of PA Chairman Mahmoud AbbasFatah faction), claimed joint responsibility for the attack. A spokesman for the ruling Hamas movement praised the bombing, a sentiment echoed by a senior Islamic Jihad leader, who called the attack “a natural response to the continued crimes by the Zionist enemy.” According to Israel Radio, Abbas condemned the suicide bombing, adding that he was opposed to all attacks that harm civilians.114 Such condemnations were criticized in the past by militants within its own party.115

This latest attack and the Palestinian response follows an all too familiar pattern. The PA proclaims a cease-fire and the leadership presents itself as a force of moderation. Simultaneously, those same leaders either look the other way or actively encourage terrorist attacks. Once an atrocity occurs, some Palestinians condemn the attacks, including those who have the power to prevent them, and others openly praise them.

The implication for Israel is clear: Palestinian leaders cannot be trusted to keep agreements or to prevent violence. And it should come as no surprise given the long history of such behavior, which is also reflected in the actions of the Palestinians among themselves. Fatah and Hamas agreed to stop fighting each other after weeks of bloody clashes, but the internal truce was almost immediately broken and the groups continue to engage in a civil war.

MYTH

“Israel is damaging the Temple Mount and threatening Islamic shrines.” top

FACT

“We denounce this blatant act of provocation and the complete disregard for the sanctity of the holy mosque. This act will ignite the feelings of Muslims all over the world and is in fact a retrogressive step in the efforts to achieve peace in the region.”116 This statement from the Malaysian Foreign Minister refers to the Israeli excavation and plan for construction at the site of the Mugrabi ramp in the Old City of Jerusalem and serves as a call to action and incitement rather than as a warning of a concerned observer.

In February 2004, the Mugrabi ramp, which provided access to the Temple Mount, collapsed as a result of numerous natural disasters. The Jerusalem Municipal Authority approved the building of a permanent bridge to replace the wooden structure that was built as a temporary entry. The commencement of an archeological dig, required by law to salvage any artifacts in the area before construction begins, has been met with outrage and violence from the Islamic world, which claims that Israel’s actions are meant to destroy Islam’s third holiest site to replace it with the Third Temple.

A four-member team from UNESCO found that the construction and excavation at the Mugrabi ramp site, located 50 yards from the Temple Mount, was being conducted with complete transparency and poses no danger to the Temple Mount or to the al-Aqsa mosque.116a Israel has a record of safeguarding the holy places of Christians and Muslims and has no interest in the destruction of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. In contrast, the Muslim Waqf, which has been in control of the Temple Mount since 1967, banned the Israel Antiquities Authority from the area in 2000 to conduct illegal construction on an underground mosque. In the process, the Waqf dumped 13,000 tons of dirt containing artifacts from the First and Second Temple period in Municipal garbage dumps, rendering many of the ruins useless.

Muslim leaders are expressing outrage over the excavation and construction in an effort to unite the Palestinians against Israel and to distract from internal Palestinian factional tensions. The Palestinians have a long history of using false accusations of Jewish threats to Muslim holy sites to rally the Muslim population, going as far back as the riots of the 1920’s. Riots today echo the Western Wall tunnel riots of 1996 when Israel was also falsely accused of endangering Muslim shrines by opening an additional exit to the already existing tunnels. The tunnel exit was a significant distance from any Muslim holy places and posed no danger whatsover to the Temple Mount. The exit actually facilitated the use of the tunnels and helped make them a popular archeological park.117

The media and international organizations have served to perpetuate these false accusations by reporting on conflicting “claims” rather than by accurately reporting the facts, which contradict the rumors.

MYTH

“Palestinians are moderating their views toward Israel.” top

FACT

It is often suggested that the Palestinians have moderated their views toward Israel. When it is pointed out that groups such as Hamas (a partner in the Palestinian Authority government) openly advocate the destruction of Israel, as the group’s spokesman did on March 12, 2007,118 their position is often dismissed as mere rhetoric. The Palestinian people, we are told, are prepared to live in peace with Israel. Surveys of Palestinian public opinion, however, consistently present a very different picture. Large majorities of Palestinians repeatedly tell pollsters they support terror and oppose a two-state solution. In February 2007, for example, Near East Consulting (NEC)119 found that 70% of Palestinians support a one-state solution and 75% said Israel is not a peace partner. Though 70% did support a peace settlement with Israel, 75% said Israel has no right to exist and another 51% agreed that Hamas should maintain its position on the elimination of Israel.

Even more alarming are the signs that young Palestinians are more militant than their elders. On the question of whether Hamas should continue to seek the elimination of Israel, for example, 66% of Palestinians 18-21 agreed and an overwhelming majority of 90% said Israel has no right to exist.

Given the steady diet of anti-Israel propaganda in the Palestinian Authority media and educational system, these results are not surprising and reinforce Israel’s longstanding view that incitement through those channels is having a significant negative impact on Palestinian attitudes toward Jews and Israel and hurting the prospects for peace. These results are sobering for anyone who believes that Israeli concessions will end the conflict or that a new generation of Palestinian leaders will be any more willing to accept Israel than their predecessors.

MYTH

“The Arab peace initiative reflects the Arab states’ acceptance of Israel.” top

FACT

Imagine if one day someone who has always despised you let it be known through a third party that they were willing to be your friend. But first you had to meet some conditions and, if you didn’t, your enemy would try to kill you. How seriously would you take your adversary’s offer of friendship?

This is similar to the position Israel finds itself in following the Arab League’s reiteration of its “peace plan.” Israel has made clear that it is prepared to negotiate with the Arab states on the basis of the plan, but that many of their demands, such as the withdrawal from all territory captured in 1967 and the acceptance of a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees, are unacceptable.

If the Arab proponents of the plan were sincere, the response should be that they are prepared to sit down with Israel’s leaders and discuss how to overcome the disagreements. But this has not been the Arab response. Rather than accept an Israeli invitation to come to Jerusalem to negotiate or exploit the willingness of Israel’s leaders to go to an Arab capital for talks, the Arabs have told Israel it must accept the plan or face the threat of war. Here are a few examples:

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, said: “If Israel refuses, that means it doesn’t want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war.”120

The Syrian information minister, Muhsen Bilal, declared: “If Israel rejects the Arab League peace proposal, resistance will be the only way to liberate the Golan Heights.”121

The secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Abdulrahman al-Attiya said that Israel should respond expeditiously to the Arab peace initiative because the Arabs are in no mood to wait interminably.122

Make peace on our terms or else. Is this the rhetoric you would expect from leaders who have moderated their views and want to seek an accommodation with Israel?

Peace plans are not worth the paper they are printed on if the proponents continue to talk about war and pursue policies such as supporting terrorists, arming radical Muslims, inciting their populations with anti-Semitic propaganda and enforcing boycotts that promote conflict. Progress toward real peace requires the Arab states to show by words and deeds that they are committed to finding a formula for coexisting with Israel. The only ultimatum should be that if the first efforts to reach an understanding do not succeed, they will try and try again.

MYTH

“Israel is denying health care to Palestinians.” top

FACT

The Palestinian Authority’s ongoing inability and unwillingness to prevent terror attacks against Israel has required the imposition of security measures to prevent most Palestinians from entering the country. Still, Israel has remained open to Palestinians in need of medical assistance.

Contrary to frequent Palestinian claims that Israel prevents Arabs from obtaining health care, the Civil Administration in the West Bank receives and grants thousands of requests by Palestinians to visit Israeli hospitals where they are treated by some of the finest medical professionals in the world. In 2006 alone, 81,000 Palestinians were given permits to enter Israel for health reasons, an increase of 61 percent from 2005. According to the Health Coordinator responsible for responding to requests, 90 percent of the applications for permits are approved.123

In addition to providing direct care to Palestinians from the territories, Israel is also training Palestinian health care workers. Courses have been offered since 2000 and since then 200 Palestinians have taken part, including Marwan Baqer, who heads of team of ambulance workers in Gaza. Baqer was invited to participate in a course in emergency medicine. “It is excellent that people from the Palestinian territories come to participate in an Israeli course.” He added that when he returned to Gaza he would say he “learned something good.”

One of the Israeli physicians on the board of Physicians for Human Rights’, the group sponsoring the course, observed, “We have a common enemy – disease.”124

Israel is committed to providing health care for anyone in need, including not only Palestinians but sometimes Arabs from countries still at war with Israel. This concern for the individual, and willingness to cooperate with Palestinians in the field of medicine, offers hope that Israelis and Palestinians will find more common ground in the future.

MYTH

“The Hamas takeover of Gaza poses no threat to Christians.” top

FACT

On June 14, 2007, the Rosary Sisters School and Latin Church in the Gaza Strip were ransacked, burned and looted by Hamas gunmen who used rocket-propelled grenades to storm the buildings. Father Manuel Musalam, leader of the Latin community in Gaza, expressed outrage that copies of the Bible were burned, crosses destroyed and computers and other equipment stolen.125

“I expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza,” said Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya, an Islamic outreach movement that recently announced the opening of a “military wing” to enforce Muslim law in Gaza. The application of Islamic law, he said, includes a prohibition on alcohol and a requirement that women be covered at all times while in public.126

Critics of Israel who express concern for Christians, such as former president Jimmy Carter and columnist Robert Novak, have consistently ignored the persistent discrimination and abuse of Christians by Muslims throughout the Middle East and especially by Palestinian Muslims. It is therefore not surprising that they are once again silent as Christians come under attack in the Gaza Strip as Hamas begins to impose its extreme Islamic views on all the people now living under its control.

The Christian position throughout the territories has always been precarious, which is why most have fled the Palestinian Authority. In Gaza only about 2,000 Christians live among more than one million Muslims and they are now seeking international protection and many are planning to leave.

MYTH

“Lebanon has abided by UN Resolution 1701 and poses no direct threat to Israel.” top

FACT

On August 11, 2006, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1701 in response to the Israel-Hizballah war. The resolution called upon the Lebanese government “to secure its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms and related materials.”

In May 2007, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon established the Lebanon Independent Border Assessment Team (LIBAT) to evaluate Lebanon’s compliance with Resolution 1701. The committee concluded that “The performance of the (Lebanese inspection) agencies in stopping ongoing arms smuggling, which is generally accepted as a fact, can only be described as not up to what can be expected.”127

The committee discovered widespread corruption amongst Lebanese border police and described the ease by which missiles and militants can sneak across the Syrian-Lebanese border. The report illustrated the United Nations’ skepticism of Lebanese attempts to end the flow of illegal arms into Lebanon when it said “one would have expected that an occasional seizure of arms…would have taken place. If by nothing else, then by pure chance. This lack of performance is worrying.”128

Lebanon’s failure to implement Resolution 1701 poses a direct threat to Israel and to Lebanese stability. Since last summer’s war, large amounts of weapons (including rockets capable of striking as far south as Tel Aviv and southern Israel), have been smuggled into Lebanon from Syria and Iran. Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah has declared openly that Hizballah will not disarm so long as Israel remains a threat. He also claims to have tens of thousands of rockets ready to fire at Israel (Israeli military estimates place the number at 20,000).129  The smuggling and stockpiling of weapons by Hebollah, with the complicity of Lebanese border officials, also threatens the pro-Western Lebanese government. If the UN does not take steps to insure the implementation of its resolution, the risk of renewed violence between Israel and Hizballah will grow, as will the possibility of a takeover of Lebanon by Hizballah.

MYTH

“Israel is once again expelling Arabs from Palestine.” top

FACT

Palestinians are fleeing in droves of their own volition. Israel is not forcing any of them to leave.

Today, Palestinians have the opportunity to build the infrastructure of a democratic state in the Palestinian Authority. They control all of the Gaza Strip and the population centers of the West Bank, but have squandered the chance by engaging in fratricide and terror. Palestinians are voting with their feet, however, and tens of thousands have left, or are now trying to emigrate. According to Palestinian sources, as many as 80,000 people have departed the territories since the Palestinian War began in September 2000, and a study by Bir Zeit University found that 32 percent of Palestinians, and 44 percent of young Palestinians, would emigrate if they could.130

Undoubtedly, Israel’s measures to curtail terrorism – roadblocks, military operations, closures – have created hardships for Palestinians, but this does not explain why so many people would abandon their homeland. In fact, many Palestinians have moved to Israel because they would rather live in a democracy than a theocratic mobocracy. This is especially true for Arabs living near Jerusalem who have chosen the “hell in Jerusalem over paradise in the PA.”131

Palestinian officials have become so alarmed that the PA’s mufti issued a fatwa [religious decree] forbidding Muslims to leave.132

MYTH

“The ‘occupation’ has sapped Israel's morale as reflected by the decline in Israelis willing to serve in the IDF.” top

FACT

The Israeli government released figures showing that 25 percent of potential male draftees do not serve in the Israel Defense Forces. This reflects an increase from 12.1 percent in 1980. As political scientist Stuart Cohen noted, however, these figures are misleading and do not reflect the ongoing commitment to service of Israel’s youth.133

The principal reason the number of draftees has declined, Cohen relates, is that the number of ultra-Orthodox males granted deferments has grown dramatically, as this population nearly tripled from 3.7 percent of all potential recruits to 11 percent. Of the remaining 14 percent of non-Orthodox Jews, 9 percent either reside abroad or are rejected because they have a criminal record or are physically incapable of serving. This means that the percentage of Israeli “draft dodgers” who actively seek to avoid service for any reason is only 5 percent.

It is more striking that the overwhelming majority of Israelis serve their country despite often having to carry out unpleasant duties. In wartime, moreover, Israelis respond to the call to service in even greater numbers than required. For example, in 2002, during the Palestinian War, more than 100 percent of the reserves showed up to join their units during Operation Defensive Shield, which means many who had been excused reported for duty,. The same phenomenon occurred in the 2006 war with Hizballah, where certain units were ready to be operational in less than 24 hours and soldiers who were not called up volunteered to defend their country.

MYTH

“Israel has nothing to fear from a nuclear Iran.” top

FACT

Some argue Iran would never launch a nuclear attack against Israel because no Muslim leader would risk an Israeli counterstrike that might destroy them. This theory doesn’t hold up, however, if the Iranian leaders believe there will be destruction anyway at the end of time. What matters, Bernard Lewis observed, is that infidels go to hell and believers go to heaven. Lewis quotes a passage from Ayatollah Khomeini cited in an 11th grade Iranian schoolbook, “I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against the whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all of them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom, which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another’s hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours.”134

Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believes the most important task of the Iranian Revolution was to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who disappeared in 874, bringing an end to Muhammad’s lineage. This imam, the Mahdi or “divinely guided one,” Shiites believe, will return in an apocalyptic battle in which the forces of righteousness will defeat the forces of evil and bring about a new era in which Shi’a Islam ultimately becomes the dominant religion throughout the world. The Shiites have been waiting patiently for the Twelfth Imam for more than a thousand years, but Ahmadinejad may believe he can now hasten the return through a nuclear war. It is this apocalyptic world view, Lewis notes, that distinguishes Iran from other governments with nuclear weapons.

There are those who think that Iran would never use such weapons against Israel because innocent Muslims would be killed as well, but Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, explicitly said he wasn’t concerned about fallout from an attack on Israel. “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession,” he said, “the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” As one Iranian commentator noted, Rafsanjani apparently wasn't concerned that the destruction of the Jewish State would also result in the mass murder of Palestinians as well.135

Iran will not have to use nuclear weapons to influence events in the region. By possessing a nuclear capability, the Iranians can deter Israel or any other nation from attacking Iran or its allies. When Hizballah attacked Israel in 2006, for example, a nuclear Iran could have threatened retaliation against Tel Aviv if Israeli forces bombed Beirut. The mere threat of using nuclear weapons would be sufficient to drive Israelis into shelters and could cripple the economy. Will immigrants want to come to a country that lives in the shadow of annihilation? Will companies want to do business under those conditions? Will Israelis be willing to live under a nuclear cloud?

If you were the prime minister of Israel, could you afford to take the risk of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?

MYTH

“Israel’s presumed nuclear capability is stoking an arms race.” top

FACT

Israel is widely believed to have developed a nuclear weapon in the late 1960s. Despite U.S. fears at the time that this would provoke a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, this did not happen. Now, however, it appears many nations are interested in pursuing a nuclear capability, but it is in response to what they see as the danger posed by Iran’s nuclear program, not Israel’s.

The only Muslim nation that currently has a nuclear capability is Pakistan. The decision by Pakistan to build the “Islamic bomb” had nothing to do with Israel; it was a response to the development of the bomb by its neighbor and rival India.

Iran began its secret development of nuclear weapons nearly two decades ago, but that decision was also unrelated to Israel. Iran’s principal concern was to counterbalance what Iranians viewed as the dangerous nuclear ambitions of their rival in Baghdad. Israel had long been Iran’s ally and even the paranoid mullahs in Tehran knew Israel had no hostile intentions toward the Islamic Republic. Iran is now determined to build a bomb to achieve regional domination over the Arab states.

The focus on the belligerent rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has led many to wrongly assume that he is the driving force behind the Iranian nuclear effort, but the program was initiated long before his election. For Iranians, the drive for a bomb is a function of their nationalistic belief that they have just as much right to nuclear weapons as any other nation, so it is a mistake to believe that a difference of opinion exists between pro-Western Iranians in the opposition and the Islamists currently in power.

Some Arab leaders, notably Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi, may have believed that the only way they could ultimately achieve their goal of destroying Israel, given their belief in Israel’s nuclear arsenal, was to have bombs of their own, but neither leader seemed primarily motivated by Israel’s capability. Hussein knew he had little to fear from Israel and was more interested in developing a weapon that would give him an advantage over Iran and help establish Iraq as a regional power. The same is true for Libya, which was for many years interested in a nuclear weapon because its megalomaniacal leader believed it would make his country a superpower.

In recent months, as tensions with Iran have escalated, several Arab countries suddenly announced their interest in nuclear power. Like the Iranians, they all publicly claim their interest is solely in the peaceful purpose of electrical generation. After more than 30 years of living with Israel’s assumed arsenal, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia did not suddenly decide they needed nuclear energy.136 Since Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel and the other Arab states have no dispute with Israel, their motivation is more likely to have come from the fear of a nuclear Iran.

If Iran’s nuclear program is not stopped, it is clear the arms race in the Middle East will be on and the proliferation of nuclear weapons will become a far more serious danger.

MYTH

“Iran’s nuclear program threatens only Israel.” top

FACT

Israel is not alone in its concern about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. In fact, the nations most worried about Iran are its immediate neighbors who have no doubts about the hegemonic ambitions of the radical Islamists in Tehran.

Former Bahraini army chief of staff Sheikh Maj.-Gen. Khalifa ibn Ahmad al-Khalifa said Iran stirs trouble in many Gulf nations. “[Iran] is like an octopus – it is rummaging around in Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Gaza and Bahrain,” al-Khalifa proclaimed.136a The Crown Prince of Bahrain was the first Gulf leader to explicitly accuse Iran of lying about its weapons program. “While they don’t have the bomb yet, they are developing it, or the capability for it,” Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa said.137

At least 12 Arab countries have either announced new plans to explore atomic energy or revived pre-existing nuclear programs between February 2006 and January 2007 (Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, & the GCC) in response to Iran’s nuclear program, according to a report released by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

The trend continued in 2008 as many Middle Eastern countries sought to strengthen their nuclear cooperation with other Western nations, such as the United States, Russia and France. Both Saudi Arabia and UAE signed nuclear cooperation accords with the United States, and Russia and Egypt have laid the groundwork for Russia to join a tender for Egypt’s first civilian nuclear power station.

Kuwait, Bahrain, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan announced plans to build nuclear plants as well. Even Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the Arab world announced plans to purchase a nuclear reactor.

Iran’s neighbors have good reason to worry.

In October 2007, a senior Iranian general said that suicide bombers were ready to strike at targets throughout the Gulf “if necessary.” The threat was aimed at Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Earlier in 2007, a close associate of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad resurrected an old claim on Bahrain as Iran’s 14th province, which Bahrain’s foreign minister said “touched on the legitimacy of our country.” The effect of Iran’s saber rattling, Giles Whittell wrote, “is especially chilling in Bahrain as the only Sunni-led country with a Shia majority that is not at war or on the brink of war.”138

European leaders also clearly see Iran as a threat to their interests. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said, for example, “Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear bomb. I say to the French, it’s unacceptable.” France has indeed recently signed a nuclear framework agreement with the UAE.

Similarly, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated, “I’m emphatically in favor of solving the problem through negotiations, but we also need to be ready to impose further sanctions if Iran does not give ground.”139

Great Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown proclaimed, “We are absolutely clear that we are ready, and will push for, further sanctions against Iran....We will work through the United Nations to achieve this. We are prepared also to have tougher European sanctions. We want to make it clear that we do not support the nuclear ambitions of that country.”140

President George W. Bush has been even more emphatic, “I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”141

“But the true realism is that Iran is a menace — potentially a great one — and that its Revolutionary Guard is engaged in the dirty business of killing Americans and others. The fact that the Bush administration says so does not make it otherwise. The Senate's resolution [to label the al-Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization] was a necessary step toward tightening sanctions on Iran — a way to avoid war, not the overture to one.”

Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen 142

The international concern that has prompted a series of UN resolutions and ongoing condemnation of Iranian behavior has nothing to do with Israel. Most of the world understands that a nuclear Iran poses a direct threat to countries inside and outside the Middle East, raises the specter of nuclear terrorism, increases the prospects for regional instability, and promote proliferation. Israel’s detractors, such as professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, portray Israel and the “Israeli lobby” as campaigning for military action against Iran. In fact, Israel and its supporters have been the most outspoken in their desire to see tough measures implemented to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program to avoid war.

MYTH

No state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity.” top

FACT

Just as the parties were preparing for peace talks in Annapolis, the Palestine Authority’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said the Palestinians would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This latest effort by a Palestinian official to delegitimize Israel was accompanied by Erekat’s startling statement that “no state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity.”143

Apparently Erekat has not read the draft constitution for the future state he envisions in Palestine or the PA’s Basic Law, which declare Islam the state religion of Palestine. He also conveniently overlooks the following nations that have established Islam as their state religion: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates.

Nations with predominantly Muslim populations are not the only ones to link their national and religious identity. These nations constitutionally recognize Christianity or Catholicism as their state religion: Argentina, Armenia, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Norway and the United Kingdom. Bhutan and Cambodia are officially Buddhist nations.144

Israel has no official state religion. Freedom of worship is guaranteed to all. It is, however, the homeland of the Jewish people and was established and recognized internationally as a Jewish state by the United Nations in the partition resolution.

MYTH

Arab participation in the Annapolis conference signaled a new attitude toward Israel.” top

FACT

As most analysts expected, no substantive agreements came out of the conference convened by the United States in Annapolis, MD, on November 27, 2007, to discuss Arab-Israeli peace. Optimists did hope, however, that by attending the conference Arab states might finally signal their recognition of Israel and begin a process of normalizing relations. That, too, did not happen. Instead, most Arab participants reinforced their rejectionist policies and demonstrated that simply gathering around a conference table will not make them less intransigent.

Israel’s Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, reiterated Israel’s interest in a two-state solution with the Palestinians and in peace with the entire Arab world. She also talked about Israel’s willingness to compromise:

We are not trying to establish facts on the ground through settlements and we are willing to pay a heavy price in terms of territory for peace. We do not want to control the Palestinians or to dictate their lives. We do not want our children, as soldiers, to stand at checkpoints and screen civilians, and we do not want your children’s childhood pictures to be our children, as soldiers, putting their parents through a security check. We have no hidden agenda. Not so long ago, we decided on disengagement. We left Gaza, we dismantled settlements, we withdrew our army, we took risks with the understanding that Gaza will not be the last step. We want to take the next steps through agreement.It is clear to us that in order to carry out change, we will have to give up parts of Israel.

Substantively, none of the Arab delegates showed any interest in compromise. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did not back down from the traditional irredentist demands of Yasser Arafat. The Syrian Foreign Minister rejected the idea that giving up the Golan Heights would be a painful compromise for Israel and reiterated Syria’s longstanding position that Israel must evacuate the Golan before Damascus would even consider peace. The Lebanese representative also said nothing about peace, but demanded Israel withdraw not only from the disputed Shebaa Farms region but also a new area never contested before.

The biggest disappointment may have once again been the Saudis, whose participation was treated as a major achievement by the U.S. State Department. A Saudi diplomat told non-Israeli reporters (he wouldn’t speak to Israelis) Israel could not expect normalization of relations until it reached an agreement with the Palestinians. The Saudi Foreign Minister repeated Arab maximalist demands regarding settlements and the return of Palestinian refugees.145

Livni also pointed out how the Arab delegates had missed an important opportunity to show they had changed their attitudes:

I have heard some say that Israel should not expect a handshake, and I will not ask for one. But let us imagine what might happen if the worst possible scenario occurs and there is a handshake between an Israeli leader and an Arab leader whose country has no diplomatic relations with Israel, and that handshake is broadcast around the world.Then the extremists in the Palestinian Authority will understand that the fact that Abu Mazen, Salam Fayyad and Abu Ala are meeting with Israelis and conducting peace talks is not a betrayal of these principles but rather a process that is supported by the Arab world.

Alas, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said he would not shake hands with the Israelis and the Saudis went so far as to request that they be allowed to enter through a different door than the Israelis. Livni sought meetings with some of the participants from countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel; they all refused. Dutch European Affairs Minister Frans Timmermans said the Arab delegates “shun her like she is Count Dracula’s younger sister.”146

Instead of a psychological breakthrough, the conference once again illustrated the difficulty of achieving progress toward peace so long as most of the Arab leaders refuse to even acknowledge their Israeli counterparts’ existence, let alone the right of a Jewish state to exist in their midst.

MYTH

“Palestinians prefer to live in a Palestinian state.” top

FACT

Most Palestinians currently living inside Israel’s borders say they would prefer to live in Israel rather than a Palestinian state. In fact, 62% of Israeli Arabs prefer to remain Israeli citizens rather than become citizens of a future Palestinian state.147 Israeli Arabs sometimes say they prefer the hell of Israel to the paradise of Palestine because they know that, despite its faults, Israel is still a democratic state that offers them freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and the press, and respects human rights in general and women’s rights and gay rights in particular, all rights they would be denied under Palestinian rule.

Residents of East Jerusalem began voting with their feet when politicians began discussing the possibility of dividing Jerusalem prior to the Annapolis Conference in 2007. Only about 12,000 East Jerusalemites had applied for citizenship since 1967 (out of some 250,000), but 3,000 new applications flooded Israel’s Ministry of Interior in the four months prior to the meeting.148

With the peace talks resuming after years of stagnation, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians accustomed to the social and economic freedoms in Israel see themselves at risk of losing their rights. For the Palestinians of the Ras Hamis and Shuafat refugee camps, which are a part of Jerusalem, but would most likely fall on the side of Jerusalem apportioned to the Palestinian Authority in any future peace agreement, the preference for staying in Israel is clear. They plan to take advantage of their status as Israeli permanent residents, which allows them freedom of movement, and move to a city well within Israel’s borders and legal jurisdiction. “If they put a border here, we’ll move to Haifa and Tel Aviv. You’ll have fifty thousand people who live here leaving East Jerusalem in minutes,” declared Jamil Sanduqa, head of the refugee camp’s local council.149

Many of the 250,000 East Jerusalemites depend heavily on Israel for jobs, health care, and unemployment insurance. They do not foresee having the same opportunities or benefits under the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians living in Israel want to live normal lives and earn a living to help their family and don’t want to be involved with extremists. “I don’t want to raise my children on throwing stones, or on Hamas,” Sanduqa said.150

One of the proposals for moving toward a two-state solution is a land swap. The idea is that Israel would evacuate most of the West Bank but keep the large settlement blocs that are home to approximately 170,000 Jews. This area is estimated to be 3-5 percent of the West Bank. Israel has proposed a land swap of a similar amount of territory now within Israel. One idea is to shift the border so the 45,000 residents of Umm el-Fahm, plus an additional 150,000 Israeli Arabs who sit on 200 square miles of land just northeast of the West Bank, would be a part of a future Palestinian state. The Palestinians swap citizenship; Israel exchanges land. In theory, it’s a win-win situation where everyone gets to be citizens of their own nation. But the Israeli Arabs in these towns, especially Umm el-Fahm, the largest Muslim Israeli Arab city in Israel, are vehemently opposed to being part of the deal.

“We wish to express our sharp opposition to any initiative taken by the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority with regard to our civil, political and human rights,” the heads of the Arab regional councils and cities wrote to Prime Minister Olmert and his cabinet members in response to the land swap proposal. “…We wish to make it clear that as citizens of the State of Israel since 1948-1949…the proposed moving of borders will deprive us of these human rights and tear apart the social and economic ties that have been constructed on the basis of a long and difficult struggle.”

One of the first to sign the letter to Prime Minister Olmert was Sheikh Hasham Abed Elrahman, Umm el-Fahm Mayor and head of the Wadi Ara Forum of Arab and Jewish Mayors. He wrote, “I cannot argue with feelings. I can tell you that we want to work together with the Jewish majority for the betterment of all of Israel. Religiously, politically and socially, we want to remain part of the State of Israel.”151

Not only do few Palestinians want to move to “Palestine,” many Palestinians now living in the Palestinian Authority would emigrate if they could. According to a December 2007 survey, 34 percent of the residents would like to leave.152

MYTH

“Israel and the Palestinians agree a future Palestinian state will have an army.” top

FACT

Israel has always regarded the creation of a Palestinian state as a threat to its security. This remains true today, but most Israelis believe the best chance for coexistence with the Palestinians is to negotiate an agreement whereby a demilitarized state is created in the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank.

Given the damage and terror caused by the rockets Palestinians are firing daily from Gaza, it should not be surprising that Israelis worry about the possibility of a Palestinian military force with missiles, artillery, tanks, warships or fighter planes. Long before the two-state solution became popular, discussions about the creation of a Palestinian state envisioned that it would be demilitarized to minimize the risk of an Israeli withdrawal.153 Jordan is equally concerned that a Palestinian army that could turn in its direction.

Following the Annapolis conference, Palestinian officials denounced the idea that their future state should have any limits placed on it. “The Palestinian Authority rejects talk about a demilitarized Palestinian state,” a senior PA official told the Jerusalem Post.154

While the focus of the negotiations, and media coverage of them, has been on the familiar issues of settlements, refugees and Jerusalem, it is the issue of whether the Palestinian state will be permitted to create an army that could threaten its neighbors that may yet turn into the major obstacle to an agreement.

MYTH

“Gaza settlers’ greenhouses have bolstered the PA economy.” top

FACT

On the eve of Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, Middle East envoy James Wolfensohn brokered a deal to purchase greenhouses built by Jewish settlers in the hope of providing employment and export income to the Palestinian people and boost the fledgling economy. Wolfensohn and a number of other donors, including several American Jews, bought the greenhouses, which averaged more than $75 million in total crop output annually, and gave them to the Palestinian Authority.155

Almost immediately after Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, many greenhouses were ransacked and looted. In September 2005, looters in Neve Dekalim, the largest Jewish settlement in Gaza, walked away with irrigation hoses, water pumps, and plastic sheeting, often while Palestinian policemen watched.156

Despite pleas from the Palestinian Prime Minister to leave the structures intact, the security situation around the greenhouses worsened. In 2006, roving gunmen destroyed greenhouses in the former settlement of Morag, and dozens of armed militiamen ransacked more than 50 acres of greenhouse space in the former settlement of Gush Katif.157 Witnesses said the militants used bulldozers to demolish the buildings’ frames, and then destroyed or stole whatever equipment they could find inside, including irrigation computers.158

The Palestinian Company for Economic Development, the organization in charge of running the greenhouses, complained that hundreds of greenhouses and other agricultural installations were destroyed. In an appeal to the Palestinian Authority leadership, the company said, “These greenhouses and other installations and projects provide a source of income for over 4,500 families. We are very disturbed by the recurring attacks and thefts. Such actions jeopardize the largest agricultural project carried by the Palestinian Authority after the Israeli withdrawal.”159

In addition to rendering the greenhouses useless for their intended purpose of building up the PA economy, Hamas has also established terrorist training centers on some of the lands of the evacuated settlements. Abu Abdullah, a senior member of Hamas’ military wing, said the two former settlements of Eli Sinai and Dagit are now advanced training zones.160

Nearly 70% of the greenhouses have been completely destroyed, most recently by Palestinians who dismantled some of the remaining greenhouses to sell to Egyptians after the Gaza-Egypt border was breached in January 2008.161 The treatment of the greenhouses is an example of how, contrary to Palestinian propaganda blaming Israel, the economic troubles in the Gaza Strip are largely self-inflicted.

MYTH

“The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is Israel’s fault.” top

FACT

Life in the Gaza Strip is difficult, and many Palestinians are suffering deprivations because the international community has imposed a boycott against Hamas since it seized control in a violent coup. Hamas, however, has attempted to blame Israel for the situation it created by its ongoing terrorist campaign against Israeli citizens, refusal to recognize the Jewish state and daily bombardment of innocent Israeli civilians with lethal explosive rockets. Cynically, Hamas is using innocent Gazans in an effort to manipulate public opinion.

The most recent example of this and Hamas’ manipulation of the international media was the protest conducted on “peace boats” off the coast of the Gaza shore. Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of Middle East Envoy and Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, arrived in Gaza on one of these “peace boats” and proclaimed that Gaza is “the largest concentration camp in the world today” and a “humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur.”161a

Although all of her fellow protestors eventually left Gaza on the same boats they arrived in, Booth decided to remain behind. Although having been offered opportunities to leave, Booth declined, and she was later photographed at a well-stocked grocery shop inside the world’s “largest concentration camp.” During her month-long stay in the Gaza Strip campaigning for human rights, Booth did not once mention the name of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.

Earlier this year, Palestinians announced they would form a human chain, mostly women and children, to highlight Israel’s refusal to allow the free movement of goods until the rocket fire ceases. That propaganda ploy backfired, however, when only a few thousand people participated instead of the 50,000 or more Hamas said it was mobilizing.162

Hamas’ propaganda efforts have been more successful in the past. In January, pictures released by foreign news agencies showed a meeting of the Hamas-led government lit by candlelight, suggesting Israel had deprived Gaza of power.  Meanwhile, sunshine can be seen streaming through the window curtains since the meeting was actually held at one o’clock in the afternoon. Other pictures depict protests in the streets; masses of Palestinians march down Gaza sidewalks, each one holding a lit candle for the world to see the desperateness of a society living without electricity and running water. Yet, a streetlight shines in the background. 

According to Arabic Daily Asharq Al-Awsat, Hamas thrives at the expensive of the people, paying about 18,000 militants nearly 16 million dollars a month to carry out their dirty work. “So how can there be talk of lifting the Gaza siege and relieving the distress of its people, while Hamas concentrates all its efforts on recruiting and providing for its thousands of fighters. It is clear that Hamas’ priority is to look after its militants, at the expense of Gaza’s people and their suffering!” exclaimed columnist Tariq Alhomayed.162a

As part of their effort to promote the Palestinian image of victimhood, Hamas forced businesses to close in Gaza. A top Palestinian Authority official recently accused Hamas of ordering owners of bakeries to keep their businesses closed for the second day running to keep up the ruse of an imminent crisis in the Gaza Strip. “Hamas is preventing people from buying bread,” he said. “They want to deepen the crisis so as to serve their own interests.” 

The official also said that, contrary to Hamas’s claims, there is enough fuel and flour to keep the bakeries in the Gaza Strip operating for another two months. “Hamas members have stolen most of the fuel in the Gaza Strip to fill their vehicles,” he said.163 

Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for Israel’s Defense Ministry, reiterated the PA official’s remarks. Gaza has enough fuel, he said, and he accused Palestinian officials of trying to create the impression of a crisis that did not exist. In fact, at one point after Israel initially decided to reduce fuel supplies to the Strip, the Israeli fuel company Dor offered the Palestinian distribution companies shipments of gasoline, which they refused.164

Less than a week later, the PA Health Ministry accused Hamas of stealing fuel and medicine stockpiles from hospitals in the Gaza Strip. The PA Health Ministry sent these provisions into the territory after the initial fuel cuts, but Hamas used the fuel instead for cars belonging to senior officials.165

Furthermore, in addition to the fuel it receives from Israel to power its electrical plant, Gaza gets about two-thirds of its electricity directly from Israel. Israeli officials said that supply would not be affected. In fact, 70 percent of the fuel Israel supplies to Gaza was still flowing into the territory during the border closings, but Hamas still ordered the power plant in Gaza to turn off its turbines.166

“If they shut it down, it’s not because of a fuel shortage,“ Dror said. “The power plant shutdown,” he explained, “would not be comfortable, but it’s not a humanitarian crisis.” 167 Most of Gaza’s electricity comes from Israel and Egypt. Very little is supplied by the Gaza plant.

Of course, Hamas officials do not have to worry about the impact of even these modest power cuts. Ahmed Youssef, an adviser to the Hamas foreign ministry said that when the lights go out during a dinner party with foreign guests, Hamas can call the power company and have them turned back on.168

The press has consistently exaggerated and misreported the situation in Gaza. For instance, the Boston Globe ran an op-ed on January 26, 2008, claiming, “Gaza daily requires 680,000 tons of flour to feed its population,” and that “Israel had cut this to 90 tons per day by November 2007, a reduction of 99 percent.”169 According to both a 2007 UN document and the Palestinian Ministry of Economy, however, flour consumption needed daily in the Gaza Strip falls somewhere between 350 to 450 tons, nowhere near the gross miscalculation of 680,000.  At 680,000 tons daily, and at a total population of nearly 1.5 million people, the Boston Globe is claiming that each Gazan needs almost half a ton of flour every day. The newspaper did run a correction shortly thereafter by simply amending the “tons” to “pounds,” a measurement that no one in the international community would use.170 

In addition, the breaking down of the security fence along Gaza’s border with Egypt was another propaganda coup for Hamas. As tens of thousands of Palestinians flocked into Sinai, aid officials estimated that the supposedly penniless residents of Gaza spent more than $100 million on goods in the first few days after the border breach.171  

Hamas has no shortage of funds. Senior officials have been caught at the border carrying suitcases with millions of dollars; many other cash deliveries have undoubtedly been smuggled in undetected. The terror group ensures that their officials and soldiers are well-fed and housed, while the rest of the population suffer for the benefit of the television cameras. 

In May 2006, Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal made clear that he is not interested in medicine or other humanitarian supplies.  “We ask all the people in surrounding Arab countries, the Muslim world and everyone who wants to support us to send weapons, money and men,” Meshaal said).172  Rather then spend money on food and medicine for the people of Gaza, Hamas buys weapons on the black market and the smuggling of arms into Gaza continues unabated. 

Hamas has gone so far as to block shipments of food. In July 2007, for example, Hamas prevented more than 60 truckloads of Israeli fruit and vegetables from arriving in Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing.173

MYTH

“Israel's actions in Gaza were disproportionate and unprovoked.” top

FACT

Israel's military operation in Gaza was a response to the unceasing indiscriminate rocket attacks by Hamas terrorists that have targeted the civilian population centers of southern Israel. Between January 9 and March 1, 2008, at least 231 rockets have rained down on Israeli kindergartens, schools, parks and homes.174

Initially, the Gaza terrorists could only terrorize nearby Jewish communities such as the town of Sderot (population 19,400) with their lethal rockets because the Qassam’s range was 4.3 miles. Hamas has been determined, however, to threaten more innocent Israeli lives. Hamas subsequently developed longer range projectiles and also smuggled in through Egypt more sophisticated weapons supplied by Iran and others. The upgraded Qassams  now have a range of 7.5 miles. More ominously, Hamas has acquired deadly and accurate Iranian-made Grad rockets, which have nearly doubled the reach of the Qassams.175 The Grad rockets are now threatening  the Israeli port city of Ashkelon (population 108,600).176 Hamas is expected to continue to improve the range and lethality of its arsenal and to  be capable of producing their own Grad-type rockets by the end of the year.177

The men, women and children who live within range of the rockets go about their lives in a perpetual state of trauma and fear. Imagine for a moment how it must be to live under those conditions. Perhaps you are a student, commuting to the university, as Roni Yechiah, a 47-year-old father of four was doing on February 27, 2008. Roni was sitting in his car in the parking lot of Sapir College on the outskirts of Sderot when the "Color Red" alarm sounded, indicating a rocket strike was moments away. A rocket struck nearby and  Roni suffered mortal shrapnel wounds.178

He is only one of many Israelis who have been killed or maimed by the barrages from Gaza. Brothers Osher and Remi Twito were on their way to the bank on the evening of February 9, 2008, when the "Color Red" alarm sounded. They dove for cover, but there simply was not enough time. The rocket landed almost on top of the boys. Remi took shrapnel in both his legs. His little brother, Osher, who aspired to play professional soccer one day, had his left leg amputated below the knee.179

Thousands of families have been made to live in fear. The most ordinary tasks, like driving to school or walking to the bank, cannot be completed without putting one's life at risk. Terror has seized these communities —communities of teachers, students, parents and children.

The decision to take military action in Gaza was not made lightly. Israeli leaders were forced to choose one of two evils: either sit by and allow Hamas to besiege  southern Israel with rockets or to take action to stop the terror. Israel's Operation Warm Winter, began February 29 and ended March 3, 2008. It involved air strikes on Hamas power centers and military bunkers (often hidden in Palestinian population centers, as well as ground operations. As in past conflicts with the Palestinians, Israeli infantry engaged Hamas militants in close, urban warfare for the purpose of limiting the civilian death toll, often putting themselves at greater risk to do so.180 While Hamas militants used the Jabalya refugee camp as a shield, Israeli soldiers endeavored to disarm and arrest militants with non-lethal force.181

Hamas is deeply entrenched in Gaza and has made no secret that its long-term objective is the destruction of Israel. Shortly after Israeli troops withdrew, the terror attacks resumed, with three Grad rockets striking Ashkelon, one hitting an apartment building and another a kindergarten playground.182 Israel will undoubtedly continue to engage in military operations until its civilian population is safe, a policy that would certainly be followed by any other government facing similar threats.

MYTH

“Israel’s enemies must recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist.” top

FACT

Whenever Israel has been asked to negotiate with one of its enemies, one condition that is often presented is that Israel’s right to exist be recognized. When, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed to lift the longtime ban on negotiations with the PLO, Yasser Arafat was first required to write a letter renouncing terrorism and recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Israel subsequently began what came to be known as the Oslo peace process. Of course, it turned out the “recognition” was largely meaningless as Arafat continued to support violence aimed at undermining Israel’s existence.

Since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, some people, including Israeli and American officials, have conditioned talks with that terrorist group on its recognition of Israel. As in the case of the PLO, such a statement would mean little without corresponding deeds. To date, Hamas has explicitly said it has no intention of ever recognizing Israel’s right to exist and has repeatedly said it is committed to Israel’s destruction.

Even Mahmoud Abbas, who is often referred to as a “moderate,” has made clear that he does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.198 This has not deterred Israeli officials from negotiating with him because they understand that Israel’s future depends on their ability to reach an agreement with the Palestinians and other neighbors that ensures Israel’s security whether the Arabs or Muslims acknowledge the Jews’ right to statehood or not.

Most people have forgotten Abba Eban’s wise admonition made more than 25 years ago:  “Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ‘right to exist.’ Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement....There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its ‘right to exist’ a favor, or a negotiable concession.”199

MYTH

“Palestinians are driven to terror by poverty and desperation.” top

FACT

The situation many Palestinians find themselves in is unfortunate and often quite severe. Many live in poverty, see the future as hopeless, and are unhappy with the way they are treated by Israelis. None of these are excuses for engaging in terrorism. In fact, many of the terrorists are not poor, desperate people at all. The world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, for example, is a Saudi millionaire.

In the most recent attack at the Merkaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem on March 6, 2008, in which eight seminary students were brutally gunned down and another 15 wounded, the perpetrator, Ala Abu Dhaim, was not poor or desperate. He was engaged to be married, he came from a family that is financially comfortable, and was employed by the yeshiva as a driver. Dhaim also was not suffering under “occupation.” In fact, as a resident of the East Jerusalem village of Jabel Mukaber, which lies within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries, he was entitled to all the same social and welfare benefits as Israeli citizens.

The stereotype that Palestinians turn to terrorism out of desperation is simply untrue. “There is no clear profile of someone who hates Israel and the Jewish people. They come in every shape and from every culture. Demonstrators, rioters and stone throwers do tend to be younger, unmarried males. But there’s a big difference between the young men who participate in those types of disturbances and terrorists,” remarked Aryeh Amit, former Jerusalem District Police Chief.200

A report by the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded, “economic conditions and education are largely unrelated to participation in, and support for, terrorism.” The researchers said the outbreak of violence in the region that began in 2000 could not be blamed on deteriorating economic conditions because there is no connection between terrorism and economic depression. Furthermore, the authors found that support for violent action against Israel, including suicide bombing, does not vary much according to social background.201

For example, the cousin of one of the two Palestinian suicide bombers who blew themselves up on a pedestrian mall in Jerusalem in 2001, killing 10 people between the ages of 14 and 21, remarked candidly, “These two were not deprived of anything.”202

Amnesty International published a study that condemned all attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians and said that no Israeli action justified them. According to the report, “The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law.”203

Terrorism is not Israel’s fault. It is not the result of “occupation.” And it certainly is not the only response available to the Palestinians’ discontentment. Palestinians have an option for improving their situation, namely negotiations. But under the current Hamas regime, this is adamantly rejected. The Palestinians could also choose the nonviolent path emphasized by Martin Luther King or Gandhi. Unfortunately, they choose to pursue a war of terror instead of a process for peace. Israel has proven time and again a willingness to trade land for peace, but it can never concede land for terror.

“The use of suicide bombing is entirely unacceptable. Nothing can justify this. ”

— UN Special Representative for the protection of children in armed conflict, Under Secretary-General Olara Otunnu204

MYTH

“Israel must negotiate with Hamas.” top

FACT

Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and, therefore, some people, including knowledgeable Israelis, argue that Israel must negotiate with the terror group. No one seriously believes that Hamas is interested in any lasting peace with Israel, but the advocates for negotiations believe it may be possible to reach a ceasefire agreement in which Hamas promises to stop firing rockets into Israel and Israel ceases its military operations against the group in Gaza. A byproduct of such an agreement is hoped to be a prisoner exchange that would lead to the release of Gilad Shalit who was kidnapped by Hamas 21 months ago.

Israel has not pursued this strategy for a number of reasons. First, Hamas has given little indication it is prepared to end its terror campaign. On the contrary, its spokesmen continue to make belligerent statements. On March 28, for example, Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya, declared: “The Zionist enemy doesn’t have a vision of peace. Only force... fighting and holy war works with [Israel].”205 Hamas also remains committed to its covenant that calls for the destruction of Israel.

From Israel’s perspective, a ceasefire would be exploited by Hamas to build up its forces. Without Israeli counter-terror operations, the group will be free to continue to smuggle in weapons and money from Iran and elsewhere, and to develop longer range missiles capable of striking Israeli population centers. In exchange for a short-term respite in attacks, many Israelis fear they will be allowing Hamas to become a far more dangerous adversary in the future.

It is often said that you don’t make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies, but this assumes the enemy you are negotiating with is not committed to your destruction. Golda Meir said it best when she explained the conflict had nothing to do with territory. “We’re the only people in the world where our neighbors openly announce they just won’t have us here,” she observed. “And they will not give up fighting and they will not give up war as long as we remain alive. Here....They say we must be dead. And we say we want to be alive. Between life and death, I don’t know of a compromise.”

MYTH

“Mahmoud Abbas has rooted out the corruption in the Palestinian Authority .” top

FACT

In a June 2002 speech outlining a vision for Middle East peace, United States President George W. Bush said, “Today, the Palestinian people live in economic stagnation, made worse by official corruption. A Palestinian state will require a vibrant economy, where honest enterprise is encouraged by honest government....If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine.”

Despite failing on all these counts, the United States continues to support the Palestinians, though their failure to meet former President Bush’s as well as current President Obama's expectations explains their current predicament and the stagnated peace process.

The Palestinian Authority’s record on rejecting terror is clear - they have done no such thing. While the PA often publicly condemns terrorism, internally it continues to support and even encourage violence against Israel.

Even more glaring than its failure to stop terrorism, however, has been the PA’s failure to confront and stamp out corruption. Less than a year after Bush’s speech, the IMF reported that former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat had diverted approximately $900 million of international aid into his own personal bank accounts. The revelation helped show why the Palestinian people had seen very little improvement in their standard of living despite international contributions to the PA of more than $6 billion.

While the international community continued to focus on the peace process, Palestinians in the territories became more and more concerned with the affect of widespread corruption in their government and its main political party, Fatah. Their true sentiment finally became apparent to the West when general elections in 2006 led to Hamas assuming control of the Palestinian legislature.

Since then, the Palestinian Authority has taken minor steps to promote more honest and transparent government - placing Western-educated economist Salam Fayyad as PA Prime Minister and establishing an Anti-Corruption Commission in 2010 - however the situation is still bad and a series of scandals that emerged in 2008 and another in 2012 are once again provoking outrage.

In 2008, former Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alaa) was accused by the PA ambassador to Romania of depositing $3 million of PLO funds into his personal bank account. Rouhi Fattouh, one of Abbas’ advisers and the former speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, was caught by Israeli customs officials using his Israeli-issued VIP pass to smuggle thousands of cellular phones from Jordan into the West Bank.208 In addition, another crony of Yasser Arafat, Khaled Salam, was investigated after PA officials learned he planned to invest $600 million in a tourist project in Jordan. Furthermore, officials in the Palestinian Ministry of Health were suspected of working with doctors and pharmacists to smuggle expired medicine into the West Bank. Some of these medications are believed responsible for the death of Palestinian patients.

In 2012, Mohammed Rashid, a shadowy financial adviser of the late Arafat, was reported to be the subject of the highest profile investigation of the Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission for suspicion that he transfered millions of dollars out of the Palestinian Investment Fund and setting up fake companies to embezzle the money. Rashid had left the West Bank following Arafat's death in 2004 and has since been moving between countries while the Palestinian Authority is supposedly working with Interpol to secure his capture.208a

This series of ongoing scandals create serious problems for Israel as well as American peace efforts. The disaffection with Abbas threatens to further strengthen Hamas at a time when Israelis are increasingly concerned that Abbas is losing control of the West Bank and seeking to solidy his power by reconciling with the terror organization. This would reduce the prospects for peace and increase the probability of war. The ongoing corruption also undermines confidence in the Palestinians’ ability to create a viable governing authority.

President Bush had the correct formula for peace in 2002. The Palestinians have now had nearly a decade years to fulfill his vision. Their inability or unwillingness to do so is the principal reason they have not achieved their goal of statehood and the conflict with Israel has continued.

MYTH

“Hizbollah is a resistance movement whose only interest is fighting Israel.” top

FACT

Hizbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, has been building up its forces since its establishment in the early 1980s with the intent of eventually establishing an Islamic government in Lebanon and across the Arab world. After provoking a war with Israel in the summer of 2006, and bringing ruin to much of the country, Hizbollah set out to undermine the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

When their demand for a national unity government and veto power was rebuffed in late 2006, Hizbollah (and Amal Party) representatives resigned from their cabinet posts and carried out protests again Siniora’s government. For months, Hizbollah supporters conducted demonstrations in Beirut and prevented pro-Western, anti-Syrian members of the Lebanese legislature from electing a new president who would not be loyal to Syria or sympathetic to Hizbollah’s agenda. Other anti-Syrian legislators were assassinated, presumably by Syrian agents or supporters, to reduce the number of potential votes against Hizbollah’s (and Syria’s) preferred candidate.

In a bid to gain power, armed Hizbollah militiamen stormed Beirut on May 9 and took control of the western part of the capital. Fierce street battles ensued between the armed gunmen and Sunnis loyal to the U.S.-backed government. At least 67 people died over the course of five days of intense fighting.

The staged coup came shortly after the Lebanese government shut down Hizbollah’s private telephone network, as well as firing the airport security chief for alleged ties to the organization. The two measures sparked the bloodiest confrontations since the civil war ended in 1990. In response, Hizbollah spiritual leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah proclaimed, “We have said before that we will cut off the hand that targets the weapons of the resistance.”209

The two moves aimed at reigning in Hizbollah backfired. After Hizbollah threatened further violence, the Lebanese government rescinded both measures on May 15 in what was viewed as a victory for the terrorist organization.

The veto was a major triumph for Hizbollah and their supporters, effectively allowing them to nix any legislation they oppose. In addition, the Syrian-backed opposition party received 11 seats in the Cabinet. A new election law was also adopted that divides Lebanon into smaller-sized districts that will redistribute power in favor of the allies of Iran and Syria.210

Siniora also gave up enforcing the UN resolutions requiring Hizbollah to be disarmed. This insures the group will continue to act as a state within the state and destabilize the country and also allows the terrorists to remain a threat to Israel.

The general population was not fooled by the rhetoric of Hizbollah officials and recognized the group was interested in dominating the country rather than resisting the non-existent Israeli occupation. “Hizbollah are liars; they are despicable,” said Nawal al-Meouchi, an innocent bystander to the sectarian violence. “They said they would never turn their arms on the Lebanese, but they have.”211

MYTH

“Palestinian terrorist groups agreed to a cease-fire to advance the peace process.” top

FACT

In an effort to stop the nearly daily onslaught of rockets from Gaza, Israeli officials have discussed the possibility of a cease-fire with the Hamas terrorists bombarding the Israeli civilian population. Egypt and others have also tried to mediate a cessation of terror that would allow Israel to end its counterterror measures. Rather than agree to a simple cease-fire, however, Hamas, has engaged in verbal gymnastics to suggest it will adopt a policy that will, at best, offer a temporary respite while the organization continues to build up its arsenal to pursue its long-term goal of destroying Israel.

The latest example of this Hamas tactic is the proposal in May 2008 to accept a “tahdiyah,” or period of calm. Earlier, in June 2003, Islamic Jihad and Hamas agreed to a hudna in response to demands from then Palestinian Authority prime minister Mahmoud Abbas to stop their attacks on Israel so he could fulfill his obligations under the Middle East road map. The agreement was interpreted in the Western media as the declaration of a cease-fire, which was hailed as a step forward in the peace process. Violence continued after the supposed cease-fire, however, and Israeli intelligence found evidence the Palestinians exploited the situation to reorganize their forces. They recruited suicide bombers, increased the rate of production of Qassam rockets, and sought to extend their range. Over the last five years since the declaration of the hudna, attacks on Israel increased and Hamas succeeded in smuggling in more weapons with longer ranges.

While any cessation of violence against Israeli civilians is to be welcomed, it is important to understand the cease-fire the radical Islamic groups are contemplating in the Muslim context.

The media and some political leaders portray a hudna as a truce or a cease-fire designed to bring peace. Though the term hudna does refer to a temporary cession of hostilities, it has historically been used as a tactic aimed at allowing the party declaring the hudna to regroup while tricking an enemy into lowering its guard. When the hudna expires, the party that declared it is stronger and the enemy weaker. The term comes from the story of the Muslim conquest of Mecca. Instead of a rapid victory, Muhammad made a ten-year treaty with the Kuraysh tribe. In 628 AD, after only two years of the ten-year treaty, Muhammad and his forces concluded that the Kuraysh were too weak to resist. The Muslims broke the treaty and took over all of Mecca without opposition.212

A modern-day hudna is not a form of compromise, rather it is a tactical tool to gain a military advantage. Hamas has used it no fewer than 10 times in 10 years.213

The hudna declared by Islamic terrorist organizations in 2003 was no different. The Hamas charter openly rejects the notion of a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the group did not change its views. On the contrary, Hamas spokesmen said they would not give up their weapons, that they would continue to resist “illegal occupation,” and that they believed the “violent awakenening from a few weeks or months of quiet” will “reaffirm Palestinians’ belief in the intifada as the only option for them.”214 Even the hudna declaration asserted “the legitimate right to resist the occupation as a strategic option until the end of the Zionist occupation of our homeland and until we achieve all our national rights.” Hamas contends that all of Israel is occupied territory.215 This is why Secretary of State Colin Powell called Hamas an “enemy of peace” just before the hudna was declared, and said “the entire international community must speak out strongly against the activities of Hamas.”216

Israel understandably fears a repeat of the earlier experience.

Hamas officials, meanwhile, made clear that an agreement will not change the group’s policy. “The confrontation with the [Israeli] occupation will continue despite the talk about a tahdiyah [calm],” said Osama Hamdan, Hamas’s representative in Lebanon. “As far as Hamas is concerned, all options remain open,” he added.217

Whether the Palestinian terrorist groups are sincere in their declaration of a cease-fire is irrelevant to the fulfillment of the Palestinians’ road map obligations. The road map explicitly calls on Abbas to do more than just achieve a cessation of hostilities; he is obligated to disarm the terrorists and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.

MYTH

“Olmert’s resignation means the end of peace talks with the Palestinians.” top

FACT

Ehud Olmert’s decision to resign as prime minister will naturally cause a delay in negotiations with the Palestinians as Israel’s democratic process works toward the creation of a new government. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni won the Kadima Party primary and has now been asked to form a government. Livni has been the lead negotiator for nearly a year and has developed a very good working relationship with her Palestinian interlocutors. If Livni forms a government, she can be expected to quickly return to the talks with the Palestinians. If she is unable to do so, elections will be called and the campaign will indeed preoccupy Israeli leaders.

This is the nature of democracy. American leaders are also distracted by the presidential campaign, but everyone knows once it is over, the new administration will turn its attention to the Middle East. After Israeli elections, the new prime minister will also return to the bargaining table.

The outline of a future agreement has long been on the table and it has been further refined in recent months according to details of the negotiations leaked to the Israeli press. It should come as a surprise to no one that the security fence is likely to become a de facto border with the major settlement blocs inside the fence. The settlements outside the fence would be evacuated and legislation is already before the Knesset that would pay settlers living west of the fence $305,000 each to leave voluntarily.218 Whether this bill passes or not, the message is clear that the intention is to dismantle most settlements and compensate their residents.

Israel has proposed a land swap that would result in the Palestinians receiving an area of land equivalent to what Israel annexes. According to the details in the press, Israel would annex 7 percent of the West Bank and, in return, cede 5.5 percent of the Negev and an area equivalent to the other 1.5 percent for a passageway connecting the Gaza Strip and West Bank. This proposal is very similar to what the Palestinians were offered in negotiations between President Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat in 2000. Arafat rejected the “Clinton parameters,” but many Palestinians subsequently lamented the lost opportunity for statehood.

The negotiations have been very detailed with Israel, for example, as both sides have discussed security arrangements such as demilitarization (Israel wants but the Palestinians reject), warning stations and deployments in the Jordan Valley. Israel has also offered to allow 1,500-2,000 Palestinians to move to Israel each year for 10 years. The Palestinians want the total figure to be 100,000, a figure Israel may yet approve as it was the number David Ben-Gurion said he would allow after the 1948 war (and well over 100,000 have been allowed into Israel since 1993).

The question of Jerusalem remains one of the most controversial, but the contours of an agreement have also been around for some time and there is reportedly an understanding that the Jewish neighborhoods would be part of Israel and the Arab neighborhoods Palestine and some interim arrangement over the holy areas of the Old City.219

Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the opposition, has different ideas about what a final agreement would look like with the Palestinians. If he were to win a future election, as current polls project, the details of an agreement are likely to change, but he is no less committed to pursuing peace with the Palestinians.

MYTH

“Jerusalem Arabs cannot vote in Israel.” top

FACT

On November 11, 2008, Nir Barkat was elected mayor of Jerusalem. Not participating in the mayoral election, once again, was Jerusalem's Arab population. As permanent residents of the city, Jerusalem's Arabs are entitled to vote in municipal elections, although the overwhelming majority of the Arab population boycott these elections.

Since 1967, various Palestinian Authority associations (now run both by Fatah and Hamas) have demanded that the Jerusalem Arabs refrain from voting in these elections. According to these groups, any voting in Israeli government elections on the part of the Arabs will signify their approval of the Israeli “occupation” of what they claim is Palestinian territory. East Jerusalem, of course, is one of these highly contested areas. In the days leading up to the 2008 election, Hamas and Fatah leaders again threatened any Arab who might consider going to the polls.

In addition to voting, Palestinians in Jerusalem may run for office. Zohir Hamden, an Arab from the village of Sur Baher, intended on running for mayor of Jerusalem but withdrew his candidacy one month before the election and became candidate Arcadi Gaydamak’s advisor on East Jerusalem issues.

Fouad Suleiman, another Jerusalem Arab resident, joined the Meretz Party for the city's election. His personal platform focused on improving education and general living conditions in East Jerusalem.

Pressure is also exerted by Palestinians in the territories to discourage Arabs running for office. In a similar municipal election in 1998, “The Lobby for Human Rights in Jerusalem” - made up of nine private Palestinian agencies - decried Arab candidates' participation in the election. In a published letter they wrote:

“The candidacy of and the support for the “Arab List” violates all international law and norms, and seriously undermines the prospects for a successful struggle of the Palestinian people to liberate their capital Jerusalem.”220

The boycott of this election shows, yet again, that Jerusalem's Arab population is cutting off their nose to spite their collective face. Indeed, if Palestinians do not express their right to vote in municipal elections, and especially if they do not support their own Arab candidates, how can they expect to influence policy in Israel? Israel and the Palestinians cannot come to a real peace agreement if the Palestinians are prohibited by their own leaders from exercising a basic human right – the  right to vote.

MYTH

“Israel is intolerant of homosexuality.” top

FACT

Until 2007, Israel was the only country in the Middle East and all of Asia to protect homosexuals under its anti-discrimination law. It is still the only country in the Middle East to do so. Israel, Turkey, Cyprus and Jordan are the only nations in the region where homosexuality is not expressly illegal. In other Middle Eastern nations, homosexuals are prosecuted under the law and persecuted by their neighbors.

Abusive treatment of gays in Arab and Muslim societies abounds, leading many Palestinian homosexuals to seek refuge in Israel’s cosmopolitan cities like Tel Aviv, which hosted its 10th Annual Pride Parade in 2008.  A young gay Palestinian named Tarek provided the details for one such story of abuse in the May 2003 issue of the Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide.  Upon suspicion of his homosexuality, Tarek was sentenced to a reeducation camp, run by Muslim clerics under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, where he was tortured for two months.221

In regards to gay rights, Israel is even more progressive than the United States and some European countries. In 1992, Israel passed a law preventing discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation. In contrast to the United States military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, openly gay Israelis can serve in the Israeli Defense Forces. In 2006, Israel became the only nation in the Middle East and Asia to formally recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries.222 Because civil marriages are not legal in Israel for heterosexual or same-sex couples, (individuals must be married religiously by a rabbi, imam or priest), gay marriages, like other civil unions, are not performed in Israel. Israelis can also legally adopt the children of their same-sex partner. Foreign partners of gay Israeli citizens are granted residency permits in Israel and same-sex partners are eligible for spousal benefits, pensions and tax exemptions.

Israel’s record for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights is also likely to improve with the passing of new legislation by the 18th Knesset.  Only a few minutes into its opening session on February 23, 2009, first-term Meretz MK Nitzan Horovitz submitted a bill for the legalization of civil marriages and divorces in Israel.  The first openly gay member of the Knesset, Horovitz explained in a written statement that the bill would provide every Israeli with the right to choose between a religious or civil marriage and a religious or civil divorce.223

 

“Let Obama — or anyone else — be a Zionist; let America — or anyone else — be the custodian of Israeli interests in the region; nonetheless, Israel should not be our greatest concern, nor should Palestine be our be-all and end-all. For even if Israel disappeared entirely, and we had a new Palestinian state from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea to add to the list of Arab states, the situation would still remain the same....”

Turki Al-Hamad224

MYTH

“Hamas will not break a ceasefire.” top

FACT

Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s military incursion into Gaza for the purpose of ending Hamasrocket attacks on Israeli civilians, ended with a unilateral ceasefire declaration by Israel on January 18, 2009.  The same day, a Hamas spokesperson announced the militant group would halt fire for a week in order for Israeli forces to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.225

Only a few hours following both unilateral ceasefire declarations, Hamas fired at least 18 rockets into Israel.226 After a retaliatory air strike, Israel continued to withdraw its troops, as promised, a process that was complete within four days.  Since January 18, Hamas has continued to rearm itself via smuggling tunnels on the Gaza-Egypt border and deliberately target Israel’s civilian population in ongoing attacks.  This continued violence includes over 100 rocket and mortar shell attacks on Israel, in addition to multiple IED detonations and attacks on IDF border guards.227

On March 2, 2009, at least 10 rockets were fired into southern Israel and exploded in a schoolyard in Ashkelon. This attack came a day after 7 rockets struck Sderot and prompted the Israeli government to file an official complaint with the United Nations over the unceasing rocket fire threatening the lives of innocent citizens.228

Despite once again being under siege, Israel continues to deliver increasing amounts of humanitarian aid to Gaza.  Since the end of Operation Cast Lead, over 127,431 tons of food and medical supplies and over 12,275,900 liters of fuel have been delivered to the Gaza Strip.229

MYTH

“Arab states’ sincerity in promoting their peace initiative is reflected in their positions in international forums.” top

FACT

The Arab states have renewed their call for Israel to accept the Arab League peace initiative. When it was originally proposed, their sincerity was called into question when the principal sponsors, the Saudis, and others refused Israeli invitations to negotiate. Since then, the Saudis have remained unwilling to go to Jerusalem or to invite the Israeli prime minister to Riyadh to demonstrate a genuine interest in peace. In addition, the Arab states have continued their historic campaign to delegitimize Israel in international forums such as the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council. The latest example of their insincerity is the Arab states’ active participation in the Durban Review Conference, scheduled for April 2009.

This second round of the Durban process has already begun to take the shape of its predecessor in its anti-Israel rhetoric through draft resolutions presented for discussion by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and to be voted on at the conference.230 Proposed draft resolutions include injecting the text with critical references to Israel as an occupying power that carries out racist and discriminatory policies that are a “contemporary form of apartheid.”231

As it has become clear that Durban II will be a repetition of the anti-Semitic hate fest of Durban I, Israel, Canada and Italy have announced they will not attend the meeting. President Obama sent representatives to the meeting of the coordinating committee, but they also withdrew in disgust after they concluded the planners were determined to turn the conference into a mockery of its purported purpose. The Obama administration announced that it would not participate in Durban II unless the text of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action is revised to “not single out any one country or conflict, nor embrace the troubling concept of ‘defamation of religion’.”232 Meanwhile, officials from several European nations announced they are also considering withdrawing from the conference.233

Durban II is another test of the honesty of the Saudis and other Arabs promoting their peace initiative. They cannot claim to be interested in peace while engaging in an effort to delegitimize Israel. To be taken seriously, they must immediately take the steps outlined by the Obama administration to strip away the irrelevant and the anti-Israel elements of the Durban program and embrace the stated goal of the conference to fight racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. Otherwise, the Arab League initiative can be dismissed as nothing more than what most people suspected, a public relations stunt concocted by the Saudis to divert attention from their role as state sponsors of terror and the fact that 15 of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi citizens.

MYTH

“Charles Freeman was the right choice for chair of the National Intelligence Council and the Israel lobby was responsible for his not being appointed.” top

FACT

Imagine if a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan served for years on the board of a Pakistani funded think tank, sang the praises of the dictatorial junta in Islamabad, served as a consultant for a company doing business in China and defended that country’s human rights abuses while also routinely making disparaging remarks about India. Would it be a surprise if opposition arose to that person’s appointment to a sensitive U.S. government intelligence post?

A similar situation arose when a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman, was appointed chair of the National Intelligence Council and, not surprisingly, provoked opposition from a wide range of people, including several members of Congress who called for a review of Freeman’s ties to foreign governments.

Since retiring from the Foreign Service, Freeman has been an outspoken defender of the apartheid regime in Saudi Arabia, extolling the virtues of “Abdullah the Great,” the Saudi autocrat, while running the Saudi supported Middle East Policy Council in Washington, D.C. Freeman has also been well-known for his strident criticism of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship.234

While many of his defenders argued that he was being targeted because Freeman had the courage to speak out against Israel, many of his harshest critics were far more concerned with his statements and activities related to China. Freeman served on the advisory board of the Chinese-government-owned entity Chinese National Offshore Oil Co. This affiliation and his comments regarding the Tiananmen Square massacre are what elicited serious objections to his appointment by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. In a 2005 public e-mail, Freeman wrote about the massacre, “[T]he truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud…. In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at ‘Tian’anmen’ stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action.”235

After withdrawing his name from consideration, Freeman was quick to blame the Israeli lobby for derailing his appointment, a charge the Washington Post called a “grotesque libel.”236 In fact, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee never took a formal position on Freeman’s appointment and numerous members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, questioned whether someone who “headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company” was the right choice to the chairmanship responsible for reviewing intelligence agencies’ analysis and preparing intelligence reports for the new administration.237 In fact, in his explanation for why he opposed Freeman’s appointment, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) did not even mention Israel.238

In a scathing editorial, the Washington Post also rejected Freeman’s contention that American policy is somehow dictated by Israeli leaders. “That will certainly be news to Israel’s ‘ruling faction,’ which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.” The Post noted that Freeman and “like-minded conspiracy theorists” ignore such facts.239

The Post also rejected Freeman’s claim that Americans cannot discuss “Israel’s nefarious influence,” noting that “several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges -- and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.”240

MYTH

“Arab states support Iran.” top

FACT

Arab states have joined with most of the world in condemning the Iranian drive to produce a nuclear weapon. They understand that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a grave threat to their security. Even now, Iran is threatening its neighbors and provoking outrage in the Arab world.

In recent weeks, Iran’s Arab neighbors have accused it of threatening the sovereignty and independence of the Kingdom of Bahrain and territories of the United Arab Emirates, “issuing provocative statements against Arab states,” and interfering in the affairs of the Palestinians, Iraq and Morocco.241

In statements challenging Bahrain’s sovereignty, Iranian officials recently renewed claims that the kingdom was actually a part of the Persian Empire. At the same time, Iran reasserted its authority over three islands of the United Arab Emirates that it forcibly seized in the early 1970s and continues to occupy. While joint sovereignty was maintained between Iran and the UAE over the Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs islands until 1994, Iran significantly increased its military capabilities on Abu Musa, stationed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps soldiers there, and expelled foreign workers in attempts to assert full control of the island.  The United Nations General Assembly, the Arab League, and the Arab Parliamentary Union have all affirmed their support for the UAE and have made clear that Iran illegally occupies the islands.242

Reactions to the statements challenging Bahrain’s sovereignty and the UAE’s rightful administration of its islands rippled throughout the Middle East. Arab parliamentarians warned Iran that its assertions “harm the fraternal relations and common interests between Iran and the Arab States, and that the recurrence of such statements and irresponsible allegations undermine confidence between the peoples and lead to instability in the region.”243

Arab League Deputy Secretary-General Ahmad Bin Hali angrily denounced Iran’s claims to Bahrain. He also called Iran’s interference in Palestinian affairs unjustified and said that the Arab countries would not allow Iranian influence in Iraq during the war-torn country’s fragile period of rebuilding. He also said that Iran had not been invited to attend the upcoming Arab League summit in Doha.244

Morocco went even further, severing diplomatic relations with Iran in response to the inflammatory statements concerning Bahrain and hostile activity by Iranians inside Morocco. Morocco’s foreign ministry accused the Iranian diplomatic mission in Rabat of interfering in the internal affairs of the kingdom and attempting to spread Shi’a Islam in the nation where 99 percent of the population is Sunni Muslims. The foreign ministry said that since King Mohammed VI is Morocco’s official religious leader, proselytizing to convert Sunni Muslims is an attack on the monarchy.245

Fear of Iran has grown, especially as Arab states have become more skeptical that the international community will succeed in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Consequently, Saudi Foreign Minister Sa’oud Al-Fei’sal has called for the development of a joint Arab strategy to deal with the “Iranian challenge.”246

MYTH

“Netanyahu is not an advocate for peace.” top

FACT

Before even taking office, Benjamin Netanyahu is being caricatured as a right-wing extremist uninterested in peace when, in fact, he is a proven peacemaker who carried out the last large-scale Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and negotiated with even his sworn enemy Yasser Arafat. It was no surprise that Netanyahu staked out tough positions during his election campaign, emphasizing his commitment to Israel’s security, but after being chosen to serve as prime minister he also pledged his government a “partner for peace.”247

When Netanyahu became prime minister the first time, he also was vilified by the media and Arab leaders; yet, he entered talks with Arafat and agreed to withdraw Israeli troops from Hebron. Both leaders signed the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron on January 17, 1997, turning over to Palestinian jurisdiction more than 80 percent of the city of Hebron with the promise of further redeployment from the West Bank in the coming weeks.248 Here was the “right-wing” prime minister agreeing to give up territory in a city with a long Jewish religious and political history in the hope of achieving peace.

This same opponent of peace signed the Wye River Memorandum on October 23, 1998, at the White House. Netanyahu agreed to turn over another 13 percent of the remaining territory under full Israeli control to the Palestinians in return for their pledge to outlaw and combat terrorist organizations, prohibit illegal weapons and prevent weapons smuggling, and prevent incitement of violence and terrorism. Netanyahu’s government also agreed to resume permanent status negotiations.249 Unfortunately, the Palestinians once again failed to fulfill their promise to end terror and sabotaged the plan for additional Israeli redeployments.

Today, the political climate is very different. The Palestinians are in disarray. The Palestinian Authority is split, with Hamas terrorists controlling Gaza and Fatah clinging to power in the West Bank. The nominal president of the PA is considered a reasonable person who simply is impotent to negotiate or implement an agreement. In addition, Israelis are in no mood to make territorial compromises after seeing how the complete evacuation of Gaza brought them more terror rather than peace. Until the Palestinians demonstrate they are committed to peace, few Israelis are prepared to give up territory the Palestinians may use to launch rockets at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or Ben-Gurion Airport.

In this context, Netanyahu is advocating that the next steps in the peace process focus on improving the lives of the Palestinians. He believes that by strengthening the Palestinian economy and promoting rapid growth, the average Palestinian civilian will have a greater stake in coexistence.250 While critics seeking to discredit Netanyahu suggest he is trying to avoid political concessions, Netanyahu has made clear this is not the case. “The economic track is not a substitute for political negotiations, it’s a complement to it,” he explained. “If we have a strong Israeli-Palestinian economic relationship, that’s a strong foundation for peace.”251 He has also told international leaders that the Palestinians should have the rights to govern themselves as long as they do not threaten Israel252 and at the Knesset’s commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, Netanyahu reaffirmed this commitment. “The government I am about to form will do all in its power to reach peace with our neighbor. … Every one of our neighbors who will be ready for peace will find our hands outstretched before them.”253

MYTH

“The United States missed an opportunity to address the issue of global racism by boycotting Durban II.” top

FACT

Prior to the Durban II Conference, U.S. President Barack Obama explained, “I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe.” The U.S., however, decided to join Israel, Poland, the Netherlands, Italy, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in boycotting the conference when language in the draft final communiqué of the conference equated Zionism with racism. President Obama described such anti-Israel language as “hypocritical and counterproductive.”254

By the close of the first day of the second U.N. anti-racism conference, it was already clear Durban II would not be the productive conference President Obama envisioned. Following fastidiously in its 2001 predecessor’s footsteps, hopes for an honest discussion on global racism at the U.N. forum disappeared with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech on the opening day of the conference. Ahmadinejad described Israel as having established a “totally racist government” and as “the most cruel and repressive” racist regime. Echoing the vitriolic attacks on Israel from the 2001 Durban Conference, Ahmadinejad declared, “It is time the ideal of Zionism, which is the paragon of racism, be broken.”255

Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory statements provoked doznes of western diplomats to walk out during the speech. It also led the Czech Republic, which currently holds the EU rotating presidency, to join the countries boycotting the conference.256

Even the normally ambivalent U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, criticized Ahmadinejad’s misuse of the conference platform “to accuse, divide and even incite,” essentially the exact opposite of the what the conference was intended to achieve.257

Just as Israel’s deputy minister of foreign affairs Daniel Ayalon correctly predicted, “Durban II, like its predecessor, will go down in infamy and will massively deviate from its original purpose.”258

MYTH

“Abbas is ready to accept a Jewish state in the framework of a two-state solution.” top

FACT

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas demands Palestinian statehood and an Israeli commitment to a two-state solution, but recently reiterated his longstanding, extremist position denying Israel comparable legitimacy. "I say this clearly,” Abbas told a conference in Ramallah, “I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will…”259 His refusal to recognize the fundamental Jewish character of the State of Israel is just one of many barriers that Abbas has erected along the road to peace.

In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert extended a peace proposal to Abbas that would create two nation-states. Under the plan Israel would have withdrawn from almost the entire West Bank and partitioned Jerusalem on a demographic basis. Abbas rejected the offer.260

Abbas also continues to insist on a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees, a position no Israeli leader will accept. Even respected Palestinians, such as the head of Al-Quds University, Sari Nusseibeh, believe his position is unrealistic.261

As recently as 2005, when campaigning for the Palestinian Authority presidency, the “moderate” Abbas held a flag of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Bridgade (a U.S.-designated terrorist group) and referred to Israel as the “Zionist enemy.”262 A few days later, after winning the election, Abbas dedicated his victory to the “shahids [martyrs] and prisoners” and his “brother shahid Yasser Arafat.”263

Israel’s leaders remain committed to peace, but after Palestinians have repeatedly rejected offers that would have allowed them to establish a state, it should be clear to all that the biggest obstacle to a two-state solution is the leadership of the Palestinians and their more than 60-year refusal to live with a Jewish state.

“The 'Jewish state.' What is a 'Jewish state?' We call it, the 'State of Israel'. You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. And I say this on a live broadcast... It's not my job to define it, to provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like. I don't care.”

— Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas 264

 

MYTH

“Khaled Meshaal seeks peace, not the destruction of Israel.” top

FACT

In an interview with the New York Times, Khaled Meshaal, leader of Hamas, said the terrorist group was seeking the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, based on the 1967 boundaries. When asked about establishing peace with Israel, he stated the ultimate goal was a 10 year ceasefire, but he still would not commit to peace.265 Despite this apparent overture, when pressed about Hamas’ charter which cites the anti-Semitic tome The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and calls for the destruction of Israel, he simply suggests people ignore what amounts to the group’s constitution.266

In the time-tested practice once regularly employed by Yasser Arafat of saying one thing to Western audiences and something entirely different to people in the Middle East, Meshaal delivered a speech on May 27 , 2008, at Tehran University entitled, “The Decline of the Zionist Regime,” during which he said, “We will never recognize Israel or cease to fight for our land.”267

Though he has slightly tempered his remarks for Western media, Meshaal will not publicly deny that he works for the destruction of Israel, whether it comes today or 10 years from now. Though now it appears he is posturing to gain support from the West, as recently as December 2008, he stated on al-Jazeera that “Allah made a laughingstock of America” and “[the] world will change, submitting to the Arab Islamic will, Allah willing.”268

Since splitting from the Palestinian Authority and staging a violent takeover in Gaza in the summer of 2007, Hamas under Meshaal has worked tirelessly to subvert the efforts of the Palestinian Authority and Israel to reach a peace agreement. In that time, under the direction of Meshaal, thousands of rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip into civilian neighborhoods of Israel. Today, Hamas is not even willing to make peace with his fellow Palestinians, let alone the Israelis.

MYTH

“The pope’s trip to Israel shows that issues between Israel and the Vatican have been resolved.” top

FACT

The Catholic Church has had a difficult relationship with the Zionist idea since the early 20th century when Theodor Herzl sought the support of Pope Pius X for a Jewish homeland and was told by the pontiff that “the Jews did not acknowledge our Lord and thus we cannot recognize the Jewish people. Hence, if you go to Palestine, and if the Jewish people settle there, our churches and our priests will be ready to baptize you all.”269

In 1947, the Vatican voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 to partition Palestine; however, it did not officially recognize Israel until 1993. Since then, the Catholic Church has taken strides to improve its relationship with the Jewish state, including signing a diplomatic treaty and exchanging ambassadors with Israel.270

In 2000, Pope John Paul II visited the Holy Land and Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to Israel was meant to follow a similar path to foster interfaith dialogue and improve Vatican-Israel relations. Unfortunately, a series of missteps by the pope have shown that past wounds are far from healed.

Pope Benedict XVI was born in Germany and has said he reluctantly became a member of the Hitler Youth during World War II (a Vatican spokesman denied this during the tour and had to issue a retraction after it was pointed out that Benedict admitted it in his autobiography). This personal background made his May 11, 2009, visit to Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial especially poignant. Though his address condemned Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, many Israelis expected him to go further. Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, the Chairman of Yad Vashem, expressed his disappointment following the speech, “Something was missing.  There was no mention of the Germans or the Nazis who participated in the butchery, nor a word of regret.” Though the pope referred to the millions of innocent victims, he did not specifically mention the 6 million Jewish victims.271

The role of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust has long been a contentious issue for Israel and the Vatican. At Yad Vashem, there is a plaque criticizing Pius XII, who was pope from 1939 to 1958, for not doing more to save the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. The Vatican continues to limit access to archives that might shed further light on the actions of Pius. Furthermore, in 2008, Pope Benedict announced his intention to beatify Pius XII, a high religious honor of the Church that is the last step before sainthood.272 This decision angered some Jews as did his announcement in January 2009, that he was lifting the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, a Holocaust denier who believes that Jews are bent on world domination.273

Israelis hoped that the pope’s visit to Israeli sites and meetings with Israeli officials would be accompanied by positive statements about Israel’s quest for peace and some recognition of the ongoing dangers it faces. Benedict, however, reserved his more political remarks for his tour of Palestinian areas. Speaking to a crowd in Bethlehem, for example, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the policy of the Vatican on Palestinian statehood. While declaring their rights to a sovereign homeland, the pope lamented Palestinian losses suffered in Gaza. He told a crowd in Manger Square, “Please be assured of my solidarity with you in the immense work of rebuilding which now lies ahead and my prayers that the embargo will soon be lifted.” Though he urged Palestinian youth to resist the temptation to resort to terrorism, he did not condemn Hamas for its acts of terror against Israel that made the embargo on the Gaza Strip essential to halting weapons smugglers and provoked Operation Cast Lead.274

The Palestinians also took full advantage of the propaganda value of the pope’s appearances in the West Bank. Mahmoud Abbas, for example, used the pope’s speech in Bethlehem as an opportunity to criticize Israel’s security fence, labeling it an “apartheid wall”.275 Later, on a visit to a Palestinian refugee camp, the pontiff was photographed in front of one of the few sections of the fence that is actually a wall and lamented that it symbolized the “stalemate” in relations between Israel and the Palestinians. He expressed his wish that the wall would come down soon so that “the people of Palestine… will at last be able to enjoy the peace, freedom and stability that have eluded [them] for so long.”276

In addition to ignoring the Palestinian violence that killed more than 800 Israelis and prompted the building of the security barrier, the pope was also silent with regard to the ongoing persecution of Christians throughout the Middle East and especially within the Palestinian Authority. This was another missed opportunity for the pope to show concern for the plight of his followers.

The decision of Pope Benedict XVI to make a pilgrimage to Israel was a welcome one and did show the distance the Vatican has traveled in the century that has passed since Herzl’s visit to Rome. The acts of commission and omission during the pope’s trip indicated, however, that there is still some distance to go before Israel will have the respect it deserves from the Holy See.

MYTH

“Obama and Netanyahu have irreconcilable visions of peace.” top

FACT

Meeting in Washington in May 2009, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu  reaffirmed their commitments to seeking a comprehensive Middle East peace.  What may not have been expected, however, is just how alike the leaders’ priorities and agendas are in achieving that goal.

In their public remarks, Netanyahu and Obama elucidated their shared visions of negotiations, security, Israeli national sovereignty, and Palestinian self-governance.277 Netanyahu expressed his desire to move forward in negotiations and live in peace with the Palestinians whom Israel “want[s] to govern themselves.” Obama declared that in his Middle East policies “Israel’s security is paramount.” He called for steps to be taken that would assure Israel’s security by halting terrorist attacks and also facilitate the creation of an independent Palestinian state.278

Obama and Netanyahu also agreed on the importance of collaboration with Arab nations to attain peace. Obama called on Arab states to be “more supportive and bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel,” a message he said he would deliver to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he met with them. Both leaders also emphasized the importance of involving Arab nations in dealing with the regional threat posed by Iran.279

The issue of a nuclear Iran was Netanyahu’s top priority in his discussions with Obama. The president said he recognized that a nuclear-armed Iran posed a threat not only to Israel, but also to the rest of the international community. Netanyahu described an Iran with nuclear military capabilities as “the worst danger we face,” a threat to Israel’s existence, U.S. interests worldwide, and moderate Arab regimes of the Middle East.  Obama reiterated his commitment to engaging Iran in an effort to change its policy. He gave no timetable for how long he would pursue this course, but left no doubt that he was committed to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal.280

Netanyahu has been in office for less time than Obama and has not yet publicly announced positions on many contentious issues, including ones raised by the president. For example, Obama expressed concern over Israeli settlement policy, but the issue has long been a point of contention between the United States and Israel. Netanyahu has not yet announced what his policy will be toward existing or new settlements.

Obama also called on Israel to open the border crossing of the Gaza Strip, which was closed by Netanyahu’s predecessor in response to years of rocket attacks and weapons smuggling. Again, Netanyahu has not yet stated whether he is prepared to loosen restrictions on Gaza and the president’s position was undermined the following day by yet another rocket fired from Gaza into Israel, which landed in the backyard of a home in Sderot and injured an Israeli woman.281

Following his meeting, Obama expressed confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership. “I’m confident that he’s going to seize this moment. And the United States is going to do everything we can to be constructive, effective partners in this process,” Obama said. Echoing these sentiments, Netanyahu said, “We share the same goals and we face the same threats. The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace.”282

MYTH

“Netanyahu’s government refuses to honor past agreements on settlements.” top

FACT

Though he did not respond for the press to President Obama’s call for Israel to halt settlement expansion during their meeting in Washington DC on May 18, Prime Minister Netanyahu has since acted on his commitment to honor the agreements reached by previous administrations.

One of the conditions of the 2003 Road Map was that all unauthorized Israeli settlements established after March 2001 be dismantled.  In accordance with the agreement, reached between the Ariel Sharon government and the United States, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that 26 illegal outposts would be evacuated.283  Netanyahu also informed the U.S. leadership of his commitment to remove the illegal West Bank outposts and not build any new settlements.  Three days after his meeting with Obama, police forces demolished a Jewish outpost in Samaria called Maoz Esther, the first settlement to be dismantled under Netanyahu’s newly formed government.284  Israel’s Defense Ministry also began delivering delimiting orders to ten additional illegal outposts, an action required by Israeli law before outposts can be cleared.285

Another member of Netanyahu’s cabinet calling for ratification of the three-phase road map to peace, that has a clearly stated goal of Palestinian statehood, is Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. During an interview before he was sworn in, Lieberman told Haaretz that Israel had undertaken obligations under the road map and that those obligations would be honored. He criticized previous Israeli administrations for not acting on those commitments and dismantling settlements and removing roadblocks.  Elaborating on these obligations, he said, “Unlike others, we will carry out everything that is in writing, and there will be no contradiction between what we say and what we mean, but we will stick to the phased nature of the road map.”286

Netanyahu has also expressed his interest in adhering to agreements reached with the Bush administration whereby Israel was permitted to accomodate natural growth in existing settlements, such as expanding the size of a family’s home within the boundaries of the community. Another understanding with the Bush administration was that Israel would be allowed to continue construction in consensus settlements that are expected to become a part of Israel at the end of negotiations.287

In addition to the issue of settlements, Netanyahu’s government is honoring previously agreed upon documents in its commitment to reengaging the Palestinians in negotiations without preconditions. At his public meeting with President Obama at the White House, Netanyahu expressed this commitment, “I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately.”288

MYTH

“There is urgency to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict.” top

FACT

President Barak Obama has said the Palestinian-Israeli conflict “is a critical issue to deal with, in part because it is in the United States’ interest to achieve peace; that the absence of peace between Palestinians and Israelis is a impediment to a whole host of other areas of increased cooperation and more stable security for people in the region, as well as the United States.”289

It may be argued that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is urgent for the United States if you believe that the conflict is really an impediment to Arab cooperation on the Iranian nuclear issue. The evidence, however, is that the Arab states have never seriously cared about the Palestinians and that they have their own self-interest in seeing Iran’s nuclear ambitions thwarted, an issue which has nothing to do with the Palestinian question.

The parties also do not see any urgency. In fact, in September 2008, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas turned down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s sweeping offer for Palestinian statehood that would have given the Palestinians 98.1% of the West Bank and allowed thousands of Palestinians to return to Israel.290 Yet, Abbas turned down the offer, claiming there were “gaps,”291 and failed to offer a viable counteroffer.

Following his May 2009 meeting with President Obama, Abbas also made clear the Palestinians are in no hurry to negotiate with Israel, let alone make any concessions. He expressed the view that Obama’s opposition to Israeli settlements would eventually bring down the Netanyahu government and he was content to put off any peace talks until Netanyahu is out of office. Jackson Diehl wrote in The Washington Post that “Abbas and his team…plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. ‘It will take a couple of years,’ one official breezily predicted.”292 Until then, Abbas stated, “in the West Bank we have a good reality… we are having a good life”293.

This statement contrasts starkly with the typical image projected by the PA and the media of the Palestinians as an impoverished, suffering people. Abbas also left no doubt that the Palestinian leadership feels no urgency for a resumption of the peace process. Abbas told Obama, “There’s just about nothing you can do.”294

Israelis also see no urgency. While the Israeli public and prime minister are committed to peace with the Palestinians they are very cognizant of the Palestinians’ obstinate position. Furthermore, Israelis see no chance of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians so long as their leadership remains splintered with Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip and the West Bank barely controlled by the unpopular and politically weak Abbas.

Israelis also need confidence building time to recover from fighting three wars in the last nine years that have cost more than 1,200 Israeli lives and forced parts of the country to live in a state of almost constant anxiety as a result of years of rocket bombardments. Indeed, during Obama’s meeting with Abbas, the president told the Palestinian president that the Israelis have good reason to be concerned about security.295 The American president should therefore understand that now is not the time for a rush to diplomacy and that the first priority should be creating a sense of security in Israel.

“Peace now” is not just a slogan, it is what every Israeli wants. President Obama should be applauded for sharing this desire and wanting to make it a reality; however, the conditions in the region will have to radically improve before it will be possible to achieve the goal Americans and Israelis share.

MYTH

“Palestinian leaders are committed to peace.” top

FACT

On June 14, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for negotiations with the Palestinians to resume without preconditions. He also described his vision of peace as one between two sovereign nations living side-by-side. To achieve this two-state solution, he said, the Palestinians must recognize the State of Israel and accept a demilitarized state.296

Following Netanyahu’s speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement praising Netanyahu’s remarks, “The President is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples. He believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal.”297

The response of the Palestinian leadership to Netanyahu’s invitation to revive the peace process, however, was hostile. Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator, Saeb Erekat, called on the Arab countries to suspend the Arab peace initiative. Multiple spokesmen for PA President Mahmoud Abbas called on the international community to isolate Netanyahu for what they describe as his “sabotage” of the peace process, and PA officials in Ramallah warned of a new round of violence and a new intifada.298 This followed Abbas’s earlier remarks suggesting that he was prepared to wait for years, until he believed Netanyahu was forced from office, before resuming negotiations with Israel.299

MYTH

“Fatah's Sixth Congress expressed the party's commitment to peace.” top

FACT

In August 2009, Fatah’s Sixth Congress convened in the West Bank to redraft the party’s political program. Though its leaders highlighted for the Western media Fatah’s interest in peace, the irredentist positions expressed during the conference illustrated why Israelis feel Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ political party is not a partner in peace. 

For example, in a policy speech at the conference, Abbas said, “Although peace is our choice, we reserve the right to resistance,” using a term that encompassed armed confrontation in addition to non-violent protests. Elaborating on Abbas’ stance, senior Fatah official Jibril Rajoub explained that armed struggle remained a tool at the Palestinians’ disposal and that Fatah would not abandon it as an option.300 Azzam al-Ahmad, another senior Fatah leader, said, “We have the right to practice all forms of national struggle. We are in the phase of national liberation and we have the right to use all means in the fight to end the occupation until we establish the state.”301

Pamphlets from the conference also repeatedly stressed that resistance in all its forms is a legitimate right of the Palestinians. These pamphlets included images of Fatah leaders carrying weapons and included poetry and narratives glorifying martyrdom in the fight against Israel.302
Fatah sentiments on resorting to violence against Israel were also echoed in the new draft of its political program, which left open the option of “armed struggle” and a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood should negotiations fail or remain stalemated.303 The program also rejected the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.304 Conference participants also refused to revise the party’s charter, written by Yasser Arafat, which calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and armed struggle “until the Zionist entity is wiped out.”305

MYTH

“Saudi Arabia is on the path to normalizing relations with Israel.” top

FACT

In spite of efforts by the Obama Administration to push Saudi Arabia to open up to Israel diplomatically, the oil-rich nation has in fact further distanced itself from the Jewish State. Recently, Saudi Arabia has been pushing the Arab League to more strongly enforce its boycott of Israel. Between 2006 and 2008, Saudi Arabia increased the number of boycott-related and restrictive trade-practice requests it sent to American companies by 76 percent.306 These are requests in which Saudi Arabia asks foreign suppliers to ensure that no goods or parts of the goods exported to the kingdom are manufactured in Israel. Though it is illegal for U.S. companies to comply with these requests and to not report them, the IRS estimates that 55 percent of reported requests concluded with some type of boycott agreement.307

Saudi Arabia has a long history of discriminatory activities against Americans as well as Israelis. In addition to blacklisting U.S. companies, the Saudis also objected to Jews entering the country to work for American companies or to serve with U.S. forces in the kingdom. As far back as the 1950s, Congress introduced legislation to bar aid to Saudi Arabia if it discriminated against Americans on the basis of religion. President Kennedy complained about the inability of American Jews, including members of Congress, to obtain visas.

The American public was not aware of the extent of the Arab boycott until 1970 when Senator Frank Church released a list of 1,500 American firms on the Saudi blacklist. At the time, the Pentagon and State Department were enabling the Saudis, justifying the discrimination of U.S. citizens as necessary to conform to the laws and traditions of Saudi Arabia. Imagine U.S. officials justifying the discrimination of blacks in South Africa because it was consistent with apartheid laws and customs.

Finally, in the 1970s, Congress took action and stood up for American principles and outlawed compliance by American companies with the boycott, despite threats from the Saudis and others of dire consequences, which never came to pass.

While most Arab states no longer enforce the boycott, the Saudis have maintained it is legitimate.

In 2005, the United States supported Saudi Arabia’s entry into the World Trade Organization on the condition it end its boycott of Israel. The Saudi Kingdom agreed, but once it gained entry, reneged on its part of the deal and is  now in violation of WTO regulations  prohibiting its members from operating trade embargoes or boycotts.308 In 2006, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning Saudi Arabia for failing to end its boycott of Israel after its admission into the WTO.

As the Obama Administration attempts to encourage the parties in the Middle East to take steps toward peace, it might start with insisting that Saudi Arabia live up to the promises it made in the past to end its discriminatory practices.

MYTH

“The Goldstone Report proves Israel is guilty of war crimes in Gaza.” top

FACT

The Goldstone Commission was created to investigate alleged war crimes during the conflict between Israel and Hamas during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in December 2008/January 2009. No one was surprised when the Commission issued a report highly critical of Israel given that it was created by the UN Human Rights Council, an organization long ago discredited for its obsessive and biased focus on Israel, and that one of the Commission members, Christine Chinkin, had previously accused Israel of war crimes.309

Following the report’s release, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said, “The mandate was unbalanced, one-sided and unacceptable… The weight of the report is something like 85% oriented towards very specific and harsh condemnation and conclusions related to Israel and very lightly treats without great specificity Hamas’ terrorism and its own atrocities.”310

The four-person panel, led by Judge Richard Goldstone, based virtually all of its 575-page report on unverified accounts by Palestinians and NGOs. The Goldstone Commission fixated on Israel’s incursion into Gaza while failing to adequately address the provocation – three years of Hamas rocket bombardment of Israeli towns and villages – that led to the Israeli operation. The Israeli government did not cooperate with the Commission because of its one-sided mandate that presumed Israel was guilty of war crimes.311 During the Commission’s five-month investigation, a handful of Israelis were allowed a few hours to testify about Hamas terror attacks. Photos taken while an Israeli described their ordeal show Richard Goldstone taking a nap.312

While ignoring journalistic accounts of the activities of Hamas, the Commission relied on critical reports of Israeli actions by groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), which had already been disputed. HRW, in particular, has been discredited by revelations that it has tried to raise money from Saudi Arabia by touting its history of anti-Israel reportage and that its “senior military expert,” Marc Garlasco, is a collector of Nazi memorabilia.313

When interviewing Gazans, the Commission was chaperoned by Hamas officials.313a Hence, it was not surprising that investigators made little effort to investigate Hamas activities before or during Operation Cast Lead. It was equally unremarkable for the commission to then report that it found no evidence that Hamas fired rockets from civilian homes, that terrorists hid among the civilian population, fired mortars, anti-tank missiles and machine guns into Palestinian villages when IDF forces were in proximity, or that they seized and booby-trapped Palestinian civilian houses to ambush IDF soldiers. In fact, the report refers to Hamas “police” as civilians, absolving them of terrorist rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and their illegal actions in Gaza during the conflict.314 This directly contradicts the ample photos, video and reports by journalists that depict Hamas militants participating in all of these illegal activities.315

Hamas viewed the Commission’s investigation as an opportunity to score propaganda points against Israel and it is therefore not surprising that members interviewed by the commission would fabricate stories to support accusations against Israel. For example, Hamas official Mouteeh al-Silawi stated that he was giving a sermon in a mosque filled with Palestinian civilians seeking refuge. Al-Silawi claimed that no Hamas militants were inside the mosque or in its vicinity, and that the IDF attacked civilians inside the mosque. Palestinian sources, however, identified all of the casualties at the mosque and they turned out to all be Hamas operatives.316

The Goldstone Report is rife with inaccuracies, mischaracterizations and falsehoods, which do nothing to better the lives of Palestinians living under the rule of Hamas in Gaza or deter Hamas from targeting Israeli civilians. The report makes no mention of Hamas’ illegal activities in Gaza, such as using human shields and utilizing mosques, hospitals and schools as bases of operation, and downplays the firing of rockets at Israeli civilians. By not holding Hamas accountable for targeting Israeli civilians, the report essentially legitimizes terrorism and criminalizes self-defense.

Israel does not need outsiders to tell it how to defend itself or how to investigate the actions of its military. The people of Israel expect their soldiers to uphold the highest moral standards and they demand that allegations of misconduct be promptly and thoroughly probed even when the results may be embarrassing. The war in Gaza was no exception. Israel has already examined various charges, and taken action against soldiers who acted inappropriately, and will continue to do so without intervention by parties with political agendas who start with the premise that Israelis are guilty and then set out to prove it.

MYTH

“In exchange for a settlement freeze, Arab states are offering overflight rights as a peace gesture to Israel.” top

FACT

News reports have suggested that U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell has received assurances from some Arab leaders that in exchange for an Israeli settlement freeze they will agree to allow Israel the right to overfly their countries.317 So far, however, no Arab leader has publicly said they are prepared to take this step and the Saudis have once again led the rejectionists in making clear they will not allow overflights.

Even if such a deal were achieved, it is difficult to interpret this as a significant step toward peace that warrants Israel making new concessions and taking further risks. The Arabs are giving up little by allowing Israel to fly 30,000 feet over their countries. Yes, Israel would benefit by having shorter distances to fly and save money on fuel, but this is trivial in the context of the peace process. If Arab leaders were serious about peace, they would begin to take the following steps:

  • Publicly acknowledge Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state in the Middle East.
  • Put Israel on maps of the Middle East.
  • End anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement in the media and schools.
  • Encourage exchanges of scientists, artists and athletes.
  • Cease efforts to condemn and delegitimize Israel at the UN and UN agencies.
  • Expel all terrorist groups (this especially applies to Syria, which promised the Bush Administration it would close all headquarters of terrorist groups in Damascus) and cease political and financial support for Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist entities.
  • End the Arab boycott.
  • Sell oil to Israel.
  • Allow people traveling with Israeli stamps in their passports to enter Arab countries.
  • Permit direct flights between Israel and Arab countries and allow Israelis to visit.
  • Allow Israel to open trade offices and/or interests sections in Arab countries.
  • Visit Israel and engage in face-to-face talks to discuss all issues of mutual interest and concern.
  • Open trade offices and/or interests sections in Israel.
  • Sign formal peace agreements and begin normal relations in all spheres.

Given that Israel occupies no territory claimed by another country, except Syria (Lebanon claims Israel holds a small strip of land that Israel says belongs to Syria), there is no reason why most Arab states should withhold any or all of these steps if they are truly interested in peace. If the Arab states want to continue to foster the illusion they care about the Palestinians, they could at least take the more modest of these steps now and offer to take more in exchange for Israeli gestures to the Palestinians. No one, however, should take seriously Arab overtures that are only made privately, offer only trivial concessions and first require Israeli capitulation to their demands.

MYTH

“Jews were responsible for the defeat of Egypt's candidate for UNESCO.” top

FACT

Egypt’s Minister of Culture, Farouk Hosni, lost a close election for the leadership role of UNESCO (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in September 2009 and immediately blamed the Jews for his loss. Hosni had been a controversial candidate from the outset because of his past accusation that Israel  stole Egyptian culture, his opposion to the creation of a Jewish antiquities and culture museum in Cairo318, and his call to burn Israeli books found in Egyptian libraries.319

Despite his radical anti-Israel views (Egypt, after all, has a peace treaty with Israel), Hosni was heavily favored to win the UNESCO election, due largely to the support of members of the Arab League, the Organization of African Unity (which were pressured by Egypt), and the Organization of the Islamic Conference – all organizations whose member-nations have poor track records on human rights and less-than-progressive perspectives on cultural diversity.320

Despite Hosni's record, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made an agreement with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in May 2009 not to oppose Hosni’s election.321 Many other organizations and individuals from across the globe did condemn the Egyptian. For example, French philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy, French filmmaker Claude Lanzmann and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel issued a joint statement in which they declared that the election of Hosni to UNESCO would constitute a “shipwreck,” that the organization “should spare itself the shame of electing such a leader,” and that “Mr. Farouk Hosni is the opposite of a man of peace, dialogue and culture, [he] is a dangerous man, and inciter of hearts and minds.”322 The Simon Wiesenthal Center called the possible election of Hosni “a major threat to the very values of UNESCO.” The journalism watch-dog organization, Reporters Without Borders, also condemned Hosni’s possible appointment, stating “This minister of [Egyptian President] Hosni Mubarak has been one of the main actors of censorship in Egypt, unfailingly trying to control press freedom as well as citizens’ freedom of information.”323 An article in the September/October 2009 issue of Foreign Policy referred to Hosni’s impending election as “scandalous.”324

Hosni’s defeat was not only a function of opposition to his hostile attitude toward Israeli culture but it was also a result of the support for the candidacy of the eventual winner, Irina Bokova, a career diplomat from Bulgaria who had previously served as her nation’s Foreign Minister and Ambassador to France.325 Jews did not have any votes in the election. The outcome was decided by 31 nations that supported Bokova over Hosni, including Spain and Italy who changed their votes after learning about Hosni's role in protecting the perpetrators of the terrorist attack on the Achille Lauro in 1985.326

After the democratic process was over, Hosni validated the concerns of those who voted against him by blaming his defeat on a vast Jewish conspiracy, buoyed by the United States, Eastern Europe and Japan. He subsequently declared his intention to “launch a culture war against Israel.”327

MYTH

“The enemies of Israel will not misuse the Goldstone Report.” top

FACT

When the Goldstone Commission released its one-sided report, blaming Israel for war crimes in Gaza, the United States and many other nations denounced it for what it was: an irresponsible and extremely biased report that blames Israel while forgiving the terrorist violence waged against Israeli civilians by Hamas.

The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) wasted no time in weaponizing the Goldstone Report. The HRC was not slated to convene again this year, but met in a special session to endorse the Goldstone Report. By a vote of 25-6, the UN Human Rights Council endorsed the report and recommended that other UN groups follow its recommendations, including the UN Security Council, by referring war crime prosecutions to the International Criminal Court if Israel fails to investigate the war crimes proffered by the Goldstone Commission.328

The resolution was opposed by the United States, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Ukraine. Eleven additional nations abstained while another five withheld their vote completely. Even South African judge Richard Goldstone, primary author of the troubled Goldstone Report stated his displeasure with the HRC’s resolution, stating “There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas, as we have done in the report.”329

The  HRC, whose membership includes serial human rights violators such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China, has a demonstrated obsession with Israel-bashing. The council has held six special sessions on Israel alone. For all the world’s other nations, it has held a combined total of four.330 The council ignored testimony from experts such as Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, who stated that “During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”331 This expert testimony fell on deaf ears, as the council had only intended to issue a resolution attacking Israel, as it has done in 80% of all the resolutions it has passed in its entire history.332

It was the intention of the HRC to pass a resolution that at a minimum, would damage Israel’s image with the possible result of having Israelis charged with war crimes at The Hague.

Israel’s supposed peace partner, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is committed by the Oslo Accords not to engage in acts of incitement against Israel, is leading the public campaign to stigmatize Israel and criminalize its self-defense measures and thereby driving a stake further through the heart of the peace process that President Obama has tried to resuscitate with the assent of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.333 By caving to pressure from Hamas and flaunting this sensational resolution, Abbas continues to demonstrate why so many are concerned that the Palestinian leadership does not yet have the courage or vision to lead the Palestinian people to a lasting, secure and equitable peace with Israel.

MYTH

“Amnesty's water report fairly portrays Israel.” top

FACT

Amnesty International released a report in October 2009 condemning Israel’s water-usage policy in the West Bank. Before the report’s release, the Israeli Water Authority offered to issue a report or presentation to Amnesty, but was refused.334 Given the unwillingness to hear Israel’s side, as well as it’s now long history of anti-Israel animus, it was not surprising the report was an error-filled, one-sided critique that accused Israel of using a disproportionately large amount of the region’s water resources while leaving little for the Palestinians.

Over the years, Israelis have drastically decreased the amount of water they use while Palestinian consumption has increased. Before 1967, Israel’s water usage was approximately 500 cubic meters per person per year. Today, it is 70% less at 149 cubic meters per person per year. In that time, Palestinian water consumption has increased from 86 to 105 cubic meters per person per year.335 The report is laden with errors as well. For example, it claims Palestinian villages in the vicinity of Jerusalem, such as Beit Ula, are not connected to a water system. In fact, Beit Ula has been connected to the Palestinian water network of the Palestinian Water Authority since 1974.336

Palestinians accuse Israel of stealing their water, despite the fact that the majority of Israel's water comes from within the pre-1967 armistice lines. Also forgotten is that Palestinian agriculture flourished after 1967 because Israelis introduced drip irrigation and other modern agricultural techniques. Prior to 1967, of the 430 Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank, 50 had access to running water. By 1992, an influx of capital and infrastructure from Israel had increased the number to 260.337

Year after year, the Israeli Water Authority has delivered more water per year to the Palestinians than the amounts agreed upon in the Oslo Accords. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has threatened the water security of both themselves and the Israelis by digging 250 illegal wells and refusing to purify sewage water in violation of the Oslo Accords, instead dumping sewage into West Bank streams, causing massive pollution and threatening the lives of everyone.338 Palestinian mismanagement has already destroyed the aquifer in Gaza, making the water undrinkable. The Palestinian Authority has received billions of dollars in international aid and large sums of money were earmarked for the Palestinians to build sewage treatment plants, but not a single facility has been constructed. This violates the commitment made in the Oslo Declaration of Principles for Cooperation on Water-Related Matters that states that water projects be environmentally sound. There are currently five sewage treatment plants located in the West Bank. Of these, the Palestinian Authority has only managed to keep one functioning. The Palestinian population in the West Bank exceeds 2 million. The one plant the Palestinian Authority has managed to keep functioning has the capacity to service 50,000 people - a huge disparity. In light of the Palestinian Authority's inability to serve its own people's water needs, one can understand Israel's reluctance to share more precious water resources.339 Still, Israel has offered to supply Palestinians with desalinated water but, due to political posturing, Palestinian leaders have refused.340

The issue of water in the Middle East is a serious issue for both the Palestinians and Israelis – one not easily resolved, and was therefore reserved for negotiation among the other final-status issues. The Amnesty Report does little to explain the complexities of the problem, but rather opportunistically and unproductively shovels mud on Israel. It is perhaps no coincidence that the release of the report coincides with the start of a speaking tour on U.S. university campuses entitled “Israel’s Control of Water as a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing,” organized by the Palestinian Cultural Academic Boycott of Israel movement.341

It is ironic that Amnesty would choose to focus on the issue of water, as it is an issue on which Palestinians and Israelis have demonstrated a tremendous amount of cooperation. In 2001, for example, Israel and the Palestinian Authority issued a joint statement declaring their shared intention to “keep the water infrastructure out of the cycle of violence.” When Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, Israel left the Palestinians all of the water treatment utilities they had built for Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip.342 As recently as 2007, Israeli and Palestinian municipalities released a joint memorandum declaring their shared interest in protecting water resources.

MYTH

“The threat Hizbollah poses to Israel has diminished.” top

FACT

Despite the relative calm Israel has experienced along its northern border in 2009, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization Hizbollah has made significant advances in its ability to terrorize and threaten the Jewish State. With support from Iran, Hizbollah has built up its arsenal to surpass the capability it had during the Lebanon War of 2006. The terrorist organization has stockpiled an estimated 40,000 rockets near the Israeli border.343 In the past, these terrorists used Katyusha rockets to lay siege to Israel’s north; Hizbollah now has missiles capable of reaching up to 300 kilometers into Israel, putting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem well within rocket range.344

On November 5, 2009, the Israeli Navy intercepted the Antiguan cargo ship Francop, en route to the Syrian port of Latakia, carrying more than 3,000 rockets. The rockets, bound for Hizbollah arsenals, were found in crates disguised as civilian cargo labeled IRISL (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines).345 The weaponry aboard included 9,000 mortar shells, thousands of 107-mm. Katyusha rockets that have a range of 15 kilometers, some 600 Russian-made 122-mm. rockets with a 40-km. range and hundreds of thousands of Kalashnikov bullets.346 Syria and Iran have conspired to arm Hizbollah for years and they have now been caught red-handed in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1747 and 1701, which strictly prohibit Iran  from exporting or trading any form of weaponry.347

While this ship was stopped, it is unknown how many other shipments have gone undetected. Deputy Israeli Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Roni Ben-Yehuda stated that though the seizure stopped hundreds of tons of weapons from reaching Hizbollah, it only represented “a drop in the bucket” of what Iran and Syria manage to smuggle to the Hizbollah terrorists.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated the threat succinctly: “Whoever still needed indisputable proof that Iran continues to send weapons to terror organizations got it today in a clear and unequivocal manner. Iran sends these weapons to terror organizations in order to hit Israeli cities and kill civilians.”348

MYTH

“Syria is ready for peace with Israel.” top

FACT

In November 2009, after meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that he would meet Syrian President Bashar Assad for direct negotiations, anywhere, anytime, without preconditions to discuss a permanent peace treaty between Israel and Syria. Assad, after meeting with Sarkozy two days later, flatly rejected Netanyahu’s offer and half-heartedly countered with the possibility of restarting indirect negotiations through Turkey.349

This was vintage Assad. Typically, he meets with world leaders who praise him for privately expressing an interest in peace before he publicly declares he has no intention of negotiating with Israel. This pattern actually began with Assad’s father as early as the mid-1970s when President Carter met with Hafez Assad and extolled his virtues only to recall later in his memoirs that Assad subsequently did everything he could to sabotage his peace efforts. In those years, Israel was reluctant to offer any concessions on the Golan Heights, but starting with Yitzhak Rabin in the early 1990s, successive Israeli prime ministers have offered to withdraw from the area in exchange for peace.

In 2008, under Ehud Olmert, Israel engaged in what originally were secret talks moderated by Turkey. Though progress was reportedly made, Assad undercut the talks by tying Israel-Palestinian peace to a Syrian deal.350

The basic terms of a treaty have been established over these last two decades, but finalization of the deal has been prevented by Assad’s position that Israel must return the Golan to Syria as a precondition of negotiations and his unwillingness to commit to the full normalization of relations after Israel’s withdrawal.351

Meanwhile, even as he tells Western leaders he wants peace, he continues to work with Iran to arm Hizballah with guns and rockets and to host in Damascus a variety of terror groups whom he had promised Secretary of State Powell he would expel.

Israel would very much like peace with Syria as it would not only ensure that border remains quiet but would pave the way for negotiations with Lebanon. Israel’s commitment to peace is evident in the risk it is prepared to take in leaving the strategically valuable Golan Heights. Syria is long overdue in reciprocating with concessions through direct talks.

MYTH

“Settlements are an obstacle to negotiations.” top

FACT

Today, the Palestinian leadership propagates the myth that settlements are an obstacle to peace negotiations, and that all settlement construction must cease before negotiations can resume. This has never been true in the history of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. Israel captured and settled Sinai and did not agree to remove settlements there in advance of negotiations with Egypt. After Egypt agreed to a peace treaty, Israel evacuated the Settlers from Sinai. Israel did not have to change its policies regarding settlements to achieve peace with Jordan. Once King Hussein agreed to normalize relations, however, Israel made territorial and other concessions in exchange for peace.

When Israel and the Palestinians began their secret talks in Oslo, the PLO did so without first demanding a settlement freeze. The ensuing Oslo peace process was also conducted without a settlement freeze. In fact, the Palestinians continued to negotiate through 2008 without ever making a freeze a condition of talks.

So what do the Palestinians hope to accomplish by demanding that Israel freeze all construction not only in the West Bank, but also in their capital, Jerusalem?

Apparently they still hold out hope that the United States and the international community will force Israel to capitulate to all their demands without requiring them to end the conflict with Israel and to agree to a compromise that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state that incorporates less than 100 percent of the West Bank and Jerusalem.

The future of Jewish communities in the West Bank is a key issue for Israel and the Palestinians. Because of its sensitivity, it is considered a “final-status issue,” meaning that it needs to be resolved at the end of negotiations not in advance of them.

Moreover, just as the evacuation of Gaza served as a demonstration that it is a myth to suggest that settlements and “occupation” are the obstacle to peace, there is also a historical precedent that disproves the Obama administration’s notation that a settlement freeze will encourage Palestinians to negotiate peace. During the Camp David peace process, Menachem Begin agreed to a three-month settlement freeze in response to Jimmy Carter’s Obama-like belief that settlements were the obstacle to resolving the Palestinian issue. Like Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat also maligned the Israeli concession and the Palestinians refused to discuss Begin’s proposal for autonomy. It was a catastrophic mistake.

Had the Palestinians accepted autonomy, there is little doubt they would have a state today. In addition, at the time of Camp David, only about 12,000 Jews lived in the West Bank. Because of their intransigence in the last three decades, they have remained stateless while the Jewish population has grown to nearly 300,000.

This unwillingness of the Palestinian Authority to restart negotiations because of settlement construction represents a new tactic to avoid making the tough decisions and sacrifices that will come with any final-status agreement. Some Palestinians believe time is on their side and that their population growth will eventually overwhelm Israel. So far, however, demography has worked against them as the Jewish settler population has grown and, by their own admission, made it more difficult to create a state in all the territory they claim. This situation will only grow worse if Abbas does not take advantage of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration of a 10-month freeze on settlement construction.

“I hope that this decision will help launch meaningful negotiations to reach a historic peace agreement that would finally end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” Netanyahu said.352

By launching this unprecedented moratorium on settlement construction, Israel has removed the Palestinians’ latest excuse for avoiding negotiations. It would be yet another, in a long record of squandered opportunities if Abbas did not immediately return to the table and negotiate a lasting and equitable peace on behalf of his people.

MYTH

Egypt’s blockade of Gaza has provoked international criticism.” top

FACT

Though critics have insisted the international boycott of Hamas is really an Israeli crime against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, Egypt has strongly supported Israel’s efforts to prevent Hamas from obtaining weapons and goods from which the terrorist organization can manufacture rockets to fire at Israeli cities. In fact, Egypt is in the process of building a wall to seal part of the area and prevent smuggling through tunnels under the border. These tunnels are used to bring in weapons and advanced rockets from Iran, which are capable of striking deeper and more accurately into Israel. Palestinian smugglers reap huge profits smuggling weapons, as an assault rifle purchased in Egypt for less than $200 will sell in Gaza for as much as $1,200.353

The Islamic Research Council of Al-Azhar University in Egypt, the voice of Sunni Islam, has publicly supported Egypt’s attempts to destroy the smuggling tunnels that run between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. “It is one of Egypt’s legitimate rights to place a barrier that prevents the harm from the tunnels under Rafah, which are used to smuggle drugs and other (contraband) that threaten Egypt’s stability,” the Council said. “Those who oppose building this wall are violating the commands of Islamic Law.”354

Israelis support Egypt's effort to seal the border and inhibit the ability of Hamas to build up its arsenal. It also has not escaped their notice that international detractors who were so outraged by their construction of a security barrier, and efforts to prevent terror from Gaza, have nothing to say about Egypt’s actions.

MYTH

George Mitchell threatened Israel.” top

FACT

In an interview with Charlie Rose on January 6, 2010, US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell hypothetically explained how the United States can withhold loan guarantees from Israel as a means of applying pressure. He said this in response to a question about what sticks the U.S. could use to try to bring about peace. Mitchell noted this was an option that had been utilized by previous presidents (actually, only George H.W. Bush used the guarantees as a stick), but emphasized the Obama Administration planned a different tactic. “We think the way to approach this is to try and persuade the parties what is in their self interests,” said Mitchell. “And we think we are making progress in that regard, and we are going to continue in that effort and we think the way to do that is to get them into negotiations.”355

During the interview, Mitchell lauded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unprecedented 10-month moratorium on new settlement construction in the West Bank.356 With U.S. support, Israel has made significant overtures toward the Palestinian Authority in an effort to restart negotiations. Both the U.S. and Israel are prepared to begin immediately. The hold-up continues to be the Palestinians, who recently insisted on a laundry list of impossible preconditions to resuming negotiations. These unreasonable demands include a complete construction freeze everywhere beyond the Green Line (which includes Israel’s capital, Jerusalem), a starting point of Ehud Olmert’s last offer (which they rejected despite being offered 94% of the West Bank, plus a land swap, passage to a Mediterranean port and Gaza, international control of the Old City and joint control of East Jerusalem), a commitment to withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines, and a return of the refugees, a refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and a finalization of an agreement within two years.357

While the United States and Israel march in lock-step toward the resumption of peace talks, it is the Palestinian Authority that obstructs a peace agreement by making impossible demands of Israel instead of deliberating with Israelis over the contentious issues. George Mitchell and the Obama Administration have come to recognize that the principal obstacles to a peace agreement are the Palestinian and Arab leaders who have rejected all their carrots.

MYTH

The U.S. is maintaining Israel's qualitative edge.” top

FACT

Beginning with the 1968 Phantom jet sale, the United States adopted a policy of assuring that Israel would have a qualitative military edge over its neighbors. Ten years later that edge began to erode with the decision of Jimmy Carter to sell advanced fighter planes to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Since that time, even as the United States has continued to provide Israel with advanced weaponry, its advantage has diminished as successive presidents sold increasingly sophisticated systems to Arab states.

Israel has not objected to the sale of arms to Egypt since the Camp David Accords, but the quantity and quality of those sales has become increasingly alarming given that Egypt has consistently directed its war games toward Israel and that President Hosni Mubarak is now in his eighties with no clear successor. While the prospects of a radical change in Egypt’s policy toward Israel is currently viewed as unlikely, it cannot be discounted and therefore makes the continued arming of an Egyptian military that faces no external threats a matter of concern.

While Egypt has signed a peace treaty with Israel, Saudi Arabia has not. For years, the U.S. secretly armed the Saudis and then began to openly provide the kingdom with more and better weapons. Starting with the 1981 sale of AWACS radar planes, the Saudis began to acquire some of America’s most sophisticated weapons sales while at the same time buying advanced systems from countries such as Britain and France.

For years the sales to the Saudis were justified on the grounds that they needed them to defend themselves against the Soviet Union. As Henry Kissinger noted, however, it was hypocritical to suggest that the arms could be effective against the Red Army but pose no threat to Israel.358

After 9/11, new sales were rationalized as necessities for fighting the war on terror even though the principal threat against the kingdom was internal and F-15s and other advanced weapons were useless against al-Qaida. Still, the Bush Administration agreed to the sale of even more advanced F-15 fighter-bombers and laser-guided “smart-bombs”, advanced anti-ship missiles and electronic hardware for aircraft for Saudi Arabia, as well as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.359 Few people seriously believe these weapons are needed or would be effective in deterring any external threats. In fact, it was the Saudis’ impotence, even after acquiring billions of dollars of arms, that necessitated U.S. forces coming to their rescue in 1991. More recently, arms sales have been made on the pretext of strengthening the Arab states against Iran, which, like Iraq, would have little trouble overrunning its neighbors in the absence of American troops.

The trend has been alarming for a number of years and has now reached a point where Israel is seeking new assurances from the United States that the commitment to Israel’s qualitative edge remains intact. In September 2009, Defense Minister Ehud Barak  visited Washington to discuss the situation and U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones met with Israeli officials in Jerusalem in January 2010 to talk about ensuring Israel’s qualitative edge over its Arab neighbors.

Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, said that once Israel brought the matter up, the Obama Administration took immediate steps to correct the problem. “They said they are going to deal with this matter and ensure that the qualitative edge of the IDF is preserved,” stated Oren. “Since then we have embarked on a dialogue [on preserving the IDF’s qualitative edge].”360

MYTH

The Israelis and Palestinians share equal blame in creating recent obstacles to peace.” top

FACT

In a January 2010 interview with Time, President Obama described his frustrations with the rate of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said political conditions in both the Israeli and Palestinian governments made it difficult to pursue peace, and that both sides have contributed to stalling of meaningful negotiations. On the Palestinian side, he referred to “Hamas looking over [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’] shoulder,” and “an environment generally within the Arab world that feels impatient with any process.”361 The Israelis, Obama observed, “showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, [but] they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures.”362

In an effort to show balance, President Obama offered a severely distorted reality of the impediments to the peace process. First, he ignored the history preceding his election and the repeated offers of statehood the Palestinians turned down as recently as the year before. He also downplayed the achievements and steps Israel has taken for peace, including the implementation of a moratorium on settlement construction, the removal of checkpoints and the easing of restrictions on Palestinians in the West Bank. Meanwhile, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, Obama suggested Abbas is interested in peace but excused his obstinance as a result of daunting conditions.

Throughout the year, Netanyahu reiterated his desire to return to negotiations without preconditions, but Abbas has done nothing but stonewall Israel and the United States, refusing to participate in any negotiation until a list of unreasonable preconditions were met.363 In fact, the same week Obama gave his interview, his envoy George Mitchell was meeting with the two leaders. Netanyahu again said that he was prepared to begin talks immediately while Abbas refused to drop his demands.364

Obama began the year pressuring one side, Israel, and that failed to bring the Palestinians or other Arab states to the negotiating table. Now, acknowledging the failure to make progress toward peace, he is blaming both sides rather than admitting his policy was a failure and that it is the Arab leaders who are obstructing the effort to negotiate an agreement the Israeli and Palestinian people seek to end the conflict.

MYTH

Israel is an apartheid state.” top

FACT

Even before the State of Israel was established, Jewish leaders consciously sought to avoid the creation of a segregated society. 

Since the United Nations Conference on Racism in August of 2001, anti-Semites and racists have tried to delegitimize Israel by calling it an apartheid state. Their hope is that this false equation will tar Israel and encourage measures similar to those used against South Africa, such as sanctions and divestment, to be applied to Israel.

The comparison is malicious and insults the South Africans who suffered under apartheid.

The term “apartheid” refers to the official government policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in South Africa. The whites sought to dominate the nonwhite population, especially the indigenous black population, and discriminated against people of color in the political, legal, and economic sectors.

  • Whites and nonwhites lived in separate regions of the country.
  • Nonwhites were prohibited from running businesses or professional practices in the white areas without permits.
  • Nonwhites had separate amenities (i.e. beaches, buses, schools, benches, drinking fountains, restrooms).
  • Nonwhites received inferior education, medical care, and other public services.
  • Though they were the overwhelming majority of the population, nonwhites could not vote or become citizens.

By contrast, Israel’s Declaration of Independence called upon the Arab inhabitants of Israel to “participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

The 156,000 Arabs within Israel’s borders in 1948 were given citizenship in the new State of Israel. Today, this Arab minority comprises 20% of the population.

It is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race and Arab citizens of Israel are represented in all walks of Israeli life. Arabs have served in senior diplomatic and government positions and an Arab currently serves on the Supreme Court.

Israeli Arabs have formed their own political parties and won representation in the Knesset. Arabs are also members of the major Israeli parties. Twelve non-Jews (10 Arabs, two Druze) are members of the Seventeenth Knesset.

Laws dictated where nonwhites could live, work, and travel in South Africa, and the government imprisoned and sometimes killed those who protested against its policies. By contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech. Some of the government’s harshest critics are Israeli Arabs in the Knesset.

Arab students and professors study, research, and teach at Israeli universities. At Haifa University, the target of British advocates of an academic boycott against Israel, 20 percent of the students are Arabs.

Israeli society is not perfect — discrimination and unfairness exist there as it does in every other country. These differences, however, are nothing like the horrors of the apartheid system. Moreover, when inequalities are identified, minorities in Israel have the right to seek redress through the government and the courts, and progress toward equality has been made over the years.

The situation of Palestinians in the territories is different. While many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip dispute Israel’s right to exist, nonwhites did not seek the destruction of South Africa, only of the apartheid regime.

Unlike South Africa, where restrictions were racially motivated, Israel is forced by incessant Palestinian terrorism to take actions, such as building checkpoints and the security fence, to protect its citizens. Israel has consistently demonstrated a willingness, however, to ease restrictions when violence subsides.

Beyond limits placed on their ability to attack Israel, roughly 98% of the Palestinians in the territories are governed by the rules of the Palestinian Authority, which do not permit freedom of speech, religion, assembly or other rights taken for granted by Westerners — and guaranteed in Israel.

If Israel were to give Palestinians full citizenship, it would mean the territories had been annexed and the possibility of the creation of a Palestinian state foreclosed. No Israeli government has been prepared to take that step. Instead, Israel seeks a two-state solution predicated on a Palestinian willingness to live in peace.

The clearest refutation of the calumny against Israel comes from the Palestinians themselves. When asked what governments they admire most, more than 80 percent of Palestinians consistently choose Israel because they can see up close the thriving democracy in Israel, and the rights the Arab citizens enjoy there.

“We do not want to create a situation like that which exists in South Africa, where the whites are the owners and rulers, and the blacks are the workers. If we do not do all kinds of work, easy and hard, skilled and unskilled, if we become merely landlords, then this will not be our homeland.”

— David Ben Gurion

 

“The Israeli regime is not Apartheid. It is a unique case of Democracy.”

—Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, South African Interior Minister

 

 

MYTH

Israel’s Inclusion of Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs as Jewish Heritage Sites is an attack on Palestinian sovereignty and Islam.” top

FACT

In February 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Cabinet moved to include Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs in a list of about 150 sites that have significant historical or religious significance for the Jewish people that Israel plans to renovate and preserve in a $107 million project.365 Rachel’s Tomb, located in Bethlehem, and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, are both sites that are also revered by Muslims and Christians.

When the announcement was made, Palestinian Authority leaders cried foul, claiming this was an attempt by Israel to subvert the peace process and steal Palestinian heritage. Hamas strongman Ismail Haniyeh called for another intifada and claimed the project “aims to erase our identity, alter our Islamic monuments and steal our history.”366

As has so often been the case, Israel’s “peace partners” first reaction to any Israeli policy is not to talk but to talk of new war, as PA President Mahmoud Abbas stated that this was Netanyahu's plan to “wreck international efforts at returning to (peace) talks.”367 It is also typical for the Palestinians to object to Israel reminding anyone of the significance of places they prefer to erase from Jewish history.

Netanyahu’s office released a statement that “Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs are burial sites dating from more than 3,500 years ago of Israel’s forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the nation’s foremothers, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and Rachel – and are worthy of preservation and renovation.”368

Countering the propaganda that this was some right-wing measure to undermine peace Nobel Peace Prize Winner and Israeli President Shimon Peres stated that “Israel plans to invest significant amounts in infrastructure that will increase the accessibility of holy sites to all worshippers. By doing so it aims to honor and allow freedom of worship to all, irrespective of their faith, and protect the holy sites. There is no violation of Muslim or Christian religious rights in any holy place.”369

Israel’s only intention in undergoing this expensive renovation of these sites is preserve them, so they may be visited for many years to come. Given the disrespect accorded Jewish holy sites by the Palestinians, it is all the more important to undertake these measures now since most peace plans have envisioned these shrines will ultimately be within the borders of a future Palestinian state.

MYTH

The re-dedication of the Hurva Synagogue is an affront to Palestinians.” top

FACT

On March 14, 2010, The Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem was re-dedicated. Palestinians used the occasion as a pretext to stir tensions and claim that Israel has designs on the Temple Mount, intends to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and rebuild the ancient Jewish Temple. The incitement provoked violent protests in which Palestinians burned tires and threw rocks in East Jerusalem.370 Lies about Jewish threats to the Temple Mount go back nearly a century and are a proven tactic for rallying Arabs throughout the region against Israel.

U.S. State Department Spokesperson PJ Crowley immediately responded to this latest fabrication: “We are deeply disturbed by statements made by several Palestinian officials mischaracterizing the event in question, which can only serve to heighten the tensions we see. And we call upon Palestinian officials to put an end to such incitement.”371

The Hurva Synagogue was first built in 1701 by Rabbi Judah the Pious and his followers after the previous Ashkenazi synagogue of Jerusalem fell into disrepair. After Rabbi Judah died, the congregation was unable to pay their Muslim creditors, who burned down the Synagogue. It was rebuilt between the years of 1855 and 1864 with support from Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov (a disciple of the Gaon of Vilna), Britain, Austria, Sir Moses Montefiore, the Rothschilds and Jewish communities from around the world. It even had the support of the Ottoman Empire, as its chief architect, Assad Effendi, was commissioned to design the building. The Hurva Synagogue stood until May 1948, when it was packed with explosives and blown up by the Jordanian army.372

The Hurva Synagogue is a house of worship that dates back 300 years. It is not even within sight of the Temple Mount so the renovation had no impact on Muslim shrines. Its re-dedication is a proud moment for Jewish people around the world and should not be twisted by Israel’s detractors into yet another anti-Semitic blood libel meant to prevent peace.

MYTH

The Palestinian Authority promotes a culture of tolerance and peace.” top

FACT

While stoking anti-Israel sentiment in Europe and America by claiming Israelis have no interest in peace, Palestinian leaders promote and embrace a culture of violence in the West Bank and Gaza. The naming of a square after terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered 37 Israeli civilians (including one American photographer Gail Rubin), made headlines in January 2010, however it represents but one example of a dark cultural trend of Palestinian leadership glorifying terrorists and acts of murder. When confronted about the naming of Mughrabi Square, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas unconscionably compared it to the Israelis naming a road after an Israeli victim of terror.373

Palestinian leaders regularly honor individuals who have died while committing acts of terror against Israeli civilians. Since December 2009, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has visited the families of no less than five terrorists responsible for the murder or attempted murder of Israelis.374 Mahmoud Abbas has unabashedly glorified terrorism. In December 2009, he threw Dalal Mughrabi a memorial birthday party and has supported her veneration among Palestinians.375 On March 6, 2010, Abbas promoted terrorist mastermind Mahmoud Damra to the rank of Major-General. Damra planned terrorist attacks that left scores of Israelis and three Americans dead and has been serving a prison sentence in Israel since 2006.376

On April 7, 2010, the Palestinian Authority announced it would name its presidential offices in Ramallah after Hamas’ most notorious bomb-maker, Yahya Ayyash – a man whose bombs murdered hundreds  of Israeli men, women and children, before he was brought to justice by Israeli security forces.377

The glorification of terrorists is part of the culture of violence in the Palestinian Territories and a form of incitement that violates agreements signed by the Palestinians. More troubling is the impact these expressions of hatred for Jews and Israelis must be having on Palestinian youth. Imagine being taught that the way to achieve acclaim is not by statesmanship or making contributions to the betterment of humanity through science or the arts, but through the murder of innocents. How is a lasting peace plausible when Palestinian children are taught to glorify death this way?

"All these reports about [the Palestinian Authority] recognizing Israel are false. It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel ... [Fatah] will never relinquish the armed struggle no matter how long the occupation continues."

— Rafik Natsheh, Palestinian Authority Minister/Chairman Fatah Disciplinary Court 377a

 

MYTH

The flotilla bound for Gaza was on a humanitarian mission.” top

FACT

Israel and Egypt have imposed an embargo on the importation of weapons and certain dual-use items into the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, Israel has allowed regular convoys of humanitarian supplies into Gaza, provided Palestinians access to medical care, continued to provide most of Gaza’s electricity, and transferred funds for the ongoing activity of international organizations and to pay the salaries of Palestinian Authority workers. Photos that appeared in a Palestinian newspaper showed bustling marketplaces full of consumer goods and fruits and vegetables.378

Hamas has nevertheless allied with various critics of Israel to promote the idea of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza for the purpose of embarrassing Israel and stimulating international pressure on Jerusalem to end its blockade. The latest provocation involved the mobilization of a flotilla of ships, which was advertised as an aid mission, but behaved in a manner that showed their true interest was to achieve a propaganda victory through a public confrontation with Israeli forces.

In the days before the ships left Turkey, the Israeli government informed the organizers of the mission that they would not be allowed to enter Gaza because it was a closed military zone. They were told that they would be welcome to dock in the Israeli port city of Ashdod where, after inspection to ensure no weapons or prohibited articles were included in the cargo, the goods would be handed over to the UN for delivery to Palestinians in Gaza. The organizers of the mission refused. They made clear that this mission was not about delivering aid, but was in fact a political demonstration to “break the siege on Gaza.”379

One of the organizations that organized this “humanitarian mission” is a radical Islamic, Turkish organization called IHH. This organization has publicly supported Al-Qaeda and has ties to Hamas, the terrorist organization that has taken control of the Gaza Strip, calls for the destruction of Israel, and launched thousands of rockets and mortars onto Israeli civilians.

When six ships approached Israeli waters off the coast of Gaza in the early hours of May 31, 2010, Israeli naval forces met them in international waters. The ships were again told that they would not be allowed to sail to Gaza. If they attempted to continue on their course, they were informed they would be boarded and redirected to Ashdod.

When confronted with the Israeli naval blockade, five of the six ships complied and sailed on to Ashdod after being boarded by Israeli naval personnel. As an Israeli journalist witnessed, and videos confirmed, when Israeli naval personnel boarded the Mavi Marmara, however, they were ambushed by passengers on deck, wielding clubs, bats, pipes, and knives.380 The naval forces that boarded the ship, carrying non-lethal paintball guns as their primary weapons, were savagely beaten. Though they were carrying live-ammunition handguns as their secondary weapons, they were instructed not to use them, unless met with deadly force. The passengers wrestled one of the Naval commandos to the ground, stripped him of his handgun and threw him over the side, where he landed on a lower deck, 30 feet below, and suffered serious head trauma. At this point the commandos asked for permission to open fire if attacked. They fired on passengers who attacked them, some of whom had handguns that they had taken from commandos. One passenger opened fire with a rifle. Only after 30 minutes of melee and gunfire was exchanged, were the Israelis able to get to the bridge and take control of the ship.381 Nine passengers were killed in the fighting and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded.

It is clear the purpose of this mission was not to deliver goods to Gaza, but rather to initiate a violent confrontation with Israel. As the flotilla left Turkey, the passengers chanted songs about reaching martyrdom and the murder of Jews.382 On May 27, Greta Berlin, a spokesperson for the flotilla stated that “this mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it is about breaking Israel’s siege.”383 Israeli soldiers found crates of weapons aboard that ship from which passengers armed themselves in preparation of Israelis coming aboard.

Israel’s soldiers sought to avoid a confrontation from the outset by offering to take the aid from the ships and make sure it reached the Palestinians. They also took every precaution to try to avoid violence and none transpired on five of the six ships; it was only in response to being attacked and their own lives put in danger that the soldiers responded with live fire. Tragically, lives were lost, but this could have been easily avoided if the passengers had not attempted to lynch Israel’s soldiers. Whether Israel could have handled the situation differently, or been better prepared for an ambush, were questions raised by Israelis immediately after the incident. There is no doubt, however, about the necessity of preventing Hamas from obtaining weapons through unfettered access to the Gaza Strip.

If a flotilla of ships from a foreign nation showed up on America’s shores with humanitarian aid for impoverished Americans, it would not be allowed to simply land anywhere it wanted and unload its cargo. The ships would probably also be stopped by the U.S. Navy and its cargo certainly inspected. Israel has even greater justification for its  naval embargo, as Israel and Hamas are in an ongoing state of conflict. International law provides for the right to impose and enforce an embargo and to do so, if necessary, from international waters.384 Smugglers have often tried to bring weapons to Hamas by way of the sea and Israel has the right to prevent this. The embargo is literally a matter of life and death for Israel, whose citizens endured three years of rocket and mortar attacks which originated in Gaza, perpetrated by Hamas.

“If Hamas were in Canada, America would have a tougher blockade than Israel has. ”

— Rep. Barney Frank385

MYTH

The naval blockade of Gaza does not affect Hamas and only hurts innocent civilians.” top

FACT

Since the incident aboard the Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010, in which nine passengers were killed after attacking a boarding party of Israeli naval commandos, Israel has come under increasing international pressure to lift its naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Despite the furor, all the regional players continue to support the policy of preventing Hamas’ ability to import goods, and potentially weapons, without restriction. In June 2010, Yuval Diskin, head of the Shin Bet, stated that lifting the blockade would endanger Israel, giving Hamas a new route by which to smuggle weapons. By Diskin’s estimate, Hamas has already stockpiled 5,000 rockets. An end to the blockade would give Iran an open door through which it could send Hamas additional weapons, including rockets with greater range and accuracy. Hamas already has the capability of reaching the suburbs of Tel Aviv;  an end to the blockade would give  Iran the opportunity to deliver rockets that could place Israel’s population centers in jeopardy.386

Egypt is equally committed to the blockade. Egypt shares a six-mile border with Gaza and has significantly stepped up its efforts to prevent the smuggling of weapons and money headed to Hamas. Egypt’s efforts are beginning to have a serious effect on Hamas. While domestic goods are smuggled easily through the tunnels under the border, Iran and other supporters of Hamas have had difficulty smuggling money to Hamas’ strongmen, creating a cash-flow crisis for the terrorist organization. Hamas has begun to levy additional taxes on the Palestinians of Gaza, creating some pushback from Palestinians and driving a wedge further between the interests of the people of Gaza and the Hamas leadership.387

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas voiced his support of the blockade to U.S. President Barack Obama when they met at the White House on June 9, 2010. Abbas stated that lifting the blockade would give Hamas access to more weaponry. Though he supported the idea of an increase in the types of goods Israel allowed into Gaza, he advocated making changes to Israel’s policy slowly, so that it could not be interpreted as a victory for Hamas.388

Israel has said all along it does not want to punish the people of Gaza and has been gradually loosening the restrictions on what it permits into the area. The government has indicated it intends to provide even more assistance in the future.

Israel’s government announced it will investigate why five ships were peacefully brought to Ashdod and their cargo unloaded and forwarded to Gaza while one ship’s passengers provoked a confrontation. Meanwhile, the unfortunate events at sea did not change any of the facts on the ground and should not be allowed to trigger a knee-jerk reversal of a policy that is saving Israeli lives. The necessity of the blockade was obvious shortly after the uproar over the flotilla when Hamas launched a series of rockets into Israel. Hamas remains an Islamic terrorist organization, backed by Iran, which is less interested in the creation of a Palestinian state than the destruction of a Jewish one.

MYTH

UNIFIL has kept the peace in southern Lebanon.” top

FACT

In 1978, the United Nations Security Council ratified Resolutions 425 and 426, which simultaneously called upon Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory and created a UN force “for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.”389

The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has now been stationed in southern Lebanon since 1978. Since its arrival, UNIFIL’s mission has been threefold: prevent attacks on Israel, support the established Lebanese government and, lastly, to keep peace, an objectively difficult task in the fractious region that has been dominated in the past by terrorist organizations and paramilitary forces such as the PLO, the Southern Lebanon Army and Hezbollah. For most of its history, UNIFIL has either failed to prevent conflict or has stood by silently as terrorists have built up arsenals that enabled them to start or renew violent attacks against Israel. Under UNIFIL’s “watchful” eye, southern Lebanon has served as the staging ground for terrorist attacks on Israel which have provoked two wars each of which could have been averted if the peacekeepers had done their job.

After the 2006 war provoked by Hezbollah attacks on Israel and the abduction of three of its soldiers, UNIFIL’s failure became clear to everyone. Rather than abandon the idea of a toothless international force to keep the peace, however, the UN decided to employ a similar force with a slightly expanded mandate.  In passing UN Security Council Resolution 1701, the UN called for a larger UNIFIL contingent of up to 15,000 troops.390 Once again, Israel was promised that its security would be enhanced. U.S. officials said Lebanon would require a “robust” force to prevent Hezbollah from reestablishing itself near Israel’s border and to prevent the terrorists from being rearmed by Syria and Iran.391 The UN also reasserted its insistence that Hezbollah be disarmed and the only force with weapons should be the official Lebanese Army.

Four years later, it is again apparent UNIFIL is not only failing in its mission but may actually be doing precisely the opposite of peacekeeping by enabling Hezbollah to become an even greater threat to the stability of both Lebanon and Israel than it was before 2006. In fact, Hezbollah is currently better armed and more equipped than ever before. In October 2009, Israeli intelligence forces estimated that Hezbollah had stockpiled between 40,000 and 80,000 rockets and missiles for use against Israel.392 In April 2010, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that “Syria and Iran are providing Hezbollah with so many rockets that they are at a point where they have more missiles than most governments in the world.”393 UNIFIL has operated so ineptly that the situation in southern Lebanon is more dangerous and explosive than it has ever been. Under its watch, Hezbollah grew from a small and battered terrorist organization into a military force that has co-opted the Lebanese government and poses a growing  threat to Israel.

UNIFIL has proven itself so tragically inept and it is even incapable of policing the local civilian population. On July 3, 2010, a French patrol of UNIFIL peacekeepers were disarmed by local villagers armed only with rocks, sticks and eggs.394 This apparently is not an uncommon occurrence in Lebanon. If a UN peacekeeping force cannot defend itself from a pack of local villagers weilding nothing more potent than sticks and rocks, how can we expect it to fair against the best armed terrorist organization in the world?

MYTH

Palestinian Authority leaders have a mandate from the people to pursue peace.” top

FACT

President Mahmoud Abbas’ term as President of the Palestinian Authority expired in January 2009. Elections have not been held since Hamas forcibly took over the Gaza Strip in 2007. Salaam Fayyad has an even more dubious claim to his job as Prime Minister. Fayyad’s Third Way Party won only two parliamentary seats in the 2006 elections which has now reduced to one since his other party member, Hanan Ashrawi, left the party.  Fayyad was appointed to the position under heavy pressure from the United States and Europe because he was viewed as a moderate and a reformer.395 Even as he has taken steps to make the PA more fiscally responsible and begun to build the infrastructure for a state, Fayyad has remained more popular abroad than among his own constituenets, the Palestinian people. This fact was reflected by a poll in January 2010 that gave him only 8% of the vote in a hypothetical run for Palestinian Authority President.396

Abbas, on the other hand, does not even have the support of the governing body of his own party. The PLO Executive Committee (which itself is comprised of 18 un-elected but influential political players) gathered to approve Abbas' direct negotiations with Israel yet only nine members of the committee showed up for the meeting- well short of the 12 required by the PLO constitution to approve of Abbas’ participation.397 Additionally, no public record exists of Abbas receiving approval to negotiate from Fatah, the dominant faction in the PLO, whose central council is viewed with heightened suspicion by Palestinians after a 2009 election left it packed with Abbas supporters.398

The legitimacy of the PA negotiators is further weakened by the fact that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, home to about 40 percent of the Palestinians in the territories. Hamas, meanwhile, has made no secret of its opposition to any compromise with Israel or any acceptance of its right to exist.

These questions of legitimacy make it difficult for Israeli negotiators who seek to reach a compromise with the Palestinians but have to feel confident that such an agreement can be enforced on the ground. In addition to doubts about the support Abbas has from the Palestinian people, Israelis also worry about his ability to fulfill the terms of any deal he might sign. He cannot guarantee peace so long as he has no control of the Gaza Strip; moreover, the terrorist attacks carried out in the West Bank during the Washington summit raised significant doubts about his control over the area in which he is supposed to have authority.

Despite these concerns with Abbas’ willingness and ability to reach and enforce a deal, Israel is negotiating with him in good faith with the hope that achieving an agreement might enable him to win the support that he now lacks of the Palestinian people .

MYTH

Ending the moratorium on settlement construction is designed to torpedo peace negotiations.” top

FACT

Contrary to claims that a settlement freeze is required for Israel-Palestinian talks, a moratorium on construction has never before been a precondition for  peace talks.  When Israel and the Palestinians began their secret talks in Oslo in 1992, the PLO did so without first demanding a settlement freeze.  The ensuing Oslo peace process was also conducted without a settlement freeze.  In fact, Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israel through 2008 without ever making a construction freeze a pre-condition for talks.

The 10-month construction freeze imposed by Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2009 was in place for nearly nine months before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas finally agreed to sit down with Netanyahu, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss  the terms of negotiation.  Just before the expiration of the freeze,  the Palestinians warned  they would walk out of the talks if construction resumed.399

 Abbas apparently wants to set up Israel as the cause of any breakdown in talks. He may also hope the Obama administration is so determined to achieve peace that it will pressure Israel to impose new restrictions on settlements without the Palestinians having to make any concessions. In fact, the Palestinians act as though showing up for negotiations is a major compromise.

The settlements were never before an obstacle to negotiations and need not be one now. Refusing to talk will not hurt Israel; in fact, it will only lead to the growth of settlements and delay steps toward Palestinian independence.

MYTH

Renewed settlement construction in the West Bank proves Israel is uninterested in peace.” top

FACT

The empirical evidence of the last six decades has shown that settlements are not an obstacle to peace; nevertheless, Israel has responded to American calls for moratoriums in the hope of enticing the Palestinians to agree to peace.  

Most people have forgotten that Menachem Begin agreed to a three-month settlement freeze during the Camp David negotiations because Jimmy Carter mistakenly believed this would convince the Palestinians to discuss the proposal to give them autonomy.  Had they agreed, the Palestinians would have likely stopped the growth of settlements at a time when the population in the territories was about 6,000. The Palestinians, instead, rejected the idea and refused to talk to Israel for more than a decade during which time the settlement population grew to more than 100,000. By contrast, when Egypt agreed to peace with Israel all of the settlements in Sinai were evacuated.

The Oslo accords signed by the Palestinians did not require Israel to stop building settlements. The Palestinians continued to negotiate even as Israel expanded the communities in the territories. In fact, settlements were not an impediment to talks until President Obama demanded that Israel freeze construction.  

Unwittingly, the president undermined his objective of promoting peace talks by setting a condition that the Palestinians themselves had never imposed. In fact, just a year earlier, the Palestinians were in direct talks with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, though they eventually also rejected his proposal to create a Palestinian state in nearly 93% of the West Bank.400 Once Obama made settlements the issue, it was impossible for the Palestinians to be less demanding than the United States.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ultimately agreed in November 2009 to a 10-month settlement freeze with the expectation that the Palestinians would immediately sit down to negotiate. Instead, the Palestinians refused to enter talks for the first nine months of the freeze. It was only when the moratorium was about to expire, and the Palestinians were afraid to refuse the invitation of President Obama to a peace summit, that they agreed to participate in bilateral negotiations. Before the talks even began, however, the Palestinians threatened to walk out if Israel resumed building in the West Bank or Jerusalem.

Israel had made clear from the outset that the moratorium would last for only 10 months. Now Israel is being pressured to extend the freeze to keep the Palestinians from walking out, but this essentially gives them the power to blackmail Israel indefinitely. If Israel gives in to pressure and extends the freeze for, say, two months, then what is to keep the Palestinians from renewing their threat at that time? The tactic will allow them to prevent Israel from providing for the needs of its citizens without ever conceding anything. By rewarding Palestinian intransigence, the belief is reinforced that Israel can be coerced to capitulate to their demands, a delusion that damages the prospects for peace.

MYTH

Israel has instituted a racist loyalty oath requiring immigrants to pledge allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” top

FACT

In October 2010, the Israeli cabinet proposed the adoption of an oath of allegiance for new immigrants who wish to settle in the country. If adopted, all those seeking to become naturalized citizens- both Jews and non-Jews- will have to explicitly pledge an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state” while also promising to “honor the laws of the state.”401 No changes to existing laws have been implemented as yet and since the idea of requiring an oath with such language is controversial in Israel it is likely to be revised during the deliberative process in the Knesset. The new oath may not even be approved at all because the characterization and recognition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state is already deeply embedded in the country's 1948 Declaration of Independence, 1992 “Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty” and, as Hebrew University law professor Ruth Gavison notes, in the "understanding of most of the people who live [in Israel]".402

Although the proposed law instructs immigrants to officially declare and recognize Israel as a Jewish state, it does not stipulate a requirement for being Jewish in order to receive citizenship.  Israel has never put restrictions on what religion its citizens choose to follow and assures freedom of religion within Israel as a matter of law.403 Moreover, the oath will not affect current Israeli citizens or those who acquire Israeli citizenship through birth, thus allaying many fears within Israel’s various Arab communities that their children would have to pledge allegiance to a “Jewish state.”   

Syrian President Assad as well as Arab members of Israel’s parliament have suggested the oath is a “fascist act” and cements Israel as a “racist country.”404 In truth, the expectation that immigrants swear an oath to their new homeland is not unusual; check, for example, the requirements of citizenship in the U.S. and other Western countries.

Consider also the preamble to the Palestinian Basic Law, as well as the Hamas Charter, which both assert that Palestine is part of the “Arab world” and that “Islam is its official religion.”405  Standing in stark contrast to the broad ranging religious freedoms granted to all citizens in Israel, non-Muslims are not accorded equal rights in the Palestinian Authority or any other Muslim country in the Middle East.

From its inception Israel has been a Jewish state without compromising the rights and freedoms of its citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion. The proposed oath will ensure that any immigrant who voluntarily chooses to move to Israel in the future will understand the essential connection between the Jewish people and the State of Israel. The oath has not yet been instituted into law and, in the end, the decision on whether it is necessary or desirable will be determined through the democratic processes of Israel's government.

"It is not wise or right to say that the proposal is fascist or anti-democratic. It is not.... The law may be an indication of an undesirable process, but the labels of 'antidemocratic' and 'fascist' are not helpful."

#151;Ruth Gavison, Hebrew University 406

 

 

"We expect anyone wishing to become an Israeli citizen to recognize Israel as the Jewish nation state and a democratic state... The State of Israel was not established as 'just another state'- it was founded as the sovereign state of the Jewish people in their historic homeland; and as a democratic nation, whose citizens, Jews and non-Jews, enjoy full civil equality."

—Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister407

 

 

MYTH

The Palestinians can pressure Israel to neogtiate on their terms by unilaterally declaring statehood.” top

FACT

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced in early 2010 his intention to declare an independent Palestinian state in the summer of 2011 irrespective of whether or not a peace agreement is signed with Israel. Angered by Israel’s unwillingness to capitulate to demands for an extended settlement moratorium, the Palestinian Authority is now threatening to seek recognition by the UN of a Palestinian state based on the 1949 armistice lines (i.e., the pre-1967 frontier).408  While some nations have expressed a willingness to support such a move, the United States does not and remains committed to a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.409  Moreover, without US backing it is unlikely a Palestinian state would receive international recognition.

A unilateral declaration of statehood would be more likely to harden Israeli attitudes than to encourage concessions.  Such a move would demonstrate the Palestinians are not prepared to end the conflict and would actually force Israel to take measures that would ensure the security of its citizens.  For example, instead of evacuating the settlements- a foreseen outcome of peace talks- Israel would have to fortify these communities and defend them, as the Jews living there, as citizens of Israel, would remain the responsibility of the state.

Likewise, without an agreement on security matters, the Israeli Defense Forces would remain in place in the West Bank to defend the country.  If a terror attack or any other threat to Israeli security were to emanate from the newly declared state, Israel would be justified to retaliate and to take whatever other measures are required for its self-defense.  Furthermore, Israel would have no incentive to make any concessions on other issues, such as water, or to negotiate any change in the status of Jerusalem, which would remain the undivided capital of Israel regardless of any Palestinian declarations.  Israel would in fact be within its own rights to prevent Palestinians, who would be foreign nationals, from entering any part of Israel, including Jerusalem, without proper documentation.

Additionally, international recognition of “Palestine” is not an assurance.410  Some nations may be reluctant to grant recognition because of the precedent it would set for other people aspiring for independence.  When Kosovo pulled away from Serbia in 2008, for example, neither China nor Russia supported the Kosovar independence because of fears that their approval might pave the way for Tibet and Chechnya to pursue a similar strategy.411  Other countries, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, may also oppose recognition because it would suggest they are unable to resolve the conflict through negotiations which would damage their state-building credibility.

Rather than end the conflict, the goal of negotiations, unilateral actions by the Palestinians could exacerbate and prolong a dispute that has already gone on far too long.

"There is no substitute for face-to-face discussion and, ultimately, for an agreement that leads to a just and lasting peace That is the only path that will lead to the fulfillment of the Palestinian national aspirations and the necessary outcome of two states for two peoples.... Nor is it viable to build the institutions of a future state without the negotiations that will ultimately create it."

—Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State412

MYTH

Israel cannot be both a democratic state and a Jewish state.” top

FACT

The uproar over Israel’s proposed loyalty oath for new immigrants has sparked renewed debate over whether Israel’s insistence on being a “Jewish state” violates the principles of western democracy.  Critics claim that by identifying the country with Jewish symbols, such as the Star of David or menorah, having its national anthem relate to the Jewish yearning for a “return to Zion” and granting Jews automatic citizenship through the Law of Return, Israel is verging on theocratic ideals and rudely affronts its non-Jewish citizens.  Israel is not a theocracy, however; it is governed by the rule of law as drafted by a democratically elected parliament and enforced by a highly praised judicial system

Israeli law adheres to many Jewish religious customs and is largely informed by Jewish values, but this structure makes it no different than other democracies that shape themselves around Christian or Islamic traditions.  The Greek constitution outlines the country as an Eastern Orthodox state; Christian crosses don the flags of Switzerland, Sweden and Finland; the monarchs of the UK, Norway and Denmark head their respective national churches. 413  In addition, Ireland has a law allowing immigrants of “Irish descent or Irish associations” to be exempt from ordinary naturalization rules while Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany and a number of other democratic states also have precedents strikingly similar to Israel's Law of Return. No one, though, claims that these countries cannot be democratic while also maintaining strong connections with their national heritage and religious core.

Israel is the prototypical “ethnic democracy”, wherein Jews account for a majority of the population, but its democratic foundation grants all faiths freedom of worship, protects the rights of minorities and allows non-Jews the right to run for government offices and fully participate in political processes.414 Israeli law also grants freedom of the press and freedom to assemble for all citizens, thrives off of open political debate and welcomes immigrants without racial discrimination. In fact, Israel is the largest per-capita immigrant-absorbing nation in the world with citizens hailing from more than 100 different countries and representing more than six distinct ethnic and religious groups.415

At its core, democracy is “rule of the people, by the people, for the people”, and it is therefore understandable that democracy would look slightly different as the shared history, culture and traditions of people differ from one country to the next.  Just as Arabs, Turks or Japanese people, Jews have the right to self-determination in their own sovereign state.  Israel is that sovereign homeland of the Jewish people and it is also democratic, tenets that are not inherently oxymoronic or contradictory.

 

"In accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations, the State of Israel is a Jewish state. In accordance with the basic principles on which it was established, the State of Israel is a democracy. There is no contradiction between Israel's character as a Jewish state and its character as a democracy. The existence of a Jewish state does not contravene democratic values, nor does it in any way infringe on the principle of freedom or the principle of civic equality."

— "The Kinneret Agreement", The Committee for National Responsibility 469

 

MYTH

The UN helps preserve Jewish holy sites located in the Palestinian territories.” top

FACT

In a move derided as “absurd” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) voted overwhelmingly to officially declare Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem as Palestinian mosques- with no mention of the sites’ significance to the Jewish people.  In late October, the UNESCO executive board approved five politically-charged decisions about holy sites in Israel and the Palestinian territories and, in a vote of 44 to 1 with 12 abstentions, affirmed these two specific sites as “an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories and that any unilateral action by the Israel authorities is to be considered a violation of international law.”416  By completely ignoring thousands of years of Jewish legacy and heritage, the United Nations has proven once again that it is a hostage of the anti-Israel voting bloc and makes decisions based on politics rather than facts.

The decision by the UN body in charge of preserving and protecting the world’s historical sites comes as a delight to the Palestinians who themselves refuse to acknowledge the Jewish people’s connection with the land of Israel.  Earlier this year, when Netanyahu’s cabinet decided to include the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb on a planned ‘Jewish Heritage Trail,’ both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas cried foul and claimed the decision aimed “to erase [Palestinian] identity, alter Islamic monuments and steal [Palestinian] history.”417  Robert Serry, the UN’s special coordinator for the Middle East, noted at the time that he “was concerned over this proclamation” since those sites “are on Palestinian territory and bear importance not only to Judaism but in Islam as well.”418

While the Israeli plan was meant simply to ensure that the connection between the Jewish people and their biblical holy sites would be maintained, the UN’s recent decision blatantly disregards and attempts to erase Jewish claims to the areas.  Unlike their earlier response to Israel’s announcement, neither Serry nor any UNESCO official made a statement regarding the sites’ dual significance to Islam and Judaism.

This is not the first time the UN has shown disregard for the heritage of the Jewish people. In 2000, the UN failed to condemn the Palestinians for destroying and desecrating two Jewish holy sites - Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus and the “Shalom al-Israel” synagogue in Jericho – yet adopted a resolution denouncing Israel for its archeological digs in East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.419

Whether one is in favor of Jewish settlements in the disputed territories or not, it is an undeniable fact that this geographical area was the cradle of Jewish biblical history.  The UN decision has reinforced the view that it acts with bias and malice toward Israel and, therefore, has no constructive role to play in promoting Middle East peace.

"The attempt to separate the nation of Israel from its cultural heritage is absurd... If the places where the fathers and mothers of the Jewish nation- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rachel- are buried some 4,000 years ago, are not part of the Jewish heritage, then what is? It is unfortunate that an organization that was established with the goal of promoting the cultural preservation of historical sites around the world, is attempting to uproot the connection between the nation of Israel and its cultural heritage."

—Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister 420

 

"It is deeply troubling that UNESCO allowed itself to be manipulated by ignoring Jewish and Islamic tradition and buying into the new Palestinian claim from 1996 that Rachel’s Tomb should be named for Muhammad’s slave, Bilal ibn Ribah, who was buried in Damascus."

—Dore Gold, Former Israeli Ambassador to the UN 421

 

MYTH

“Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate interested in compromise.” top

FACT

The definition of “moderate” is relative. Compared to Hamas, Hizbullah and Ahmadinejad, for example, Abbas can be viewed as a moderate since he explicitly negotiates with Israel. Abbas, however, has expressed no true willingness to compromise on any substantive issue, balks at true peace efforts and vehemently spews anti-Israel rhetoric that has significantly hampered the peace process in the past.

In November 2010, Abbas spoke at the sixth annual memorial service for Yasser Arafat and definitively announced that he will continue to tow the hard line agenda of his mentor and predecessor.422 Arafat, the Palestinian leader who died in 2004, is considered one of the fathers of Palestinian terrorism.   Abbas is holding to Arafat’s policies of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Palestine; requiring Israeli withdrawal from all settlements; demanding the full right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants; and refusing to acknowledge the Jewish character of the State of IsraelAbbas also publicly glorifies Palestinian martyrs and allows Holocaust denial to spread in official Palestinian sources.

On the issue of Jerusalem, Abbas maintains that the city will be the capital of a future Palestinian state. “At the Camp David summit, the Palestinian leadership rejected an Israeli proposal to share sovereignty,” he said in 2005, “We continue to reject this offer. We cannot compromise on Jerusalem.”423 In an interview with the Washington Post in 2007, Abbas declared, “I have always said that East Jerusalem is an occupied territory. We have to restore it.”424 Again in 2010, he said that “the Arab city of Jerusalem, including its holy sites, is an integral part” of the future Palestinian state.425

On the subject of Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, Abbas insisted that “The withdrawal from Gaza must only be part of other withdrawals…. Israel must pull out of all Palestinian lands occupied in 1967.”426 He reiterated again in a letter to Presidents Obama and Medvedev in 2010 that “the shortest way to peace is ending the Israeli occupation of all territory… including Jerusalem, occupied Syrian Arab Golan Heights and the remaining Lebanese territories.”427 Abbas refuses to acknowledge Israeli security concerns that would stem from a complete withdrawl and is categorically opposed to land-swap deals to allay those fears.

With regards to the Palestinian refugeesright of return”, Abbas has been staunch in his view that he will not compromise.428  According to Abbas, there are 4.7 million Palestinians refugees to whom the right of return must be conferred.  “We will never forget the rights of the refugees,” Abbas said, “They will eventually gain their rights, and the day will come when the refugees return home.”429. In November 2010, the Fatah Revolutionary Council praised Abbas for standing up to pressure and maintaining his position on the Palestinian right of return. 429a

Though Abbas negotiates with Israel he rejects its raison d’etre as a Jewish state.  Speaking to the Palestinian youth parliament in 2009, Abbas declared his refusal to recognize Israel's Jewish character saying, “Call yourselves what you want, but I will not accept it… The ‘Jewish State’… I will not accept it.” 430 Abbas backed that statement again in September 2010, when he told members of the Hadash party it was an “unacceptable demand” that he recognize Israel as a Jewish state.431  

Abbas is also supposed to have forsworn terror, but in February 2008, he told the Jordanian paper al-Dustur that he did not rule out returning to the path of armed “resistance” against Israel. In fact, his reason for not currently engaging in “armed struggle” is not because he has disavowed terror, but simply because he doesn’t believe the Palestinians can achieve their objectives without a coalition.  As he told the Arab League in July 2010, “If you want war, and will fight Israel [with us], we are in favor.” 432 Additionally, Abbas was one of the founders of the Fatah terrorist group and, in February 2008, he proudly claimed credit for initiating the terror campaign against Israel. “I had the honor of firing the first shot in 1965 and of being the one who taught resistance,” Abbas said. The PA president even takes credit for training Hizbullah- “We had the honor of leading the resistance and we taught resistance to everyone, including Hizbullah.” 433 The daily newspaper of the Palestinian Authority, Al Hayat Al Jadida, whose budget is supplied by Abbas, has praised, honored and even eulogized martyred terrorists. The paper, for example, praised the Palestinian who murdered eight youths in a Jerusalem school in 2008, referring to him as having achieved Islamic martyrdom.  In 2010, Abbas eulogized the mastermind behind the massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics in which 11 Israeli athletes were murdered as “a leading figure in resistance and sincere work” who “sacrificed for his people’s just causes.”434

Like Ahmadinejad, Abbas also allows Holocaust denial to spread under his watch. The official PA media outlet airs programs where Palestinian academics teach that Auschwitz and Dachau “never existed” and the Palestinian Ministry of Education produces schoolbooks which teach the history of World War II yet completely ignores the Holocaust and the extermination of six million Jews. 435

On the issues, Abbas is no moderate.  Israel has no illusions about Abbas and from the time he took over for Arafat has expressed skepticism that any agreements could be reached with a man who has shown neither the will nor the ability to carry out any of his promises. Nevertheless, Israeli leaders understand he is the only interlocutor they presently have and are willing to pursue negotiations in the hope that Abbas will eventually moderate his views and compromise on the issues required to reach an agreement.

"Yasser Arafat cleaved to the permanent national rights that cannot be diminished...We state today, we will not deviate one iota from the principles of Yasser Arafat and his objectives."

—Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority President436

 

MYTH

“Israel is the only country in the Middle East that feels threatened by Iran's nuclear ambitions.” top

FACT

In light of the thousands of secret documents and cables released by the whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks in late November 2010, it is clear that Israel is neither alone in its concern over the Iranian government’s budding nuclear weapons program nor in its desire to see that program destroyed.  Western media outlets have consistently harped on Israel’s deep concerns over the Iranian march toward becoming a nuclear power, however much of the Arab world also feel threatened by Iran and harbor similar, if not more extreme, views towards confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. 

While most nations in the Arab world continue to state publicly that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the greatest threat to the region, the WikiLeaks cables tell a different story.  The leaked documents, many of which detail meetings between U.S. diplomats and high-ranking officials in Arab governments, expose how many Arab states in the Middle East feel threatened by the prospect of a nuclear Tehran and are advocating for military action.  As Mustafa El-Labbad, director of the Al-Sharq Center for Regional and Strategic Studies in Cairo, notes, WikiLeaks unveiled to the world that “the official stance in the Middle East, led by Saudi Arabia and including Egypt, Jordan, UAE and Bahrain is that Iran and not Israel poses the main threat to the region.”437

In a meeting with top U.S. military commanders in 2008, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia allegedly exhorted the US to “cut off the head of the snake” by launching military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.438  Another leaked cable detailed a 2009 meeting at the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain in which King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa argued “forcefully for taking action to terminate [Iran’s] nuclear program, by whatever means necessary.”439  This view is shared by the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed, who proposed using “ground forces” to “take out all locations of concern” in Iran if air power alone would not be successful. 440 The Kingdom of Jordan also views Iran as a threat to the entire Middle East.  Referring to the Shia Muslim-majority nation, Jordanian officials told the U.S., “It is an octopus whose tentacles reach out insidiously to manipulate, foment, and undermine the best laid plan of regional moderates… Iran’s tentacles include its allies Qatar and Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories.” 441 WikiLeaks documents also revealed that an Egyptian intelligence chief told the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Egypt would cooperate with the U.S. if they confront Iran, a claim reverberated by Egyptian President Mubarak who said, “No one will accept a nuclear Iran.” 442

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed confidence that these revelations will help build momentum for a larger international coalition that can place tougher restrictions on Iran and trusts that “more and more states… believe [Iran] is the fundamental threat.”443  Steve Plocker, a leading commentator for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth, echoes Netanyahu’s views and hopes.“The leaked documents show that the entire world, not just Israel, is panicked over the Iranian nuclear program,” he writes, “Iran poses the greatest clear and present danger to the stability of the world, and the world has to act to remove this malignant tumor.” 444

"That [Iranian nuclear] program must be stopped. The danger or letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it."

—Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, King of Bahrain445

MYTH

“Saudi Arabia is an ally of the West in the war on terror.” top

FACT

While the United States has publicly lauded Saudi Arabia as a major ally in the ongoing war on terror, classified diplomatic cables uncovered by the whistleblower site WikiLeaks in late November 2010 show that the State Department holds a much more pessimistic view towards the Saudi commitment to counter-terrorism.  More than nine years after the attacks of September 11th, the released cables reveal that U.S. officials feel Saudi Arabia continues to permit, and at worst even encourage, the financing of terrorists.  In recent years, wealthy Saudi nationals were identified as funneling millions of dollars through various government-sanctioned charitable organizations that help fund Islamic terror organizations, including Bin-Laden’s Al-Qaeda and Palestinian Hamas.  According to one of the released cables, “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” 446

Though the Saudi government was not directly indicted by WikiLeaks for financing terrorism, both their support for extremism and their reluctance to embrace the American-led war on terror is well documented.  In 2002, at the height of the Palestinian Intifada, the Saudi’s sponsored a telethon for “Palestinian martyrs” through which hundreds of thousands of dollars were distributed to the families of suicide bombers. 447 An estimate released in 2003 showed up to 60% of Hamas’ total budget was supplied by Saudi Arabia, either from official government sources or through organizations whose ongoing activities were protected by the government. 448 Towards the end of the Bush administration, after years of receiving millions of dollars in economic and military aid from the U.S., Saudi leaders attacked the U.S. by calling it “a first class sponsor of international terrorism” and even issued a fatwa allowing the use of WMD’s against the U.S. 449 In one of the cables released through WikiLeaks, dated December 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was privately critical of the Saudi government’s staunch refusal to ban three charities that the U.S. classified as terrorist entities after intelligence reports suggested “that these groups continue to send money overseas… and fund extremism.” 450 Clinton was also deeply frustrated that the Saudi’s had done little to disrupt the internal access to fundraising that terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) enjoy within the Kingdom.451  For example, not one person directly identified by the United States and United Nations as a terror financier for these groups has been prosecuted in Saudi courts.

The Saudi Arabian government has indeed made some efforts to curb terrorism stemming from its country; however, the measures taken have been almost exclusively aimed at protecting the royal family and their vast oil reserves.  As Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorist and Financial Intelligence within the Department of the Treasury, noted, beyond those “personal” initiatives, Saudi Arabia has taken only minimal steps to curb Islamic extremism.  In an interview with ABC News, Levey said, “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding [to terrorists] from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia.”452 Despite being publicly hailed by the United States as a critical military and diplomatic ally, Saudi Arabia has yet to prove that it is fully committed to assisting in the war on terror.

"Saudi Arabia is active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader... Saudi Arabis supports our enemies and attacks our allies."

—Laurent Murawiec, RAND Corporation 468

MYTH

"The viability of a future Palestinian state is severely hampered by the continued construction of Israeli settlements." top

FACT

When the 10 month Israeli moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank expired in September 2010, the approval of construction requests resumed. Despite the moratorium, the Palestinian Authority still had refused to enter negotiations for the first nine months. At the last hour, and under intense international pressure, the Palestinians agreed to participate in one round of talks yet immediately threatened to leave if the moratorium was not extended. In separate negotiations with the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was prepared to extend the freeze for another three months but the Americans nixed the proposal. 453

Meanwhile, the Palestinians continued to insist they would not talk if any building took place in East Jerusalem. Israel never agreed to place any restrictions on building in its capital and the Palestinians used this as a pretext to avoid peace negotiations, this despite the fact that they had engaged in talks for nearly 17 years without the precondition of a settlement freeze.

Announcements of new construction in the West Bank after the moratorium ended immediately set off hysterical cries from the Palestinians and their supporters, as well as ill-informed journalists, that the continued building would make peace impossible. A December editorial in the Baltimore Sun, for example, mentioned that Israel’s settlements are expanding “at a rate that will soon render the whole issue [of peace] moot because eventually there won’t be enough land to create a viable Palestinian state”. 454 The New York Times noted that Israel was making it exponentially harder for the Palestinians to achieve independence by allowing more Jews to move and settle into the West Bank. While the accusations aimed at Israel paint a picture of the settlements as “land-hungry” and dominating the landscape of the Palestinian territories, the facts tell a completely different story.

According to data released by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, and independently verified by the anti-settlement Israeli organization Peace Now, there are currently 303,900 Jews living in 122 settlements - a number representing only 12% of the West Bank’s total population and proportionally much smaller than the Arab population of Israel.455 The settlements population increase over the last year was also actually significantly lower than the average annual increase of the last two decades.456 Moreover, almost 65% of the settlers live in just four settlements - Ma’ale Adumim, Betar Illit, Modi’in Illit and Gush Etzion– communities that are all near the “Green Line,” and expected to be incorporated into Israel in any future agreement involving the creation of a Palestinian state.457

Most of the remaining settlers are scattered in small communities that Israel has previously indicated it would consider evacuating in exchange for peace. This precedent was set years ago when thousands of Israelis were evacuated from Sinai in 1982 as part of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. Israel also unilaterally withdrew thousand of settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 in the hope this would stimulate the Palestinians to negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict.

Additionally, all new settlement construction in the West Bank is within the boundaries of already established settlements. “In-fill,” as this type of construction is generally termed, is a common practice in urban development whereby one builds on unused land inside an existing neighborhood and it is the only type of building that Israel legally permits for Jews in the Palestinian territories. 458 Furthermore, more than half of the building is within the four large settlement blocs. 459

Not one new legal settlement has been built since 1999 when Israel approved the construction of Negahot in the Hebron hills. In fact, after more than 40 years of Israeli control over the West Bank, built-up areas of Israeli settlements constitute less than 1.7% of the territory’s total area. 460

 

"We are in a pointless discussion about the marginal issue of building in the settlements.... To reach peace, we need to discuss the issues that are really hindering peace, the question of recognition, security, refugess and of course many other issues."

—Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister 467

 

MYTH

"Israel illegally demolished a Palestinian national landmark in East Jerusalem." top

FACT

On January 9, 2011, Israeli crews began demolition work on the Shepherd Hotel building in the Sheikh Jarrah community of Jerusalem to make way for the planned construction of a Jewish housing project. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas insists the hotel is a historic national landmark and Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat claims that Israel is illegally demolishing the hotel as part of their attempt to “ethnically cleanse Jerusalem from its Palestinian inhabitants, culture and history.” 461

In truth, the hotel, situated in the middle of a predominantly Arab neighborhood that overlooks Hebrew University and the Mount of Olives, was built in the 1930s. The building, which served as an Israeli district court after 1967 and then as a border police station during the first Intifadah, was privately purchased in 1985 by an American businessman yet has been vacant for almost a decade. Plans to build a 20 unit apartment complex on the site were approved less than six months ago and the government has ensured that the project will not displace any Arab residents or affect any other buildings in the neighborhood. The site was never considered a Palestinian cultural heritage spot and, in fact, its only claim to Palestinian historical fame was that it served as a home for Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Nazi collaborator.462 The British exiled al-Husseini during the Mandatory period and confiscated the property; ultimately the building's rights were passed to Israel from Jordan after the Six Day War. Contrary to reports, the Israeli government did not illegally confiscate the building under the “Absentee Property Law” and the sale of the property in 1985 was conducted in the same legal manner as other real estate transactions. 463

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Israel’s actions, suggesting that demolition of an unused building somehow “undermines peace efforts to achieve a two-state solution.” 464 In doing so, Clinton once again - as with the earlier insistence on a settlement freeze - gave President Abbas an excuse for refusing to return to peace negotiations advocated by President Obama.

There are no precedents or statutes in international law that would prohibit Israel from granting construction permits to private citizens to build in its capital. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “No democratic government would impose a ban on Jews purchasing private property… Just as Arabs can buy property in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Jews can buy property in predominantly Arab neighborhoods.”465

"Calling Jerusalem a settlement is a misinterpretation, an insult to the city. It is incomprehensible that they are mixing questions of private rights, international law and politics. [The hotel was built] on private land, the development of which has nothing to do with diplomacy."

—Yigal Palmor, Israel Ministry of Foregin Affairs Spokesman 466

MYTH

"Israel is required by international law to supply goods and services to Gaza- its blockade is 'collective punishment'." top

FACT

The statutes of international law only require Israel to permit passage of food, clothing and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. Israel, however, is not bound by the law to provide these supplies- it is only obligated not to interfere with provisions sent by others.470 Israel has not only complied with the law but has gone beyond precedent by providing humanitarian supplies itself. On the other hand, if Israel has reason to believe that Hamas will intercept these materials and the enemy will benefit, even these basic provisions may be prohibited.

Furthermore, the law does not prohibit Israel from cutting off fuel supplies and electricity to Gaza, withholding commercial items or sealing its border.  Additionally, Israel has no obligation to even provide the minimum supplies which would prevent a “humanitarian crisis.” In practice, though, Israel has gone above and beyond what is required- it provides for nearly 70% of Gaza’s energy supplies, allows sick and wounded Palestinians to be treated in Israeli hospitals and has even helped to upgrade Gaza’s sewage pumping and water purification stations. 471 Israel maintains this humanitarian corridor even though terror attacks continue to emanate from inside the strip.

Some critics have labeled Israel’s actions as "collective punishment," which is a reference to Article 50 of the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War; however, this article pertains to the “imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt.”472 Israel has done no such thing. Israel has no obligation to maintain open borders with a hostile territory. The suspension of trade relations and naval embargoes are frequent tools of international diplomacy and have never been regarded as “collective punishment.”473

"Since one of the main purposes of imposing a naval blockade is to use coercion against a hostile entity or state that is a party to an armed conflict, the affected population genrally feel the effects of this pressure.... The issue is not that there is coercive actions which impacts the population collaterally, but rather what the impact is and what mitigating humanitarian measures are put in place... Thus, the fact that the fabric of economic life of the civilian population is adversely affected as a result of economic warfare does not, in itself, amount to collective punishment."

— "The Turkel Commission", The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of May 31, 2010, Part One 475

 

"Legally, [Israel] is obliged only to prevent the civilian population from dying from starvation. In practice we have done much more than that... It is clear that the civilian population has suffered, but that does not mean the measure was illegal. We will not [target the areas where terrorists fire from], we will not do that. We will not harm the civilian population."

—Major General Avichai Mandelbilt, Israeli Military Advocate-General 474

?

 

 

MYTH

"Israel must accept the demand of Palestinian refugees to ‘return’ in order to achieve peace." top

FACT

The Israeli refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to flood Israel is both a lawful and understandable position that should not impede a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Publicly, Palestinians insist the refugees have a “right of return.” In December 2010, for example, Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat declared that peace with Israel would be “completely untenable” if Israel continued to “disregard the aspirations [of the Palestinian refugees] to return to their homeland.”476

Privately, however, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas acknowledged in a meeting with the Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit on March 29, 2008, “On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or even 1 million, that would mean the end of Israel.” 477

In negotiations with Abbas, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, like other Israeli leaders before him, offered to accept a limited number of refugees on a humanitarian basis. No agreement was reached, but the record shows that the disagreements were over the number of refugees and the amount of monetary compensation rather than an Israeli acceptance of the demand that all refugees have an option to 'return' to Israel.

In the envisioned two-state solution, the refugees will have a right to return – to the new State of Palestine.

"The conflict we're trying to solve is between two peoples.... The basis for the creation of the State of Israel is that it was created for the Jewish people. [The Palestinian] state will be the answer to all Palestinians including the refugees. Putting an end to [right of return] claims means fulfilling national right for all."

— Tzipi Livni, former Israeli Foreign Minister478

 

MYTH

"The Egyptian revolution has no impact on Israel's security." top

FACT

The impact of unrest in Egypt on Israel’s security will not be known until it is clear who will be leading the country. Whatever his failings as a leader within Egypt, Hosni Mubarak faithfully upheld the peace treaty with Israel. If Mubarak is replaced by someone who does not keep the country’s treaty commitments, Israel’s security will be endangered.

Since signing the peace deal with Egypt in 1979, Israel has reduced the percentage of its GDP devoted to defense by nearly a third- from 23% in the 1970s to 9% today. 479 Israel also significantly reduced the number of soldiers stationed on its southern border and has been able to focus its strategic planning on other threats. Peace with Egypt has contributed to the economic growth of Israel and also was a catalyst for other peace negotiations. Psychologically, the treaty also showed Israelis that peace with an Arab, Muslim state is possible. 480

A change in regime could easily lead to the reversal of these trends. While Mubarak fulfilled the letter of the peace treaty, he never was committed to its spirit. Thus, the media, military and general public were never conditioned to accept Israel as its neighbor. The Egyptian media has often been critical of Israel to the point of anti-Semitism and the military has consistently directed war games against Israel. 481

If the next leader of Egypt reneges on the treaty, Israel will find itself essentially surrounded by enemies- the same position it was in for decades following independence. A potentially belligerent Egypt would join the threats currently posed to Israel from Hamas in Gaza, Syria- who remains formally at war with Israel, and Lebanon who has become essentially an Iranian proxy dominated by Hezbollah. Jordan is also facing unrest and its future is uncertain. 482

If this scenario plays out, the region will be destabilized and become a powderkeg for renewed conflict. The risks of compromise with the Palestinians would also grow as the creation of a Palestinian state would complete Israel’s encirclement by potentially hostile forces.

A change in the Egyptian regime has broader implications as well, especially if the Islamist-oriented Muslim Brotherhood- a crucial player in the protests- gains power. This scenario would open the possibility for Egypt to become an Islamic republic- much like Iran, a base for terror and even a more internally repressive regime. The Brotherhood has pledged with popular support to revoke the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and, since Egypt has the region’s largest military force, it could threaten not only Israel but pro-Western regimes such as Jordan and the Gulf states as well. 483

Mohammed ElBaradei has emerged as one possible opposition leader, but it is by no means clear which direction he would take the country if he were to take power. The fact that he is now backed by the Muslim Brotherhood is cause for concern, as is his vocal criticism of Israel and his record as an apologist for Iran during his term as head of the International Atomic Energy Administration. 484

Egyptians deserve freedom and democracy, but that is not always the outcome of revolutions. The 1979 Iranian revolution, for example, started as a revolt against the oppression of the Shah but resulted in the establishment of an Islamic tyranny; the 2005 revolt in Lebanon paved the way for the takeover of Hezbollah; and the 2006 Palestinian Authority elections brought Hamas to power and helped doom peace talks. 485

Despite the historical precedent, Egypt could emerge from the current turmoil with a democratic government that is committed to good relations with Israel. Israel, unfortunately, must plan for the possibility of another outcome.

MYTH

"Turmoil in Egypt is a result of the failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." top

FACT

Echoing an oft-repeated dogma of the last decade, James Jones, former national security adviser to President Obama, recently said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the core problem of the Middle East and that failing to solve it could lead to more “Egypt-like demonstrations in other countries in the region.” 486 Numerous Arab officials, including Amr Moussa, one of the potential candidates to take over for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, have also promoted this view that Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians is the key to solving the Middle East’s woes. Last year Moussa told France 24 News that “the stability of the region, security of the region, and the future of the region” relies on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 487

Conflating the absence of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with the emergence of the Egyptian crisis or any other intra-Arab conflict in the Middle East ignores the internal conflicts that exist within the Arab world and individual countries. In the case of Egypt, the Egyptian people have suffered under the autocratic regime of President Mubarak for more than three decades and were inspired to finally revolt by the uprising in Tunisia, which was also a response to the dictatorial rule of its leader. The Israel and Palestinian issue has nothing to do with the fact that Egyptians have lived under martial law, that they are poor and disenfranchised. Protestors are not demanding an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; they are demanding Mubarak’s ouster and democratic reforms.

As scholar Daniel Pipes once noted, Americans tend to think of every dispute in the Middle East in terms of its connection with Israel, even if completely superficial. 488 However, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while obviously important in its own right, would have no impact on the current turmoil in Egypt, the takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah, the growing dissent in Jordan or Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and threats against its neighbors. It is the myopic focus of many on the Palestinian issue that has contributed to the failure to address other problems across the Middle East, such as the lack of freedom in Egypt that is currently the true source of disaffection in that country.

MYTH

"America's veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning settlements undermined peace talks." top

FACT

In a direct rebuke to the Obama Administration, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected a number of compromise offers from the President to express concern about the settlements and, instead, insisted on a vote at the United Nations Security Council on a resolution condemning Israeli settlements as “illegal” and calling for an immediate building cessation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The United States vetoed the resolution, according to US Ambassador to UN Susan Rice, because “[the resolution] could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations.” US House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor echoed Rice’s sentiment and added that the US needed to “make it clear that peace cannot be imposed, it must be directly negotiated.” 489

It was especially ironic that the UN would be devoting its energy to debating settlements at the very time when much of the Arab Middle East was in upheaval. Rather than direct its attention to turmoil in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and Yemen, the Security Council was considering a measure that would not have had any impact on Israeli policy and done nothing to advance the cause of peace.

The Palestinians may well have insisted on bringing the matter to a vote in an effort to divert attention away from embarrassing revelations shown in leaked documents from their negotiating teams that indicated, among other things, an acceptance of some Israeli settlements in exchange for Palestinian statehood. 490 By going to the UN the Palestinians may have also hoped to justify their ongoing refusal to engage in direct negotiations with Israel. Though never insisting on a settlement freeze before President Obama called for one, Abbas has now made this a prerequisite for future talks.

Abbas also appears to have concluded that Obama’s failure to force Israel into a settlement construction freeze means that the U.S. cannot be counted upon to compel Israel to capitulate to Palestinian demands. Thus, instead of direct talks, the Palestinians are attempting to avoid compromise by stoking international pressure on Israel to concede on the issues. Since talks broke down in September 2010, the PA has been engaged in a global campaign to convince countries to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 armistice lines. The UNSC resolution was yet another effort to win international sympathy in the hope of imposing a solution on Israel.

Even if the resolution had passed, it would not have altered the status of settlements in international law since the Security Council is a political body with no judicial power. The council would also have contradicted its own precedents. UNSC Resolution 242, which passed in 1967 and remains the agreed basis for a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, calls for unspecified Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territory butt only with the guarantee of secure and defensible borders.

Rather than mutually discussing the pertinent issues to resolve the conflict, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians have launched, in the words of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, “a political offensive against the State of Israel” that includes exploiting the UN to weaken Israel’s international legitimacy. 491By accepting its role as a pawn of the Arab world, the United Nations Security Council has proven yet again that it lacks the legitimacy or the backbone required to play a constructive role in facilitating peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have been and still remain the only way forward to resolve the longstanding conflict in our region. Therefore, the resolution before [the Security Council] should never have been submitted. Instead the international community and the Security Council should have called upon the Palestinian leadership - in a clear and resolute voice - to immediately return to the negotiating table without preconditions and to renew direct negotiations."

— Meron Reuben, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations 492


MYTH

"American media coverage of Israel is proportional with coverage given to the rest of the Middle East." top

FACT

Though the seeds of Arab revolution were sown during the last few years by the brutal policies of their dictators, American media coverage of the Middle East over the last decade has meant Israel and Israel alone. Until the street protests in Tunisia and Egypt forced media outlets to focus on these countries, the American media seemed to conveniently forget that hundreds of millions of people throughout the Arab world lived under ruthless rulers who continuously subjugated their citizens and abused their basic human rights. If a story did not deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it was inauspiciously placed on the back-burner.

Minute scrutiny was given to every action of the Israeli government or IDF and the media routinely lambasted Israel while making headline news out of such trivial events as the renovation of an abandoned hotel in East Jerusalem or the government decision to implement a citizen loyalty oath. Though egregious human rights violations were happening simultaneously in Iran, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, there was practically no coverage conferred to these events.

Israel probably has the highest per capita “fame quotient” in the world because of the disproportionate media coverage it is given. Americans tend to know more about Israeli politics and find Israel’s leaders more recognizable than even those of their neighbors in Canada or Mexico. Moreover, there are more news correspondents and organizations based in Israel than in any other country in world except for the United Kingdom. Unfortunately it took such momentous actions as the complete upheaval of the status-quo in the Middle East to remind the media that stories exist outside the borders of Israel.

MYTH

"'Israel Apartheid Week' promotes peace." top

FACT

The seventh annual “Israel Apartheid Week” (IAW), on college campuses in the United States, Canada, England and South Africa during the beginning of March 2011, is part of a smear campaign aimed at delegitimizing Israel that has nothing to do with supporting the Palestinian struggle for independence. One need not look any further than the events’ perverse title, which attempts to draw a specious moral equivalency between modern democratic Israel and racist South Africa, to understand the deliberate and wanton desire of IAW’s founders to harm Israel. As Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Dore Gold, notes, “Israel Apartheid Week is not about respect for human rights… and not a movement dedicated to making peace, but rather to denying the historical rights of the Jewish people.” 493

Shrewdly operating under the broad scope of academic freedom, the proponents of IAW are no more legitimately struggling for “justice, equality and peace” in Israel than they are actually supporting the Palestinian national cause. Rather than highlighting possible avenues to peace that have been or still can be created through mutual cooperation by Israel and the Palestinians, IAW seeks only to demonize the Jewish state. Canada’s National Post, for example, called out IAW as nothing more than a “festival of bigotry” that “vilifies a single country… and whose message is more or less the same as Ahmadinejad or Hamas- that Israel is a uniquely evil and fundamentally illegitimate nation.” 494 Canadian Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff notes that, “Israel Apartheid Week…tarnishes our freedom of speech … [and shows] intolerance that has no place … anywhere in the world.” 495

The goal of the delegitimizers is to create an indelible image in the public mind of Israel and apartheid, like McDonald’s and hamburgers. They believe that if they succeed, the next logical steps will be to take draconian measures against Israel, similar to those used to dismantle the South African regime.

The good news is that only about a dozen campuses out of roughly 4,000 in America were sites of these hate fests. At the same time, more than 50 “Israel Peace Weeks” and other positive events were being held by students who understand that Arabs- both men and women- enjoy more freedoms in Israel, such as the right to vote, worship, protest, and petition the court, than they do in any other country in the Middle East.496 Unlike the ignorant sponsors of anti-Israel events, these students know that Arabs have been elected to Israel’s parliament in every vote since independence, Muslims work in the Israeli Foreign Ministry and even thousands of Bedouins, Druze, Arabs and Christians serve alongside Jews in the Israel Defense Forces.497 More importantly, the students behind peace weeks recognize that the path to improving the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians lies through dialogue rather than demonization, and that the fulfillment of Palestinian national aspirations is possible only through direct negotiations with Israelis and not by caricaturing them as monsters.

"'Apartheid' is used in this case and elsewhere because it comes easily to hand: it is a lazy label for the complexities of the Middle East conflict. It is also used because, if it can be made to stick, then Israel can be made to appear to be as vile as was apartheid South Africa and seeking its destruction can be presented to the world as an equally moral cause."

— Benjamin Pogrund, South African Apartheid Opponent 498

 

MYTH

"'Palestinian terrorism is a byproduct of the 'cycle of violence' perpetuated by Israel." top

FACT

The heinous attack on March 11, 2011, in which two Palestinian terrorists infiltrated the Israeli town of Itamar in the West Bank and brutally murdered a family of five, including a four-year-old son and a three-month-old daughter, has the international media once again discussing the “cycle of violence” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to numerous international news agencies, violent attacks by Palestinians are part of a cycle of violence that is perpetuated and escalated by actions on both sides and that cannot be stopped until Israel gives in to Palestinian demands. For example, the Los Angeles Times wrote that the tragic event was only part of a “continuing cycle of violence” while the BBC and CNN both highlighted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement of extended settlement building as a direct reaction to the atrocious attack.499 The Palestinian Authority, through spokesman Nabil Abu Reudeina, condemned Israel for extending this cycle of violence, calling it “wrong and unacceptable,” and warned it could lead to even further escalation of the conflict.500

Suggesting that Palestinian terrorism is just part of a cycle of violence for which Israel also bears responsibility is akin to equating the arsonist with the firefighter. The terrorists are like arsonists and the Israelis firefighters. You would not accuse the firefighter who puts out an arsonist’s fire, or tries to prevent him from setting one, of perpetuating arson. The terrorists are engaged in a persistent war that leaves Israel with no choice but to defend its citizens. If the terror stops, Israel will have no need to engage in countermeasures.

In his seminal work, To End a War, that followed years of diplomacy in the Balkans, U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke dismissed the idea that “ancient hatreds” had fueled that regional war and instead focused on the endemic spread of incitement through the media that had “aroused an entire generation of Serbs, Croats and Muslims to hate their neighbors.” 501 Similarly, despite repeatedly agreeing to cease such provocations (see the 1993 Oslo Accords, 1998 Wye River Memorandum and the 2003 Road Map), the Palestinian Authority continues to tolerate and instigate incitement in the media, mosques and schools. As in the Balkans, this policy has aroused a generation of Palestinians to hate both Israel and Jews. In the last quarter of 2010 alone, the PA was responsible for more than 20 cartoons, videos and speeches calling for violence and the destruction of Israel. 502

In early 2011, PA President Mahmoud Abbas personally delivered $2,000 to the family of a terrorist who had attacked IDF soldiers and the PA’s official newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadida, promoted a soccer tournament named after Wafa Idris, the first female Palestinian suicide bomber. 503 Just three weeks prior to the attack in Itamar, PA-TV aired a video tribute to a number of “martyrs,” which included a terrorist who had killed three Israelis in a similar attack in Itamar in 2002. 504 These provocations of the Palestinian Authority have all led to what the Chairman of the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs, Yossi Kuperwasser, calls “an attitude of hate and demonization towards Israel” that has created “a situation where it occurs to someone to carry out a [terrorist] attack.” 505

The Western media has mostly ignored Palestinian incitement. Worse, many outlets have rationalized Palestinian terrorism, often refusing to even use the word “terrorism” to refer to atrocities. The media portrayal of the innocents murdered in Itamar is reminiscent of suggestions that rape victims “asked for it.” The fact that the family lived in a settlement did not excuse, justify or cause their murder. Parents and children sleeping in their beds did not deserve to be killed because they lived in a disputed territory.

The reaction of the international community should be unambiguous outrage to this atrocity and those media outlets that essentially have blamed the victims should be chastised for their moral, ethical and journalistic lapse.

"I expect the international community to sharply and unequivocally condemn this murder, the murder of children ... There is no justification and there can be neither excuse nor forgiveness for the murder of children ... This requires [more than] unequivocal condemnation. This requires a halt to the [Palestinian] incitement. I demand that the Palestinian Authority stop the incitement that is conducted on a daily basis in their schools, mosques and the media under their control. The time has come to stop the incitement and begin educating their people for peace."

— Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister 506


MYTH

"'Israel unnecessarily maintains checkpoints to control and humiliate the Palestinians." top

FACT

Checkpoints exist solely to protect the lives of innocents on both sides. If no terrorist threat existed, no barriers would be necessary.

Thanks to improved security cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces, a greater commitment to preventing terror on the part of the Palestinian Authority and Israel’s successful counterterror measures, the level of violence emanating from the West Bank has significantly declined. This has allowed Israel to take steps to ease restrictions on Palestinian movement and remove many of the road blocks and checkpoints. In 2010, for example, Israel issued more than 651,000 entry permits to West Bank residents wishing to travel to Israel, an increase of 42 percent over 2009. 507 In 2009-10, Israel removed more than 200 roadblocks and reduced the number of manned checkpoints from 41 to 14. 508

Israel also balances its security concerns with sensitivity to the medical needs of Palestinians. In 2009-10, more than 28,500 Palestinian hospital patients and their companions were transported from Gaza to Israel to receive world class medical treatment. An additional 175,000 patients from the West Bank, among them 7,500 children, were brought to Israel for various procedures, surgeries and treatments. 509 For example, thousands of Gaza residents suffering from cancer are admitted for radiation, chemotherapy and clinical trials in Israel. 510 Israel has created numerous medical programs, such as Heart to Heart, that are specifically targeted at helping Palestinian children who suffer from rare, life-threatening diseases. 511 Moreover, many Israeli hospitals have opened internship programs to help train Palestinian doctors from the West Bank and Gaza.

Still, as recently as March 9 when a Palestinian terrorist was caught at the Tapuach checkpoint south of Nablus carrying five pipe bombs and three firebombs intended for use against Israeli civilians, we are reminded why the checkpoints were established and why they cannot all be removed. Israelis look forward to a day when a peace agreement with the Palestinians obviates the need for these security measures.

MYTH

"Rockets shot from Gaza at southern Israel do not cause enough damage to justify military retaliation." top

FACT

Since the start of the Palestinian War in 2000, terrorists from inside Gaza have fired no fewer than 12,000 Kassam rockets, GRAD missiles and mortars at southern Israel, including more than 6,000 since Israel unilaterally withdrew from the area in 2005, and nearly 100 since the beginning of March 2011 alone. These explosive weapons have killed 28 Israeli civilians, injured hundreds more and have inflicted heavy damages on schools, synagogues, houses and hospitals in the region. 512

Like the Nazi rocket attacks on London during the Blitz, the Hamas barrages terrorize all the people within their range- an area has extended to include all of southern Israel, home to roughly one million Israelis. 513 Two of Israel’s most populated cities, Be’er Sheva and Ashdod, as well as hundreds of smaller towns and villages are situated within rocket range of Gaza. Places such as Sderot and Kfar Azza are so close that residents have mere seconds to find shelter after hearing the warning siren, keeping them in a near constant state of fear and anxiety. 514 Since the most recent escalation in mid-March, schools and many businesses have been forced to close.

The indiscriminate attacks on civilians are a violation of human rights and constitute a war crime. 515 No country would tolerate such ongoing threats to its civilian population. The Israeli government took only measured responses against the terrorists during the first three years of barrages before finally launching Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. It is a testament to Israel’s restraint, and desire to not escalate the conflict, that the government has not taken more aggressive steps to end the latest bombardment.

Still, no one should expect Israel’s leaders to allow its civilian population to be terrorized on a daily basis. As President Obama said before his election to the post in 2008, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house … I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that.”516 Israel cannot be expected to do any less.


MYTH

"Justice Goldstone remains convinced that Israel committed war crimes documented in the Goldstone Report." top

FACT

In an April 1, 2011, editorial published by the Washington Post, Justice Richard Goldstone retracted his accusations that Israel intentionally targeted civilians and was guilty of war crimes during its conflict with Hamas in Gaza in December 2008.517 The principal author of the 575 page report bearing his name, commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct during the Gaza conflict, Goldstone now admits the work used by Israel’s detractors to vilify Israel was based on incomplete information and falsely accused Israel of wrongdoing. Goldstone conceded that “if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.” 518

The report, which erroneously claimed that Israel led a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population,” became a tool for Israel’s detractors to demonize the Jewish state and denigrate its right to self-defense. 519 Goldstone now accepts that “civilians were not intentionally targeted [by Israel] as a matter of policy” and that in the aftermath of having thousands of rockets and missiles fired at its cities, Israel had the “right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against such attacks.” 520 In fact, as Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander British Forces in Afghanistan, testified to the Goldstone committee in 2009, “The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”521

Israel’s claims regarding casualties also have proved correct, Goldstone acknowledges. “The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas.” He is referring to the recent Hamas admission that, as Israel maintained, most of the Palestinians who were killed in the fighting were terrorists and not bystanders. 522

Goldstone also takes the UN Human Rights Council to task, noting that its original mandate was “skewed against Israel.” He said he “hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the UN Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.” 523

Goldstone also now rightfully focuses his criticism on Hamas. “That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza,” Goldstone writes, “in no way minimizes their criminality.” 524 He added that Hamas’ actions during the conflict were intentional and “purposefully indiscriminate” and he excoriates them for failing to investigate any of the war crimes accusations. By contrast, Goldstone acknowledged that Israel has “dedicated significant resources to investigate” allegations of misconduct.

Though long overdue, Goldstone’s retraction is timely because Hamas has resumed rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and Israel may again be forced to reengage Hamas to defend its citizens. Nevertheless, the damage caused to Israel by the Goldstone Report is incalculable. Public protests, university forums and official declarations have used the “evidence” released in the report to smear Israel and its brave soldiers. Unfortunately, renouncing his report will not stem the tide of anti-Israel propaganda based on its mendacious claims. Goldstone nevertheless has an obligation to go to all the forums where his report was misused and set the record straight. As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, the United States should demand that the Goldstone Report be denounced as a sham and erased from the record.

"Everything that we said proved to be true. Israel did not intentionally target civilians and it has proper investigatory bodies. In contrast, Hamas intentionally directed strikes towards innocent civilians and did not conduct any kind of probe ... The fact that Goldstone changed his mind must lead to the shelving of [the Goldstone Report] once and for all."

— Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister 525

 

"We always said that the IDF was a moral army that acted according to international law. Judge Goldstone needs to publish his present conclusions before all international bodies where he published his distorted report ... It is unfortunate that it took Goldstone such a long time to change his mind, but its better late than never.

— Ehud Barak, Israeli Defense Minister 526

 


MYTH

"The Iron Dome Missile Defense System negates the need for Israel to engage in military operations against Hamas in Gaza." top

FACT

The escalation in rocket barrages from terrorists in Gaza against southern Israel in 2011 has forced the Israeli government to rush deployment of the “Iron Dome” missile defense system to protect its citizens who live within rocket range. In the beginning of April, two Iron Dome batteries were placed outside of Beersheva and Ashkelon and immediately proved their value by intercepting several GRAD rockets aimed at civilian areas in Israel.527

The Iron Dome, jointly developed by the Israeli Defense Ministry and Israel-based Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, is an “outstanding system unmatched by any other in the world.” 528 The missile shield comes at a steep price, however, as each battery costs nearly $80 million and the individual missiles are an additional $75,000. 529 The high price-tag initially kept the Israeli government from purchasing additional batteries, but after seeing the system's effectiveness, Israel has ordered four additional batteries that are expected to be for with U.S. military aid. Unfortunately, the new batteries will not be ready to use for a number of months. 530 Hamas, meanwhile, can continue to fire hundreds of homemade mortars and kassams, along with Iranian supplied rockets.

With only two batteries in operation, Iron Dome cannot cover every area of Israel within range of Hamas rockets. Moreover, the system does not create an impregnable shield; Iron Dome was not designed to destroy smaller rockets, mortars or anti-tank missiles, a vulnerability that Hamas has already exploited. Since the Dome’s deployment, dozens of mortars and rockets have hit southern Israel. 531 Hamas also fired a Russian-made, laser guided anti-tank missile at an Israeli school bus that could have killed several children and did severely injure one. 532

The anti-missile system is solely a defensive weapon; it does not prevent future barrages. Therefore, Israel may still need to take preemptive or retaliatory measures against Hamas to protect its citizens. To maximize its effectiveness, Iron Dome must be combined with offensive military operations against the terrorists in Gaza. 533

"This is a great technological achievement, it's the first time that these type of missiles have been intercepted ... But we can't cover every house, every citizen, every site in Israel ... Ultimately, our response to those that fire rockets on our cities and on our civilians is to attack them."

— Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister 534

 

"[Hamas] is not going to let [rocket fire] rest ... If this new [Iron Dome] system is seen to be effective, then Hamas and other extremist groups will do what they can to find other modes of attack."

— Colonel Richard Kemp, Former Commander UK Forces Afghanistan 535

 

 

"Our holy warriors drew useful lessons [from studying the Iron Dome] that can help in defeating it ... What will they [Israel] do when there is intensive rocket fire, all in one direction and at the same time? It will fail."

— Abu Attaya, Palestinian Popular Resistance Committee (PRC) Spokeman 536

 

 

MYTH

 

"The targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is a counterproductive military strategy." top

FACT


While Israel has routinely been criticized for the targeted killing of terrorists, the United States has actively engaged in a policy of assassinating Al-Qaeda operatives since 9/11, culminating in the announcement on May 1, 2011, that Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special operations forces.537 Like Israel, the United States believes that killing the planners and perpetrators of terror attacks is vital to its national security. This strategy prevents attacks, sends a message to would-be terrorists that there is a price to pay for terror and makes the planning of attacks more difficult by keeping the terrorists on the run. 538

Killing bin Laden was part of a broader strategy of eliminating the leadership of Al-Qaeda. Israel has successfully pursued a similar approach in targeting the leadership of Hamas. Pinpoint Israeli strikes killed Mahmoud Adani (2001), Salah Shahade (2002), Ahmed Yassin (2004) and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi (2004).539 The death of its leaders temporarily crippled Hamas and compelled the organization to call for a protracted cease-fire with Israel in December 2004. 540 After Hamas recommenced rocket attacks into southern Israel in 2011, Israel resumed targeting the terrorists and the group again called for a truce.

As President Obama remarked in his address to the nation, “the death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat Al-Qaeda … on nights like this we can say: Justice has been done.” 541 Bin Laden’s death does not constitute a final victory over terrorism, but the United States has struck an important blow and sent a message, echoed by Israeli policy, that terrorists will not evade justice.

"Targeted assassinations shatter terrorist groups and makes it difficult for them to conduct effective operations, when these individuals are killed their organizations are disrupted ... Targeted killings also force terrorists to spend more time protecting themselves ... There is no question that Hamas has been seriously weakened by the decimation of its ranks through assassination."

— Daniel Byman, President of Center for Peace and Security Studies 542


MYTH

"Hamas-Fatah reconciliation paves the way to peace negotiations with Israel." top

FACT

In uniting for the first time since 2007, Hamas and Fatah, rulers of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, respectively, have theoretically made negotiating a final peace deal with Israel more realistic. Previously, Israel negotiated exclusively with Fatah, which, even if willing to do so, could not sign an agreement that would end the conflict because Hamas opposed peace with Israel.

The reconciliation pact, signed in Egypt on May 4, 2011, joins the two leading Palestinian parties in a caretaker government until long overdue parliamentary elections can be held. Former President Jimmy Carter and others contend the pact “will help Palestinian democracy and establish the basis for a unified Palestinian state … that can make a secure peace with Israel.” 543 Practically, however, the reconciliation agreement does little to create the framework for a democratic Palestinian state and makes peace with Israel virtually impossible to achieve.

Neither party has shown any interest in democracy. Fatah has repeatedly delayed scheduled elections, primarily due to fear of losing to Hamas as it did in the last election. Both, meanwhile, have ruled autocratically and abused the human rights of the Palestinians under their control. Hamas remains committed to creating an Iranian-style Islamic government and has created an oppressive environment in Gaza for non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

Internal politics are of less concern to Israel than the unwavering antagonism of Hamas toward peace. Hamas officials have repeatedly said they are committed to Israel’s destruction and have said their views have not changed in reconciling with Fatah. Moreover, Fatah officials have gone out of their way to say they do not expect Hamas to change its attitude toward Israel. Nabil Saath, a high-ranking aide to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said demanding Hamas to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel is “unfair, unworkable and does not make sense.” 544

The future of security cooperation between Hamas and Fatah also looms as a major concern to both Israel and the United States. The United States alone has spent $542 million since 2005 in training and arming the Palestinian Authority’s National Security Force in the West Bank, a force that has gained operational legitimacy with the IDF for its counter-terror efforts. 545 Under the unity pact, Hamas’ security apparatus- which prides itself on actively targeting Israel - will be integrated into the PA force, basically spelling an end to the Palestinian commitment to fight terror. 546 Moreover, the agreement requires Fatah to release hundreds of Hamas militants who are currently imprisoned in the West Bank, a move that would pose a serious security risk for Israel and destroy the goodwill the PA built with Israel from arresting these men in the first place. 547 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted that this stipulation would mean “a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism.” 548 The danger to Israel has also grown as a result of Egypt’s decision to open the border with Gaza, thereby facilitating Hamas arms smuggling.

The decision to reconcile appears to be a tactical one based on necessity rather than a commonality of views. Fatah has grown progressively weaker in the West Bank and is known for its corruption. Officials seeing the revolutionary fervor against similarly corrupt, autocratic regimes fear an uprising against them and believe a unity deal will mollify the Palestinian street. Fatah also wants to press the UN to declare a state of Palestine unilaterally and is afraid that countries may have an excuse to vote against them if they are divided. Hamas also has an incentive to work with its rivals because of fears it will lose a major base of support if the Assad regime falls in Syria and because it has faith it can take over the Palestinian Authority from within if elections are held and it is allowed to spread its tentacles further in the West Bank.

It remains to be seen if the reconciliation will take place and last. Previous efforts have foundered over the division of power and ideology. The fact that Hamas has not retreated from its positions on Israel, Islam or its rightful share of power reduce the likelihood of the factions remaining united.

Regardless, the Quartet has made clear the conditions under which it will work with Hamas, namely, the need for Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, eschew terror and agree to honor past Israel-Palestinian agreements. Hamas leader Khaled Meshal has refused to meet these conditions and therefore the Quartet is required to shun the unity government. 549

The Fatah decision to abandon the way of peace and join the terrorists calling for armed struggle to bring about Israel’s destruction also threatens Palestinian well-being. After watching its economy boom in the last few years, in large part because of Israeli and international assistance, the world is likely to reconsider its support for a government that includes terrorists. The United States may now be required by law to cut off all aid to the PA. According to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) , “U.S. taxpayer funding [to terrorist organizations] is prohibited under current law.” 550 Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) initiated a letter, cosigned by 27 Democratic senators, calling for President Obama to suspend the $500 million in annual aid to the PA until Hamas renounces terrorism. 551

Ultimately, the Palestinians must unite to achieve their national goals, but by allowing the terrorists of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to become part of their government, Fatah has distanced itself even further from those who have worked to create an independent Palestine. The Palestinians do indeed need to reconcile- but with Israel, not Hamas.

Israel’s leaders, who have begged the Palestinians to agree to a two-state solution, now see no one with whom to negotiate. Thus, rather than improve the prospects for ending the conflict, the Palestinians have taken yet another step away from peace and reconciliation with their neighbors and ensured that negotiations will remain in limbo and Palestinian statehood a dream.

 

MYTH

"Israel unjustly responded with violence to the protests of Nakba day." top

FACT

On May 15, 2011, Palestinians across the Middle East commemorated the 63rd anniversary of “al-Nakba,” marking the “the catastrophe” of Israel’s creation in 1948. Violent protests sprang up across Jerusalem and the West Bank as well as along Israel’s borders with Gaza, Syria and Lebanon. Many commentators were quick to suggest that the demonstrations were a Palestinian extension of the “Arab Spring.” Fox News, for example, declared there was “little doubt” the protests “were inspired by the extraordinary Arab Spring” while UN special coordinator for Lebanon, Michael Williams, said he was “shocked” by Israel’s use of “disproportionate, deadly force” in response to people tearing down parts of Israel’s border fence and illegally storming into the country. 552

Israel is accustomed to condemnations from those who believe the country has no right to defend its citizens or borders. In this instance, the IDF was confronted with a violent mob that invaded its sovereign territory. These were not peaceful protestors seeking democratic rights like those in Egypt and elsewhere, they were provocateurs sent to instigate violence and to distract attention from the brutal repression of the opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah encouraged Lebanese Palestinians by telling them, “you will liberate your lands … the fate of [Israel] is demise and no borders will protect it.” 553

Bypassing UNIFIL and UNDOF, the international peacekeeping forces stationed specifically to contain violence on Israel’s borders with Lebanon and Syria respectively, the invaders dismantled Israeli fences, illegally infiltrated Israeli territory and attacked IDF soldiers. 554 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel “is determined to protect its borders and sovereignty” and should not be held to a higher standard of action than other countries. 555 In a formal letter of complaint to the UN, Israeli ambassador to the UN Meron Reuben said the IDF operated with “maximum restraint in confronting the significant threat and … the explosive potential” for violence. 556 U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has repeatedly made clear that “Israel’s right to defend itself is not negotiable” and in reaction to the violent protests State Department spokesman Mark Toner reiterated the United States’ stance that “Israel has the right to defend its borders.” 557

Palestinians are understandably bitter about their history over these last six decades, but, had the Palestinians and the Arab states accepted the partition resolution in 1947, the State of Palestine would be celebrating its 63rd birthday along with Israel. We are often told that what the Palestinians object to today is the “occupation” of the territories Israel captured in 1967. If that is true, then why isn’t their Nakba Day celebrated each June on the anniversary of the Arab defeat in the Six-Day War? The reason is that the Palestinians consider the creation of Israel the original sin, and their focus on that event is indicative of a refusal, even today, to reconcile themselves with the Jewish State. This was reflected in the statement by Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, who assured protestors that this year will mark the “end of the Zionist project in Palestine.” 558

While Fatah and Hamas have many disagreements, they both agree on the Nakba, so it should come as no surprise that Israeli's would find it difficult to be optimistic about the prospect of negotiating a two-state solution with a united Fatah-Hamas government that believes their country has no right to exist.

"My friends, the root of this conflict never was a Palestinian state, or lack thereof. The root of the conflict is, and always has been, [Palestinian] refusal to recognize the Jewish state. It is not a conflict over 1967, but over 1948, over the very existence of the State of Israel. You must have noticed that yesterday's events did not occur on June 5, the anniversary of the Six Day War. They occurred on May 15, the day the State of Israel was established. The Palestinians regard this day, the foundation of the State of Israel, [as] their nakba, their catastrophe. But their catastrophe was that they did not have a leadership that was willing to reach a true historic compromise between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people."

— Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister 559


MYTH

"Israel must withdraw to the June 4, 1967 boundaries." top

FACT

After President Barack Obama said, “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded sharply by declaring, “[Israel] cannot go back to the 1967 lines – because these lines are indefensible.” 560 In stating this position, Netanyahu was reiterating the longstanding view of the government of Israel.

In the wake of the Six Day War, and Israel’s capture of the West Bank and Golan Heights, Foreign Minister Abba Eban told the United Nations: “The June [1967] map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz.” 561 Nearly thirty years later, soon after signing the Oslo Peace Accords, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made clear: “The border of the State of Israel … will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the June 1967 lines.” 562

What Eban and Rabin understood, and what countless military and legislative officials – both in Israel and the United States – have echoed, is that by withdrawing to the pre-1967 lines, Israel would lose all of its strategic, tactical, geographic and topographic advantages, opening up its homefront to easy attack. Strategically, by completely withdrawing Israel would lose its extensive system of early-warning radars, its bases of operations that have worked to halt Palestinian terrorism and its control over the Jordan Rift Valley that allows the Israel Defense Forces to prevent the smuggling of illegal weapons and protects Israel from the type of invasion it faced in 1948 and 1967. 563 Tactically, Israel would need to find new ways to deal with the threat that enemy missiles could hit anywhere in the country in under two minutes. 564 Geographically, a retreat would diminish Israel to only nine miles at its narrowest point between the West Bank and Mediterranean Sea and would put almost every major Israeli city, from Beersheva in the south to Metulla in the north, within the range of Kassam and Katyusha rockets. 565 Topographically, the highlands of the West Bank and Golan Heights – rising nearly 3,000 feet above the coastal plain – would allow those who control the heights to rain down missiles with greater accuracy and lethality onto Israel’s major population centers and only international sea and airports. 566

The drafters of UN Security Council Resolution 242 understood that Israel would never have secure and defensible borders if it were forced to withdraw from all the territory it captured in 1967 and deliberately omitted that requirement. The Israeli government has consistently said it is prepared to withdraw to the 1967 line with modifications. The United States has also recognized this interpretation of the resolution. In negotiations with the Israelis and Palestinians in 2000, for example, President Bill Clinton laid out a plan to create a Palestinian state that envisioned Israel retaining parts of the West Bank.

In a letter sent to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004, and overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress, President George W. Bush explicitly said the U.S. would neither force nor expect Israel to completely withdraw to the Green Line:

 

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.567

In clarifying the remark he made in his May 19, 2011, speech, President Obama told delegates to the AIPAC Policy Conference on May 22, “Israelis and Palestinians will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967.” 568 By stating that a final settlement would include “land swaps,” Obama acknowledged that Israel would retain some territory in the West Bank, generally understood to be, at a minimum, the major settlement blocs.

Israel has time and again demonstrated its readiness to cede territory for peace – having done so on multiple occasions with Egypt, Lebanon and the Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said he is also prepared to “make painful compromises to achieve peace.” As he told a joint session of Congress on May 24, 2011. “I recognize that in a genuine peace, [Israel] will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland.” 569

"It is unthinkable that Israel would return to the '67 borders in the West Bank, which would deny the Israeli people the defensible borders that are vital for them. Even in the era of advanced military technology there is a decisive importance to strategic depth and terrain conditions for national security."

— Lt. Gen. Earl B. Hailston, Commander U.S. Marines in Iraq/Afghanistan 570

 

MYTH

"Gaza does not receive necessary humanitarian supplies due to Israel's blockade." top

FACT

Though Hamas attempts to manipulate public opinion and distort reality to claim that Israel is making Gaza into the worlds “largest open-air prison,” the facts paint a completely different story. In 2010, both the International Red Cross (ICRC) and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) publicly reported that there were no shortages of food or supplies in Gaza. 571 Even when Hamas resumed bombarding Israel with mortars and rockets, Israel continued to provide humanitarian assistance, electricity and even waste disposal to Gaza.

In April 2011, Mathilde De Riedmatten, ICRC Deputy Head of Sub Delegation in Gaza, announced that there was “no humanitarian crisis in Gaza … there are products [in supermarkets], there are restaurants and a nice beach.” 572 She noted that the ICRC and IDF “coordinate the entry of goods into Gaza and the entry and exit of people … sometimes patients who are going to Israel to receive medical care.” 573 In fact, over the first quarter of 2011 alone, Israel delivered a daily average of 5,000 tons of food, goods, fuel and development assistance through its land crossings with Gaza. Moreover, in 2010, Israel authorized the exit of more than 18,000 Palestinian patients from Gaza to Israeli hospitals for medical treatment – everything from cancer chemotherapy to heart surgeries. 574

While Israel continues to supply necessary humanitarian supplies, the citizens of Gaza can now also move and trade freely with Egypt. On May 25, 2011, the Supreme Military Council - ruling Egypt since the overthrow of President Mubarak – officially opened the Egyptian border crossing with Gaza at Rafah, ending a four-year closure of Gaza’s only international border outside of Israel. Now Israel’s detractors, who accused Israel of blockading the Strip while ignoring Egypt’s closure of the border, can no longer use Israeli policy as justification for future blockade-busting flotillas to supply Gazans.

Life in Gaza is certainly difficult, but the situation there does not constitute the humanitarian crisis Hamas and the media have portrayed. This is largely because Israel has ensured that a steady supply of food and basic supplies reach the Palestinian people. With its border now open to Egypt, Gazans can also no longer claim to be under a total blockade and can procure the resources they need through the Rafah crossing. The concern now is whether Egypt will allow Hamas to exploit the opening to smuggle in weapons for use against Israel.


MYTH

"Palestinian protestors staged non-violent demonstrations on the Israeli-Syrian border." top

FACT

On June 5, 2011, in a repeat of the events of “Nakba Day” only two weeks earlier, hundreds of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian demonstrators marked “Naksa Day,” a commemoration of the Arab loss in the Six Day War, by sparking deadly riots on Israel’s borders. The demonstrators attempted to infiltrate across Israel’s border, forcing Israeli troops to disperse the crowds. Unlike the nonviolent protestors who have taken to the streets in Syria to demand governmental reform from President Bashar Assad – and who have been summarily brutalized and killed – the demonstrators on Israel’s borders came armed with the intent to provoke Israel’s army.

International media reports characterizing the protestors on the Syrian border as “non-violent” and “unarmed” were inaccurate. Armed gunmen were spotted in the crowds that gathered near the border fence and many other allegedly peaceful protestors flung Molotov cocktails and large rocks toward Israeli forces. 575 At one point, the incendiaries launched by the protestors caused a mine field to ignite, leading to the explosion of four anti-tank mines, which caused severe injuries to the protestors.576 The IDF cautioned the mob approaching the border to stay back. The protestors ignored the warnings, however, and, instead of peacefully demonstrating, repeatedly rushed the fence to test the IDF. 577 When the IDF called for a ceasefire to enable Red Cross personnel to evacuate the wounded, protestors took advantage of the situation by continuing to breach the border. 578

Israel made clear in the week leading up to these events that it would defend its borders from foreign invaders. “My instructions are clear,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “To respond with restraint, yet with the necessary resolve to protect our borders, our communities and our citizens.” 579 U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner emphasized that, “Israel, like any sovereign nation, has a right to defend itself.” 580

The Israeli government also called on its neighbors to prevent any provocations by blocking access to their shared borders. In the case of Lebanon, the Lebanese military intervened and halted planned marches, but the Syrian regime allowed unfettered access to their border and instigated violent demonstrations. The Reform Party in Syria reported, for example, that Assad paid demonstrators up to $1,000 for rioting and up to $10,000 if they would be killed by Israeli fire. 581

Few people were fooled by the Syrians’ cynical use of the Palestinian refugee issue to deflect attention from Assad’s ongoing brutal repression of his people. 582 Unfortunately, the media played into Assad’s hands. Since he does not allow reporters into Syria to witness his atrocities, the press instead covered the border protests and then replied on inaccurate and inflammatory Syrian claims of casualties to criticize Israel. The tragedy of the protests is that they have helped Assad continue to commit atrocities with impunity while raising false hopes for Palestinian refugees that they can achieve their demands by force. The continuing irresponsibility of the Palestinian leadership has also been on display as Mahmoud Abbas has done nothing to discourage the provocative acts or to do the one thing that offers real hope for a better future for the Palestinian people – negotiate a two-state arrangement with Israel.

MYTH

"The 'Flotilla 2' is intended solely to help relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza." top

FACT

For the second time in two years, a group of anti-Israel activists have organized a flotilla under the pretext of bringing necessary supplies to Gaza. The true aim of the organizers, however, is to attract international attention and embarrass and provoke Israel by challenging its policy of preventing the terrorists of Hamas from smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip. These provocateurs know that Gaza has no shortage of essential goods, that any needed supplies can be transferred through Egypt and that Israel is prepared to welcome ships into its ports and transfer the cargo to the Palestinians provided it is searched for contraband and weapons before being forwarded.

Labeling itself the international “Freedom Flotilla II – Stay Human,” this year’s convoy will include ships sailing from the United States, Canada, Greece, Ireland, France and Italy and has invited journalists and politicians to join their blockade-busting mission. The U.S. State Department criticized the organizers, declaring that “groups that seek to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza are taking irresponsible and provocative actions.” 583 American citizens were warned not to participate in the activity, which may also violate American law because funding for the mission was raised illegally in the States. 584 In addition, several countries have taken measures to prevent ships from sailing from their ports. Cyprus, for example, which was used as a springboard for the 2010 flotilla, has banned all sailings to Gaza from its seaports. 585

Israel already has indications that some of the activists are planning to use violence against Israeli soldiers if they attempt to board the ships or prevent them from landing. Israeli intelligence learned that some of the flotilla participants may be bringing along chemical agents such as sulfuric acid in order to “shed the blood of IDF soldiers.” 586 The provocateurs apparently hope to gain the type of notoriety and publicity that activists in 2010 achieved when they brutally attacked Israeli soldiers boarding one of the flotilla vessels.

In 2010, flotilla organizers justified their actions by claiming a humanitarian crisis existed in Gaza. It was not true then and is not true now, as the deputy head of the Red Cross subdelegation to Gaza flatly stated in April 2011 that there is “no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” As recently as June 19, 2011, an aid convoy to Gaza named “Miles of Smiles 3” delivered 15 medical vehicles and 30 tons of medical supplies and milk powder to Gaza through the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. 587

Israel has the right –legally and ethically – to stop and inspect ships that attempt to deliver supplies straight to Gaza. In the past, ships attempting to smuggle tons of weapons into Gaza were prevented from doing so by the Israeli blockade. If the Flotilla 2 activists are truly intending to deliver humanitarian supplies, and not to create a bloody confrontation with Israel, it is possible to do so by following procedures set up by the Egyptian and Israeli governments. By trying to circumvent the avenues provided to them, flotilla participants are demonstrating they are far more interested in self-promotion than the welfare of Palestinians.

"Unauthorized efforts to deliver aid are provocative and, ultimately, unhelpful to the people of Gaza. Canada recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns and its right to protect itself and its residents from attacks by Hamas and other terrorist groups, including by preventing the smuggling of weapons."

— John Baird, Canadian Foreign Minister 588

 

"The Secretary-General called on all Governments concerned to use their influence to discourage such flotillas, which carry the potential to escalate into violent conflict."

— Ban Ki Moon, United Nations Secretary-General 588

 

 

MYTH

"The United Nations repudiated the claim that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal." top

FACT

On September 2, 2011, the United Nations released its investigative report concerning the May 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla that tried to breach Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The UN Palmer Committee, led by former New Zealand prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, examined the facts, circumstances and context that surrounded the deadly conflagration off Gaza's coast and submitted findings on the international legitimacy and legality of Israel's continued blockade of the Hamas-run enclave. Despite attempts by many media outlets to bury the findings and highlight only the parts that criticized the Jewish state, Palmer's report adopted conclusions that vindicated Israel's positions concerning the blockade and placed the responsibility for the confrontation on the "humanitarian" groups that formed the flotilla.

The 105-page report, which relied heavily on Israel's internal investigation into the incident as well as accounts from flotilla participants, concluded that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is consistent with customary international law, is legitimate due to the security threat posed by Hamas and does not constitute collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza.589

"Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza....The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea," the report concluded. Palmer also affirmed Israel's legal right to stop and board the vessels.

"Israeli Defense Forces faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk [and] several others wounded," the report stated.

While the UN committee stated that the Israeli soldiers acted responsibly in defending themselves against the self-proclaimed IHH peace activists - armed with clubs, knives, and steel pipes - it also reprimanded Israel for boarding the ship without prior notice and using "excessive and unnecessary force." Israel took issue with this conclusion and reiterated its regret at the loss of life during the incident.590

The United Nations has now officially stated that Israel's two-year naval blockade is legal and legitimate. To protect its citizens from the continued threat of arms smuggling by Hamas, Israel has the ongoing responsibility to inspect any cargo that enters Gaza. It is Hamas and its supporters - not Israel's blockade -that pose the greatest danger to peace and security in the region.

The report criticized the flotilla's organizers and questioned their "true nature and objectives, particularly IHH [that] planned in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt."

Regarding Turkey, Palmer's report said that "not enough was done to inform the flotilla participants of the risks." Moreover, states like Turkey have "a responsibility to take proactive steps" to warn flotilla participants and "to endeavor to dissuade them" from challenging Israel's naval blockade.

The Palmer report also contradicted human rights groups' claim that a humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza. Anyone wanting to send humanitarian aid to Gaza, the report said, must do so in coordination with Israel and the Palestinian Authority through the land crossings.591

MYTH

"A Unilateral Declaration of Independence is the Palestinians’ only avenue to advance the Peace Process." top

FACT

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is poised to defy the wishes of Israel, the United States and many European nations when he submits a request to the UN to recognize a state of Palestine. Abbas maintains that Israeli intransigence at the negotiating table has left the Palestinians no choice other than unilateral action to advance the peace process. 592 In truth, it is the Palestinians who have refused even to sit down for talks with Israel. Despite repeated invitations from Israel, and encouragement by the Obama Administration, Abbas has boycotted negotiations for two years.

Rather than discuss the crucial issues of borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem, Abbas has chosen to pursue a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in an effort to gain international recognition for his uncompromising positions on these issues. A UN vote, however, will not provide independence to the Palestinians; it will be only a symbolic victory. Israel will not withdraw from any territory as a result, will not recognize “Palestine,” and will not change its support for a two-state solution based on agreed upon borders and security arrangements.

The Palestine Liberation Organization has held observer status at the UN since 1974 and Abbas is now seeking the privileges of an independent state. The Palestinians expect at least 150 of the 192 UN members to endorse their statehood bid, but the United States has already pledged to veto any resolution put before the Security Council. 593Without Security Council approval, the General Assembly can only change the PLO’s status as it does not have the power to declare the establishment of states or to admit members to the UN. Nevertheless, a General Assembly vote would give international recognition to a phantom Palestinian state.

Though it is unlikely to matter to the General Assembly, which has an automatic majority for any pro-Palestinian initiative, the Palestinians do not yet have all of the characteristics of a state. According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention, the four requirements for a state are a permanent population, a defined territory, effective government over the population, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

As Steven Rosen of the Middle East Forum observed, " the General Assembly will create an imaginary state that has two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers, a constitution whose most central provisions are violated by both sides, no functioning legislature, no ability to hold elections, a population mostly not under its control, borders that would annex territory under the control of other powers, and no clear path to resolve any of these conflicts."
594

In addition, the Palestinian Authority is unable to support itself financially, depending almost entirely on foreign aid. Finally, the “state” is divided between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the latter outside the control of Abbas. Hamas rules Gaza independently, opposes the UDI, as well as any peace with Israel, and continues to engage in terror. A vote for the UDI would endorse Hamas rule and create a UN member state whose objective is the destruction of another member.

By going to the UN to circumvent negotiations, the Palestinians will undermine the peace process by violating international agreements, alienating the Israeli public and giving the Palestinian people false hope that their lives will change. Many Palestinians, including Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, recognize this course is irresponsible, and may threaten some of their interests, and are therefore opposed to the UDI. 595

Approval by the UN of a unilateral declaration of independence has potentially serious detrimental consequences for the Palestinians. Israel will feel justified, for example, in taking its own unilateral measures. The Oslo Accords could also be declared null and void and Israel could cease to abide by its provisions, such as providing water to the PA (which would no longer exist) or recognizing Palestinian control over certain areas in the West Bank. By declaring “independence,” the PA would threaten bilateral cooperation with Israel in more than 40 spheres of activity, including security collaboration, institution building and economic support. 596

Moreover, the UDI would jeopardize economic aid from the United States, which is legally prohibited from funding terrorist organizations and Hamas would now be governing at least part of phantom Palestine. The U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, Daniel Rubenstein, told the PA that Congress is prepared to “take punitive measures to cut aid” if the UDI is pushed forward. 597

Additionally, the UDI will raise expectations among the Palestinian people that they will be independent, that Israeli involvement in their lives will end, that the settlements will disappear and that they will have a capital in Jerusalem. When none of these come to pass, the public may turn on its leaders or, more likely, vent its frustration on Israel. As EU Parliament Chief Jerry Buzek warned, “unilateral actions can become very dangerous.” 598

A UDI would contravene almost every international resolution and agreement aimed at achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Oslo Accords, the Road Map and Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1850 stipulate, the only route to a sustainable peace is through negotiations. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonished the Palestinian leadership on the UDI tactic, saying “there is no substitute for face to face discussion.” At a time when much of the Middle East is either in flames or simmering, the Palestinians seem determined to throw a gasoline can into the mix. The United States and Israel are trying to do everything possible to discourage them from their incendiary policy and to restart peace negotiations, but Abbas may not be deterred from proving once again that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

MYTH

"Palestinian leaders claim that the future Palestinian state will welcome Jews and Israelis." top

FACT

The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States Maen Areikat said on September 13, 2011, that a future Palestinian state should be free of Jews, a call for ethnic cleansing reminiscent of Nazi Germany. This is not the first time that a Palestinian official has suggested making “Palestine” judenrein and reflects an ugly undercurrent of anti-Semitism within the Palestinian Authority.

Once a Palestinian state is established, why shouldn’t Jews be welcome there? The same question could be asked of any country, but is particularly relevant in the case of the area likely to become Palestine because it has been the home of Jews for centuries.

Imagine the uproar if any Israeli official suggested that no Arabs or Muslims should be allowed to live in Israel. In fact, 1.3 million Arabs live as free and equal citizens in Israel. “After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated at first,” Areikat told USA Today. 599

Areikat insists that the Palestinians need to work on building their national identity, but part of their demand for independence is based on the claim that they already have a national identity. Moreover, how would identity-building be impeded by the presence of Jews, unless you subscribe to Nazi-like ideology about purity of the race and argue that Jews may somehow contaminate the Palestinian nation.

After provoking criticism, Areikat later gave a partial retraction, but his anti-Semitic views have been echoed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas who said in December 2010, “If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it.” 600

Now Abbas is requesting that the United Nations endorse a Palestinian state that will be founded on anti-Semitism and a promise of ethnic cleansing. The question now becomes whether a body created with the aim of promoting peace, dignity and universal human rights will disgrace itself by voting in favor of a resolution that undermines those principles.

"To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, will have one official religion and will base its laws on the precepts of that religion."

— Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor 601

MYTH

"Mahmoud Abbas is working toward reaching peace with Israel." top

FACT

Increasingly, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas appears to be the negotiator of choice for the West simply because officials see no option. Israelis are increasingly beginning to question this default option after three years of Abbas refusing to enter negotiations with Israel and a lifetime of rejectionism.

New evidence that Abbas is the impediment to peace continues to mount. In September 2011, Abbas defied the United States and many other nations by submitting an application for recognition to the UN Security Council.

A month later, Abbas again ignored the objections of the United States and other Western powers and submitted an application to UNESCO seeking recognition of Palestine. While winning the vote, the White House condemned the decision as "regrettable" and "premature," and said it undermines the effort to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.602

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly invited Abbas to talks without preconditions and Abbas has refused. In fact, Abbas came out of his first meeting with President Obama saying he hoped the Obama Administration would force Netanyahu out of office. Abbas added that he was willing to wait years until that happened.603

Even after Israel placed a ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank in an effort to entice the Palestinians into peace talks, Abbas refused to sit with the Israeli leaders until just two weeks before the freeze was set to expire and, after one meeting, never returned to the talks.604

In October 2011, the Quartet called for a renewal of talks and Abbas ignored the group that includes the UN, Russia, the United States and the European Union.

A new memoir by former U.S. National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has provided additional damning evidence of Abbas's rejection of peace. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with an additional 1.5 percent of the territory used to create a passage to Gaza and the remaining 4.5 percent to be "swapped" so that Israel could annex its major settlement blocs.605

Olmert also proposed a division of Jerusalem that would have allowed the Palestinians to establish their capital in the predominantly Arab part of the city. Rice called the proposal "amazing" and warned the Prime Minister that "Yitzhak Rabin had been killed for offering far less."606

Abbas refused to consummate the deal. As Haaretz noted, "aficionados of the Palestinians again found a million and one reasons why the peace-loving Palestinian leader had refused the offer."607

While rejecting peace Abbas also glorifies terrorists. Most recently, he praised five of the terrorists released in the deal to free Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit (who was kidnapped on Abbas's watch). The killers, along with other former prisoners, were awarded grants by Abbas as a "presidential token of honor."608

Abbas has found excuses not to negotiate a deal with three different Israeli prime ministers and there is no reason to expect that a change in Israeli leadership would make him any less intransigent.

After spending two years trying to satisfy Palestinian demands and encourage them to return to the negotiating table, President Obama has reportedly grown so disenchanted with Abbas that he has not spoken to him in months.609

Columnist Yoel Marcus may have put it best when he described Abbas as "an adamant rejectionist" who comes "across as a nicely compelling non-partner."610

MYTH

"Time is not on Iran's side vis-a-vis its acquiring the atomic bomb." top

FACT

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report on November 8, 2011, with new evidence of Iran’s commitment to building a nuclear weapon and the progress it has made toward achieving its goal.

The IAEA expresses “more concern about the possible existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and material in Iran” and “was informed that Iran has undertaken work to manufacture small capsules suitable for use as containers of a component containing nuclear material. Iran may also have experimented with such components in order to assess their performance in generating neurons. Such components, if placed in the centre of a nuclear core of an implosion type nuclear device and compressed, could produce a burst of neutrons suitable for initiating a fission chain reaction,” the report states.611

Unwilling to take military action, the international community has tried both carrots and sticks to halt the Iranian drive toward the nuclear threshold. Years of fruitless negotiations and offers of incentives were viewed by the Iranians as signs of Western weakness and were exploited to accelerate their program. As multiple IAEA reports have illustrated, sanctions have had no more impact as several nations have failed to enforce them rigorously, and other countries, especially China, have openly flouted them. Efforts to impose tougher sanctions have proved futile as China and Russia block their adoption at the UN Security Council.

U.S. policy has also been a failure. The Obama Administration first tried negotiating with the Iranians and was made to look as foolish as the Europeans who had previously failed to talk Iran out of building a bomb. The Administration has continued to apply half-measures and refused to impose any significant sanctions that would seriously inflict pain on the Iranian leadership or the general public. The fear of hurting the people has ensured they do not suffer enough to risk a revolution against the regime.

The only publicly disclosed efforts to stop the Iranians that have reportedly slowed them down have been quasi-military operations involving the assassination of nuclear scientists and the use of cyber warfare to infect the nuclear program's computer systems with a virus. The IAEA report makes clear, however, that even these covert operations have not discouraged Iran from pursuing a weapon and making progress toward their goal.

Some apologists for Iran have suggested that the regime poses no danger to U.S. interests. This is nonsense. Iran funds international terror, works to undermine Arab-Israeli peace, threatens oil supplies, promotes instability, targets our troops in the region and hatched a terror plot in Washington, D.C. The pre-nuclear Iran is already spurring proliferation as Arab rivals start to explore a nuclear deterrent.

The nations in the Middle East have no doubt about the danger posed by the Iranians and, with the exception of their allies in Syria and proxies in Lebanon, are united in calling for measures to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Saudi Arabia has made no secret of its desire, for example, to see the United States use military force against Iran.612

Iran is continuing on what appears to be an inexorable march to join the nuclear club. Continuing policies that have failed for a decade will not halt that advance.

MYTH

"Due to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's economy has been suffering." top

FACT

Israelis have always envisioned a day when they would have peace with their neighbors and enjoy normal commercial relations that would be a boon to both Israel and the Arab states. Unfortunately, the Arab states initiated an economic boycott in 1945 and most still refuse to engage in any trade with Israel. The ongoing conflict also imposes heavy costs on Israel, forcing it to devote resources to security that might otherwise be directed to more productive uses.

Despite these impediments, Israel has shown a remarkable capacity to thrive economically throughout its history. Today, in fact, as the economies of most nations struggle, Israel’s is booming. Israel now has the world’s fastest-growing economy.613

One indication of the strength of Israel’s economy is its rating by Standard and Poor. While S&P downgraded America’s rating in August 2011 (for the first time since 1917) from AAA to AA+ following the stalemate over raising the debt ceiling,614 the ratings services raised Israel’s long-term foreign currency sovereign credit ratings in September 2011 from “A” to “A+,” denoting its “very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.”615

Another sign of Israel’s economic strength was its admission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in June 2011. This placed Israel among a select group of 34 nations that “promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.”616

According to the OECD, Israel’s economy is expected to grow by 5.4 percent in 2011, up from 4.7 percent in 2010. Unemployment is also expected to decline from 6.6 percent to 6.2.

For 2011-2012, Israel ranks as the 22nd most-competitive market in the world, two ranks up from last year in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report.617 Switzerland, Singapore, Sweden, Finland and the United States rank as the top five, respectively, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the only other Middle East nations in the top 25, rank at 14 and 17, respectively.618

These are just a few indicators of the strength of Israel’s economy. Israel, like other nations, also has its share of economic problems. As the protests of the summer of 2011 indicated, many Israelis are unhappy with the gap between rich and poor and the cost of housing and child care. The number of Israelis below the poverty line has also grown to 23.6% of the total population today. These are real concerns that Israelis want their government to address.

Israelis also hope that one day they will be at peace with all their neighbors and can then focus more of their resources on improving the lives of the people and expanding the economy and less on security.

MYTH:  

Gaza does not receive necessary humanitarian supplies due to Israel's blockade.

FACT

Though Hamas attempts to manipulate public opinion and distort reality to claim that Israel is making Gaza into the worlds “largest open-air prison,” the facts paint a completely different story. In 2010, both the International Red Cross (ICRC) and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) publicly reported that there were no shortages of food or supplies in Gaza. 1 Even when Hamas resumed bombarding Israel with mortars and rockets, Israel continued to provide humanitarian assistance, electricity and even waste disposal to Gaza.

In April 2011, Mathilde De Riedmatten, ICRC Deputy Head of Sub Delegation in Gaza, announced that there was “no humanitarian crisis in Gaza … there are products [in supermarkets], there are restaurants and a nice beach.” 2 She noted that the ICRC and IDF “coordinate the entry of goods into Gaza and the entry and exit of people … sometimes patients who are going to Israel to receive medical care.” 3 In fact, over the first quarter of 2011 alone, Israel delivered a daily average of 5,000 tons of food, goods, fuel and development assistance through its land crossings with Gaza. Moreover, in 2010, Israel authorized the exit of more than 18,000 Palestinian patients from Gaza to Israeli hospitals for medical treatment – everything from cancer chemotherapy to heart surgeries. 4

While Israel continues to supply necessary humanitarian supplies, the citizens of Gaza can now also move and trade freely with Egypt. On May 25, 2011, the Supreme Military Council - ruling Egypt since the overthrow of President Mubarak – officially opened the Egyptian border crossing with Gaza at Rafah, ending a four-year closure of Gaza’s only international border outside of Israel. Now Israel’s detractors, who accused Israel of blockading the Strip while ignoring Egypt’s closure of the border, can no longer use Israeli policy as justification for future blockade-busting flotillas to supply Gazans.

Life in Gaza is certainly difficult, but the situation there does not constitute the humanitarian crisis Hamas and the media have portrayed. This is largely because Israel has ensured that a steady supply of food and basic supplies reach the Palestinian people. With its border now open to Egypt, Gazans can also no longer claim to be under a total blockade and can procure the resources they need through the Rafah crossing. The concern now is whether Egypt will allow Hamas to exploit the opening to smuggle in weapons for use against Israel.

 

MYTH:  

The 'Flotilla 2' is solely intended to help relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

FACT

For the second time in two years, a group of anti-Israel activists have organized a flotilla under the pretext of bringing necessary supplies to Gaza. The true aim of the organizers, however, is to attract international attention and embarrass and provoke Israel by challenging its policy of preventing the terrorists of Hamas from smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip. These provocateurs know that Gaza has no shortage of essential goods, that any needed supplies can be transferred through Egypt and that Israel is prepared to welcome ships into its ports and transfer the cargo to the Palestinians provided it is searched for contraband and weapons before being forwarded.

Labeling itself the international “Freedom Flotilla II – Stay Human,” this year’s convoy will include ships sailing from the United States, Canada, Greece, Ireland, France and Italy and has invited journalists and politicians to join their blockade-busting mission. The U.S. State Department criticized the organizers, declaring that “groups that seek to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza are taking irresponsible and provocative actions.” 5 American citizens were warned not to participate in the activity, which may also violate American law because funding for the mission was raised illegally in the States. 6 In addition, several countries have taken measures to prevent ships from sailing from their ports. Cyprus, for example, which was used as a springboard for the 2010 flotilla, has banned all sailings to Gaza from its seaports. 7

Israel already has indications that some of the activists are planning to use violence against Israeli soldiers if they attempt to board the ships or prevent them from landing. Israeli intelligence learned that some of the flotilla participants may be bringing along chemical agents such as sulfuric acid in order to “shed the blood of IDF soldiers.” 8 The provocateurs apparently hope to gain the type of notoriety and publicity that activists in 2010 achieved when they brutally attacked Israeli soldiers boarding one of the flotilla vessels.

In 2010, flotilla organizers justified their actions by claiming a humanitarian crisis existed in Gaza. It was not true then and is not true now, as the deputy head of the Red Cross subdelegation to Gaza flatly stated in April 2011 that there is “no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” As recently as June 19, 2011, an aid convoy to Gaza named “Miles of Smiles 3” delivered 15 medical vehicles and 30 tons of medical supplies and milk powder to Gaza through the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. 9

Israel has the right –legally and ethically – to stop and inspect ships that attempt to deliver supplies straight to Gaza. In the past, ships attempting to smuggle tons of weapons into Gaza were prevented from doing so by the Israeli blockade. If the Flotilla 2 activists are truly intending to deliver humanitarian supplies, and not to create a bloody confrontation with Israel, it is possible to do so by following procedures set up by the Egyptian and Israeli governments. By trying to circumvent the avenues provided to them, flotilla participants are demonstrating they are far more interested in self-promotion than the welfare of Palestinians.

"Unauthorized efforts to deliver aid are provocative and, ultimately, unhelpful to the people of Gaza. Canada recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns and its right to protect itself and its residents from attacks by Hamas and other terrorist groups, including by preventing the smuggling of weapons."

— John Baird, Canadian Foreign Minister 10

 

"The Secretary-General called on all Governments concerned to use their influence to discourage such flotillas, which carry the potential to escalate into violent conflict."

— Ban Ki Moon, United Nations Secretary-General 10

 

 

MYTH:  

The United Nations repudiated the claim that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal.

FACT

On September 2, 2011, the United Nations released its investigative report concerning the May 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla that tried to breach Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The UN Palmer Committee, led by former New Zealand prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, examined the facts, circumstances and context that surrounded the deadly conflagration off Gaza's coast and submitted findings on the international legitimacy and legality of Israel's continued blockade of the Hamas-run enclave. Despite attempts by many media outlets to bury the findings and highlight only the parts that criticized the Jewish state, Palmer's report adopted conclusions that vindicated Israel's positions concerning the blockade and placed the responsibility for the confrontation on the "humanitarian" groups that formed the flotilla.

The 105-page report, which relied heavily on Israel's internal investigation into the incident as well as accounts from flotilla participants, concluded that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is consistent with customary international law, is legitimate due to the security threat posed by Hamas and does not constitute collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza.11

"Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza....The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea," the report concluded. Palmer also affirmed Israel's legal right to stop and board the vessels.

"Israeli Defense Forces faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk [and] several others wounded," the report stated.

While the UN committee stated that the Israeli soldiers acted responsibly in defending themselves against the self-proclaimed IHH peace activists - armed with clubs, knives, and steel pipes - it also reprimanded Israel for boarding the ship without prior notice and using "excessive and unnecessary force." Israel took issue with this conclusion and reiterated its regret at the loss of life during the incident.12

The United Nations has now officially stated that Israel's two-year naval blockade is legal and legitimate. To protect its citizens from the continued threat of arms smuggling by Hamas, Israel has the ongoing responsibility to inspect any cargo that enters Gaza. It is Hamas and its supporters - not Israel's blockade -that pose the greatest danger to peace and security in the region.

The report criticized the flotilla's organizers and questioned their "true nature and objectives, particularly IHH [that] planned in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt."

Regarding Turkey, Palmer's report said that "not enough was done to inform the flotilla participants of the risks." Moreover, states like Turkey have "a responsibility to take proactive steps" to warn flotilla participants and "to endeavor to dissuade them" from challenging Israel's naval blockade.

The Palmer report also contradicted human rights groups' claim that a humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza. Anyone wanting to send humanitarian aid to Gaza, the report said, must do so in coordination with Israel and the Palestinian Authority through the land crossings.13

 

MYTH:  

A unilateral declaration of independence is the Palestinians’ only avenue to advance the peace process.

FACT

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is poised to defy the wishes of Israel, the United States and many European nations when he submits a request to the UN to recognize a state of Palestine. Abbas maintains that Israeli intransigence at the negotiating table has left the Palestinians no choice other than unilateral action to advance the peace process. 14 In truth, it is the Palestinians who have refused even to sit down for talks with Israel. Despite repeated invitations from Israel, and encouragement by the Obama Administration, Abbas has boycotted negotiations for two years.

Rather than discuss the crucial issues of borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem, Abbas has chosen to pursue a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in an effort to gain international recognition for his uncompromising positions on these issues. A UN vote, however, will not provide independence to the Palestinians; it will be only a symbolic victory. Israel will not withdraw from any territory as a result, will not recognize “Palestine,” and will not change its support for a two-state solution based on agreed upon borders and security arrangements.

The Palestine Liberation Organization has held observer status at the UN since 1974 and Abbas is now seeking the privileges of an independent state. The Palestinians expect at least 150 of the 192 UN members to endorse their statehood bid, but the United States has already pledged to veto any resolution put before the Security Council. 15 Without Security Council approval, the General Assembly can only change the PLO’s status as it does not have the power to declare the establishment of states or to admit members to the UN. Nevertheless, a General Assembly vote would give international recognition to a phantom Palestinian state.

Though it is unlikely to matter to the General Assembly, which has an automatic majority for any pro-Palestinian initiative, the Palestinians do not yet have all of the characteristics of a state. According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention, the four requirements for a state are a permanent population, a defined territory, effective government over the population, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

As Steven Rosen of the Middle East Forum observed, " the General Assembly will create an imaginary state that has two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers, a constitution whose most central provisions are violated by both sides, no functioning legislature, no ability to hold elections, a population mostly not under its control, borders that would annex territory under the control of other powers, and no clear path to resolve any of these conflicts."
16

In addition, the Palestinian Authority is unable to support itself financially, depending almost entirely on foreign aid. Finally, the “state” is divided between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with the latter outside the control of Abbas. Hamas rules Gaza independently, opposes the UDI, as well as any peace with Israel, and continues to engage in terror. A vote for the UDI would endorse Hamas rule and create a UN member state whose objective is the destruction of another member.

By going to the UN to circumvent negotiations, the Palestinians will undermine the peace process by violating international agreements, alienating the Israeli public and giving the Palestinian people false hope that their lives will change. Many Palestinians, including Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, recognize this course is irresponsible, and may threaten some of their interests, and are therefore opposed to the UDI. 17

Approval by the UN of a unilateral declaration of independence has potentially serious detrimental consequences for the Palestinians. Israel will feel justified, for example, in taking its own unilateral measures. The Oslo Accords could also be declared null and void and Israel could cease to abide by its provisions, such as providing water to the PA (which would no longer exist) or recognizing Palestinian control over certain areas in the West Bank. By declaring “independence,” the PA would threaten bilateral cooperation with Israel in more than 40 spheres of activity, including security collaboration, institution building and economic support. 18

Moreover, the UDI would jeopardize economic aid from the United States, which is legally prohibited from funding terrorist organizations and Hamas would now be governing at least part of phantom Palestine. The U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, Daniel Rubenstein, told the PA that Congress is prepared to “take punitive measures to cut aid” if the UDI is pushed forward. 19

Additionally, the UDI will raise expectations among the Palestinian people that they will be independent, that Israeli involvement in their lives will end, that the settlements will disappear and that they will have a capital in Jerusalem. When none of these come to pass, the public may turn on its leaders or, more likely, vent its frustration on Israel. As EU Parliament Chief Jerry Buzek warned, “unilateral actions can become very dangerous.” 20

A UDI would contravene almost every international resolution and agreement aimed at achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Oslo Accords, the Road Map and Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1850 stipulate, the only route to a sustainable peace is through negotiations. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonished the Palestinian leadership on the UDI tactic, saying “there is no substitute for face to face discussion.” At a time when much of the Middle East is either in flames or simmering, the Palestinians seem determined to throw a gasoline can into the mix. The United States and Israel are trying to do everything possible to discourage them from their incendiary policy and to restart peace negotiations, but Abbas may not be deterred from proving once again that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

MYTH:  

Palestinian leaders claim that the future Palestinian state will welcome Jews and Israelis.

FACT

The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States Maen Areikat said on September 13, 2011, that a future Palestinian state should be free of Jews, a call for ethnic cleansing reminiscent of Nazi Germany. This is not the first time that a Palestinian official has suggested making “Palestine” judenrein and reflects an ugly undercurrent of anti-Semitism within the Palestinian Authority.

Once a Palestinian state is established, why shouldn’t Jews be welcome there? The same question could be asked of any country, but is particularly relevant in the case of the area likely to become Palestine because it has been the home of Jews for centuries.

Imagine the uproar if any Israeli official suggested that no Arabs or Muslims should be allowed to live in Israel. In fact, 1.3 million Arabs live as free and equal citizens in Israel. “After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated at first,” Areikat told USA Today. 21

Areikat insists that the Palestinians need to work on building their national identity, but part of their demand for independence is based on the claim that they already have a national identity. Moreover, how would identity-building be impeded by the presence of Jews, unless you subscribe to Nazi-like ideology about purity of the race and argue that Jews may somehow contaminate the Palestinian nation.

After provoking criticism, Areikat later gave a partial retraction, but his anti-Semitic views have been echoed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas who said in December 2010, “If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it.” 22

Now Abbas is requesting that the United Nations endorse a Palestinian state that will be founded on anti-Semitism and a promise of ethnic cleansing. The question now becomes whether a body created with the aim of promoting peace, dignity and universal human rights will disgrace itself by voting in favor of a resolution that undermines those principles.

"To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, will have one official religion and will base its laws on the precepts of that religion."

— Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor 23

 

MYTH

Mahmoud Abbas is working toward reaching peace with Israel.

FACT

Increasingly, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas appears to be the negotiator of choice for the West simply because officials see no option. Israelis are increasingly beginning to question this default option after three years of Abbas refusing to enter negotiations with Israel and a lifetime of rejectionism.

New evidence that Abbas is the impediment to peace continues to mount. In September 2011, Abbas defied the United States and many other nations by submitting an application for recognition to the UN Security Council.

A month later, Abbas again ignored the objections of the United States and other Western powers and submitted an application to UNESCO seeking recognition of Palestine. While winning the vote, the White House condemned the decision as "regrettable" and "premature," and said it undermines the effort to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.24

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly invited Abbas to talks without preconditions and Abbas has refused. In fact, Abbas came out of his first meeting with President Obama saying he hoped the Obama Administration would force Netanyahu out of office. Abbas added that he was willing to wait years until that happened.25

Even after Israel placed a ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank in an effort to entice the Palestinians into peace talks, Abbas refused to sit with the Israeli leaders until just two weeks before the freeze was set to expire and, after one meeting, never returned to the talks.26

In October 2011, the Quartet called for a renewal of talks and Abbas ignored the group that includes the UN, Russia, the United States and the European Union.

A new memoir by former U.S. National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has provided additional damning evidence of Abbas's rejection of peace. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with an additional 1.5 percent of the territory used to create a passage to Gaza and the remaining 4.5 percent to be "swapped" so that Israel could annex its major settlement blocs.27

Olmert also proposed a division of Jerusalem that would have allowed the Palestinians to establish their capital in the predominantly Arab part of the city. Rice called the proposal "amazing" and warned the Prime Minister that "Yitzhak Rabin had been killed for offering far less."28

Abbas refused to consummate the deal. As Haaretz noted, "aficionados of the Palestinians again found a million and one reasons why the peace-loving Palestinian leader had refused the offer."29

While rejecting peace Abbas also glorifies terrorists. Most recently, he praised five of the terrorists released in the deal to free Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit (who was kidnapped on Abbas's watch). The killers, along with other former prisoners, were awarded grants by Abbas as a "presidential token of honor."30 In December 2011, Abbas met with a woman (released in the Shalit deal) who lured a 16 year-old Israeli teenager to his death by Palestinian militants, under the pretext of an internet romance in 2001.31

Abbas has found excuses not to negotiate a deal with three different Israeli prime ministers and there is no reason to expect that a change in Israeli leadership would make him any less intransigent.

After spending two years trying to satisfy Palestinian demands and encourage them to return to the negotiating table, President Obama has reportedly grown so disenchanted with Abbas that he has not spoken to him in months.32

Columnist Yoel Marcus may have put it best when he described Abbas as "an adamant rejectionist" who comes "across as a nicely compelling non-partner."33

MYTH

Time is not on Iran's side vis-a-vis its acquiring the atomic bomb.

FACT

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report on November 8, 2011, with new evidence of Iran’s commitment to building a nuclear weapon and the progress it has made toward achieving its goal.

The IAEA expresses “more concern about the possible existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and material in Iran” and “was informed that Iran has undertaken work to manufacture small capsules suitable for use as containers of a component containing nuclear material. Iran may also have experimented with such components in order to assess their performance in generating neurons. Such components, if placed in the centre of a nuclear core of an implosion type nuclear device and compressed, could produce a burst of neutrons suitable for initiating a fission chain reaction,” the report states.34

Unwilling to take military action, the international community has tried both carrots and sticks to halt the Iranian drive toward the nuclear threshold. Years of fruitless negotiations and offers of incentives were viewed by the Iranians as signs of Western weakness and were exploited to accelerate their program. As multiple IAEA reports have illustrated, sanctions have had no more impact as several nations have failed to enforce them rigorously, and other countries, especially China, have openly flouted them. Efforts to impose tougher sanctions have proved futile as China and Russia block their adoption at the UN Security Council.

U.S. policy has also been a failure. The Obama Administration first tried negotiating with the Iranians and was made to look as foolish as the Europeans who had previously failed to talk Iran out of building a bomb. The Administration has continued to apply half-measures and refused to impose any significant sanctions that would seriously inflict pain on the Iranian leadership or the general public. The fear of hurting the people has ensured they do not suffer enough to risk a revolution against the regime.

The only publicly disclosed efforts to stop the Iranians that have reportedly slowed them down have been quasi-military operations involving the assassination of nuclear scientists and the use of cyber warfare to infect the nuclear program's computer systems with a virus. The IAEA report makes clear, however, that even these covert operations have not discouraged Iran from pursuing a weapon and making progress toward their goal.

Some apologists for Iran have suggested that the regime poses no danger to U.S. interests. This is nonsense. Iran funds international terror, works to undermine Arab-Israeli peace, threatens oil supplies, promotes instability, targets our troops in the region and hatched a terror plot in Washington, D.C. The pre-nuclear Iran is already spurring proliferation as Arab rivals start to explore a nuclear deterrent.

The nations in the Middle East have no doubt about the danger posed by the Iranians and, with the exception of their allies in Syria and proxies in Lebanon, are united in calling for measures to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Saudi Arabia has made no secret of its desire, for example, to see the United States use military force against Iran.35

Iran is continuing on what appears to be an inexorable march to join the nuclear club. Continuing policies that have failed for a decade will not halt that advance.

MYTH

Due to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel's economy has been suffering.

FACT

Israelis have always envisioned a day when they would have peace with their neighbors and enjoy normal commercial relations that would be a boon to both Israel and the Arab states. Unfortunately, the Arab states initiated an economic boycott in 1945 and most still refuse to engage in any trade with Israel. The ongoing conflict also imposes heavy costs on Israel, forcing it to devote resources to security that might otherwise be directed to more productive uses.

Despite these impediments, Israel has shown a remarkable capacity to thrive economically throughout its history. Today, in fact, as the economies of most nations struggle, Israel’s is booming. Israel now has the world’s fastest-growing economy.36

One indication of the strength of Israel’s economy is its rating by Standard and Poor. While S&P downgraded America’s rating in August 2011 (for the first time since 1917) from AAA to AA+ following the stalemate over raising the debt ceiling,37 the ratings services raised Israel’s long-term foreign currency sovereign credit ratings in September 2011 from “A” to “A+,” denoting its “very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.”38

Another sign of Israel’s economic strength was its admission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in June 2011. This placed Israel among a select group of 34 nations that “promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.”39

According to the OECD, Israel’s economy is expected to grow by 5.4 percent in 2011, up from 4.7 percent in 2010. Unemployment is also expected to decline from 6.6 percent to 6.2.

For 2011-2012, Israel ranks as the 22nd most-competitive market in the world, two ranks up from last year in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report.40 Switzerland, Singapore, Sweden, Finland and the United States rank as the top five, respectively, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the only other Middle East nations in the top 25, rank at 14 and 17, respectively.41

These are just a few indicators of the strength of Israel’s economy. Israel, like other nations, also has its share of economic problems. As the protests of the summer of 2011 indicated, many Israelis are unhappy with the gap between rich and poor and the cost of housing and child care. The number of Israelis below the poverty line has also grown to 23.6% of the total population today. These are real concerns that Israelis want their government to address.

Israelis also hope that one day they will be at peace with all their neighbors and can then focus more of their resources on improving the lives of the people and expanding the economy and less on security.

 

MYTH

Of the Palestinian prisoners released in the Shalit deal, most who have spoken out say they will renounce terror.

FACT

Israel hoped that the 477 prisoners it released as part of the Gilad Shalit exchange deal in November 2011 would show remorse for their actions; however, the oldest prisoner released so far seems to be the only one with any hint of penitence.42

Seventy-nine-year-old Sami Younis had served 29 years of a 40-year sentence for activity in the terror cell that murdered soldier Avraham Bromberg in 1980. While never explicitly expressing regret, Younis said that “what was correct for that time is no longer correct. Since the Oslo accord, I’ve become a soldier for peace. Sixty years of war and bloodshed is enough.”43

Unfortunately, several others prisoners have shown no remorse whatsoever for their heinous crimes and immediately incited others to follow in their terrorist footsteps. These include failed suicide bombers and Palestinians who dispatched or drove other terrorists to attack Israeli bus stations, hotels and restaurants.

These killers and would-be murderers were welcomed home as heroes not only by their families and friends but also by Palestinian Authority officials. President Mahmoud Abbas, often called a “moderate” by wishful thinkers, declared, “You are freedom fighters and holy warriors.”44

One appalling example of a terrorist using her notoriety to promote violence was failed suicide bomber Wafa al-Bis, who told dozens of Palestinian children at her Gaza home: “I hope you will walk the same path we took and, God willing, we will see some of you as martyrs.”45

Al Bis was 19 when she tried to blow up an Israeli hospital but was found with 22 pounds of explosives sewn to her underwear at the Erez crossing checkpoint. Indeed, Bis’ mother said “this is jihad, it is an honorable thing and I am proud of her.”46

Ahlam Tamimi was not only unrepentant; she was willing to resort to violence again. In July 2001, Tamimi, then a 20 year-old student, drove a suicide bomber who blew up a Jerusalem Sbarro restaurant that killed 16 people and injured 130.

When asked if she felt sorry, she replied “No. Why should I feel sorry?” Tamimi does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and added, “I dedicated myself to jihad for the sake of Allah, and Allah granted me success. You know how many casualties there were [in the 2001 attack]? This was made possible by Allah.” The interviewer asked if she would do it again and she said, “Yes.”47

Similarly, Muhammad Abu Ataya – sentenced to 16 years in prison for membership in Hamas’ military brigade – said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “will not deter us from continuing the journey of resistance.” Speaking to Lebanese Al-Quds TV, Abu Ataya stated he was imprisoned for “killing spies and traitors [and] going after the herd of settlers and the Israeli army,” actions which he still supported.48

Another of the murderers who gained his freedom was Yehya Sinwar, a senior operative who helped form Hamas’ military wing in Gaza. He had been serving four life sentences for his involvement in the 1994 kidnapping and murder of Israel Defense Forces soldier Nachshon Wachsman. Upon his release, Sinwar extolled the virtue of kidnapping Israelis as a means of improving the morale of Palestinian prisoners. “For the prisoner, capturing an Israeli soldier is the best news in the universe, because he knows that a glimmer of hope has been opened for him,” he told The New York Times.49

 

MYTH

"Israel's proposed rebuilding of the Mugrabi Gate leading to the Temple Mount is an act of religious war."

FACT

On Monday, December 12, 2011, Israel temporarily closed the single pedestrian walkway open to non-Muslims that leads to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel’s Western Wall Heritage Foundation, which closed the walkway to the Mugrabi Bridge, cited the public safety of visitors who use the walkway as the reason for closure. The ramp is a temporary structure that is unstable, a fire hazard and prone to storm damage. It was built after an earthquake damaged the original ramp in 2004.

Israel wants to build a safer, permanent structure, but has been reluctant to do so because of the type of hysterical reaction of Arab officials that accompanied the brief closure of the current bridge. Egyptian, Jordanian, and Palestinian (Hamas and the Palestinian Authority) officials characterized the Israeli move as negative, and their statements range from calling it “illegal” and “unacceptable” to “a declaration of religious war.”50

Jordan’s religious affairs minister Abdul-Salam Abbadi criticized the Israelis of “further Judaizing Jerusalem and changing the Islamic and Christian character in the Old City using baseless excuses.” One PA Official called the decision “illegal unacceptable and provocative [because] Israel has no right running these sites in the occupied part of east Jerusalem.” Hamas accused Israel of “provoking the feelings of all Islamic and Arab people.”51

Additionally, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights “condemns in the strongest terms the ongoing policies adopted by Israeli occupation authorities aimed at creating a Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem, the latest of which has been closing the wooden bridge of Bab al-Maghariba.”52

The outrage expressed over Israel’s actions is less about the bridge than the underlying issue of who ought to have jurisdiction to control the gate to the Temple Mount. Palestinians insist this should be part of the capital of a future Palestinian state and Muslims argue they should control the area because it is the site of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism, the site of the original holy Temple built by Solomon. Politically, it is also part of Israel’s capital and subject to the government’s authority.

The issue has nothing to do with freedom of religion or access to the Temple Mount. The Mugrabi Bridge is used primarily by non-Muslims. Muslims can and routinely do enter the Temple Mount from another of the several gates only open to Muslims.

Israel has demonstrated sensitivity to the issue by refraining from demolishing the bridge and building a more structurally sound one up to this point; however, the time is coming when public safety will have to take precedence over politics. The Mugrabi Bridge is unsafe and needs to be replaced. Providing this security to Muslims and non-Muslims alike who wish to visit the Temple Mount or pray in the mosque should be commended.

 

MYTH

"The Palestinian leadership wants to normalize ties with Israel."

FACT

Israel’s quest for peace with its neighbors starts with a desire to engage in mutually beneficial cooperative activities and to build confidence and positive attitudes to encourage coexistence and lasting peace. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with President Obama, has spent most of the last three years trying to convince Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to simply sit at the negotiating table to reach a peace agreement. Abbas has stubbornly refused to engage in peace talks. Worse, he is now doing everything in his power to prevent other Palestinians from engaging Israelis in any way.

The West Bank-ruling Fatah party declared war on normalization with Israel, Bethlehem’s (Palestinian) mayor called for a total boycott of Israel, and hundreds of Palestinians successfully interrupted and stopped two conferences about peace whose participants included Palestinians and Israelis.53

Senior Fatah official Hatem Abdel Kader announced Fatah’s plans to “thwart any Palestinian-Israeli meeting, even if it’s held in Tel Aviv or west Jerusalem…In Fatah we have officially decided to ban such gatherings.” Last week, Palestinians stopped an attempt by the Israeli Palestinian Confederation to hold a conference in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and the following day, another anti-normalization protest forced the group to cancel another planned meeting at which Al-Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh planned to speak.54

This week, Palestinian political activists thwarted a meeting between Israelis and Palestinians in east Jerusalem that was organized by the Palestine-Israel Journal, a non-profit group started by two well-known Palestinian and Israeli journalists. The group's main goal is to broaden the peace process's support base by promoting dialogue between the civil societies. The thwarted meeting's topic was the "Arab Spring's impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." 55

Lifelong civil rights leader and the first South African democratic leader Nelson Mandela said: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.”56 The Palestinians, however, call for boycotts and other measures to avoid working with Israelis to build the kind of partnership Mandela rightly said could lead to peace.

Once again, the obstacle to peace is clear – Palestinian intransigence. Abbas still believes he can establish a state without negotiating with Israel. Until he is either disabused of this delusion or replaced by a true leader who promotes normalization and seeks peace through dialogue, the two-state solution that Israel and most of the world seek will remain out of reach.

 

MYTH

"The Palestinians agreed to negotiate with Israel without preconditions."

FACT

After three years of refusing to talk to Israeli officials, Jordan’s King Abdullah persuaded the Palestinians to meet with Israeli negotiators in Amman, raising hopes that, at last, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was dropping his demand that Israel freeze all settlements before agreeing to enter peace talks. Israelis also were cautiously optimistic that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s longstanding invitation to discuss all outstanding issues would be accepted and that progress could be made toward achieving a two-state solution.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat threw cold water on those hopes immediately, saying the Amman meeting was not a resumption of negotiations. He continued to insist that “Netanyahu needs to freeze construction of settlements and accept the ’67 outline for a two-state solution before we return to the negotiating table.”57

This was never a precondition for talks in the past; in fact, Abbas held 35 meetings with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert while settlement construction continued.58 When Netanyahu did agree to a 10-month freeze under pressure from the Obama Administration, Abbas still refused to negotiate until the last month of the freeze, when he nixed continuing the negotiations on the grounds that Israel would not extend the settlement freeze. 59

Palestinians and their supporters claim that Israeli settlement construction undermines confidence in Israel’s commitment to peace; however, they have no one to blame but themselves for the growth of settlements. The moment they sign a peace agreement, the settlement construction will cease, but there is no reason to expect that to happen in advance of negotiations.

The Palestinians operate under the impression that Israel must make concessions, prisoner releases, settlement freezes, dismantling of checkpoints, just to get them to the bargaining table. Compromise, however, is supposed to be part of peace talks, not the price for the talks themselves. In its desire for peace with the Palestinians, Israel has nevertheless made such concessions in the past, but there is no reason to do so now.

While the Palestinians complain about the impact of settlements on their confidence, they are doing everything in their power to undermine Israeli confidence in their sincerity about peace. First, Fatah has been working to reconcile with Hamas, which condemned the Amman talks, vows to destroy Israel and declared itself the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.60 Besides reiterating its unwillingness to recognize Israel, let alone make peace with it, Hamas continues to engage in terror attacks against Israel, firing a total of 633 rockets and 400 mortar shells into Israel from the Gaza Strip in the last three years. 61

Second, rather than express a desire to peacefully end the conflict with Israel, the Palestinians have threatened a lengthy diplomatic offensive against Israel aimed at winning recognition from the international community for their demands without having to compromise through direct talks with Israel, isolating Israel and seeking international sanctions to try to force Israel to capitulate to their demands. “[The year 2012] will be the start of an unprecedented diplomatic campaign on the part of the Palestinian leadership, and a year of pressure on Israel that will put it under a real international siege [through a] campaign similar to the one waged against apartheid in South Africa,” Fatah Central Committee member Nabil Sha’ath said.62 The Palestinian campaign is expected to include:

Third, Palestinian incitement continues. In a particularly bold gesture of defiance, Abbas appointed a convicted terrorist, responsible for shootings and bombings against Israelis, and released as part of the Shalit exchange deal, as an advisor in his Ramallah office.64

These are not words or actions of leaders interested in serious negotiations to make peace. Rather than seeking to resolve differences, the Palestinians seem committed to intensifying the conflict. This reckless policy is being pursued against the backdrop of the region’s turmoil and the growing likelihood that radical Islamists will take power throughout the region. This is a time when Israelis need reassurance that their most immediate neighbors are interested in coexistence if they are to be expected to make risky territorial concessions.

Hopefully, the two sides will continue direct talks, but those negotiations can only succeed if there is a dramatic change in the Palestinian position and they drop their preconditions and discuss the difficult compromises both sides must make to achieve a two-state solution.65

 

MYTH

"Palestinian terrorism is no longer a threat to Israel."

FACT

The Palestinian decision to finally sit down with Israeli officials to discuss issues is an important first step toward achieving a two-state solution. One of the principal impediments to peace, however, remains Palestinian terrorism.

To its credit, thanks in large measure to U.S. training and cooperation with Israel, the Palestinian Authority has significantly reduced the attacks and threats from the West Bank. The Palestinians originally promised to cease all terror when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin agreed to mutual recognition.66 They have reiterated this pledge in each succeeding agreement without yet fulfilling the commitment. For example, in 2011 alone, the following attacks occurred:

  • March 11 - Udi Fogel, 36, and Ruth Fogel, 35, along with three of their children Yoav, 11, Elad, 4, and 3-month-old Hadas were stabbed to death by terrorists in their home in Itamar, in northern Samaria.67
  • March 23 - One woman, identified by the police as a 56-year-old British tourist, was killed and about 50 people wounded when a bomb exploded across from the Jerusalem Convention Center, near the Central Bus Station. The bomb had been placed near a telephone booth at a crowded bus stop next to Egged city bus #74.68
  • April 24 - Ben-Yosef Livnat, 24, of Jerusalem was killed by a Palestinian policeman at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus.69
  • September 23 - Asher Palmer, 25, and his year old son Yonatan of Kiryat Arba were killed when their car crashed on Route 60 near Hebron, after being struck by stones. 70

These are just the attacks that have succeeded; terrorists regularly attempt to infiltrate Israel or to mount other attacks in the West Bank. The much criticized security fence and the handful of remaining checkpoints, however, continue to save the lives of innocent Israeli Jews and Arabs. For instance, on January 7, 2012, Israel Border Police thwarted a major terror attack originating from Jenin when they captured four Palestinians carrying 11 pipe bombs, a pistol and a commando knife at the Salem Crossing in the northern West Bank. They are suspected of having planned to attack a military court.71

The Palestinian Authority continues to lack any control whatsoever over the Gaza Strip and the terrorists operating there. In fact, PA President Mahmoud Abbas continues to seek an alliance with Hamas, the party responsible for the ongoing terror emanating from their area of control.

Since February 2009, Hamas has fired at least 633 rockets and 405 mortar shells from Gaza at Israeli civilian areas.72 In addition to creating a constant level of anxiety for hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in southern Israel, many of these attacks have had deadly results. In 2011, the following Israelis were killed and injured:

  • April 7 - Daniel Viflic, 16, of Bet Shemesh, died (April 17) of mortal wounds suffered when an anti-tank missile was fired at a school bus in the Negev near Kibbutz Sa'ad just moments after it had dropped off the rest of the school children.73
  • August 18 - Eight Israeli citizens were killed and more than 40 wounded in a multi-pronged terrorist attack north of Eilat in southern Israel. Five civilians were killed when terrorists opened fire on a passenger bus and another civilian was killed in a separate attack on an empty bus. An IDF combat soldier was killed when his jeep hit an IED placed on the road and a member of the Israeli police special SWAT unit was killed when his unit led heavy fighting against a group of retreating terrorists. The victims: sisters Flora Gaz (52) and Shula Karlinsky (54) and their husbands - Moshe Gaz and Dov Karlinsky (58); Yosef Levi (58); St Sgt Moshe Naftali (22) of the Golani Brigade; SWAT Cpt Paskal Avrahami (49); and Yitzhak Sela (56), of Be'er Sheva, was driving the bus. The Popular Reistance Committees, responsible for the terrorist attacks, is an independent terrorist organization in Gaza, supported, subsidized and trained by Hamas.74
  • August 20 - Yossi Shoshan, 38, from the small town of Ofakim in southern Israel, was killed when a GRAD rocket shot by Gaza terrorists landed near him in Be'er Sheva as he was driving to find his pregnant wife who was hiding from the attacks.75
  • August 22 - Eliyahu Naim, 79, who sustained serious head injury while running for cover during an Ashkelon rocket attack died at Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem on Sept 4, 2011.76
  • October 29 - Moshe Ami, 56, a father of four from Ashkelon, was killed when shrapnel from a GRAD rocket fired by terrorists in Gaza hit his car.77

Furthermore, the IDF believes that the amount of weaponry that has been smuggled into Gaza in 2011 has increased by 15 to 20 percent compared to the previous year in part due to weapons brought in from Libya amidst the turmoil there. Israel is particularly concerned about sophisticated Russian-made antitank missiles and shoulder-to-air missiles.78

Previous efforts to move the peace process forward have been thwarted by Palestinian terror and could do so again. The only way to convince the people of Israel that Palestinians are sincere about ending the conflict is to put a permanent end to violence and the ongoing incitement that encourages terror.

MYTH

"Israel no longer faces any threats from Gaza."

FACT

Israel faces a serious security threat from Gaza. Led by Hamas, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza continue to fire hundreds of rockets and mortars at Israel – more than thirty rockets have struck Israeli civilian areas since December 2011 alone. Moreover, with strengthened financial support from Iran and a weakening of Egyptian security in the Sinai, Hamas has been able to vastly enhance its weapons caches despite ongoing IDF attempts to destroy Hamas weapons facilities.

While Israel is constantly searching for avenues to advance the peace process, Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and has proven unwilling, even under the guise of “Palestinian reconciliation,” to recognize Israel or consider any peace agreements. The prisoner exchange with Israel for the release of Gilad Shalit has emboldened the terrorists in Gaza. Shalit “will not be the last soldier kidnapped by Hamas as long as Israel keeps Palestinian prisoners detained,” Hamas’ military wing spokesman said after the October 2011 exchange.79

Hamas is believed to have a fighting force of more than 20,000 armed men, including five brigades assigned to different areas of the Gaza Strip. Additionally, Hamas has elite surveillance, anti-tank, mortar & rocket fire and anti-aircraft teams equipped with state-of-the-art weaponry.80 Though the IDF inflicted a heavy toll on Hamas, both in terms of men killed and weaponry destroyed, during Operation Cast Lead, many observers believe that Hamas’ capability is even greater now, a mere two years later.

Since the end of Operation Cast Lead in January 2009, Hamas has fired 633 rockets and 400 mortar shells into Israel, including 80 grad rockets, compared to only two in 2010. These rocket barrages terrorize over one million Israeli residents and have directly led to the deaths of five innocent civilians, including 16-year-old Daniel Viflic, who was killed when Hamas fired an anti-tank missile at a school bus.81

Moreover, the breakdown in security along the Sinai-Gaza border has allowed Hamas to rearm and enhance its weapons stock. As a result of the turmoil across northern Africa, thousands of missiles - including shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles and rockets with a range of more than 40 kilometers [sufficient to reach Ashdod to the north and the outskirts of Be’er Sheva to the southeast] - are now being smuggled into Gaza through illegal tunnels on its border with Sinai. Another sign of the terror is the fact that saboteurs have blown up the gas pipeline between Egypt, Israel and Jordan seven times since last year.82

In years past, Israel was able to rely on the Egyptian military to secure this border, but with the collapse of the Mubarak government and the growing possibility of Islamic extremists taking over the country, Israel now has no partner to help impede the flow of illegal weapons into Gaza.

The fact that the threat to Israel from Gaza has steadily been growing has forced Israel to prepare for the contingency of a military operation to protect its citizens. No country would allow hundreds of thousands of its citizens to be forced to live in perpetual fear of coming under attack from rockets. To avert another outbreak of violence, it is essential that the Palestinian Authority assert control over Gaza and the international community take steps to prevent arms smuggling to Gaza and to ensure that Hamas understands it will be held responsible for a future conflict.

MYTH

"The rights of Palestinian women are protected in the Palestinian Authority."

FACT

Discrimination against women is common in Palestinian society and institutionalized by Palestinian authorities in the territories, particularly in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Physical violence, including spousal abuse, employment prejudice and education inequities are just some of the ways that Palestinian women are mistreated on a daily basis. Like the abuse of women throughout the Arab and Muslim world, however, the media, human rights organizations and even women’s rights groups have paid little attention to these violations of human rights.

In January 2012, women employees at the Palestinian Women’s Affairs Ministry began a “hunger strike till death” to protest harassment and mistreatment of women by their own leadership.83“The situation is [so] grave,” one striker said, “[that] women have received threats to be shot in their legs … [or] not to let [into] their offices.”84

Such abuse, though, is only the tip of the iceberg.

In 2007, two in five women in Gaza reported being subjected to violence and, in 2009, the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights reported nine women had been murdered in honor killings in the Palestinian Territories.85 In 2009, 52 percent of Gazan women faced regular physical violence and 14 percent were victims of sexual violence; 37 percent of women in the Gaza Strip said domestic violence is the primary safety problem facing girls and young women.86

Legally, women are supposed to be protected by Palestinian law, but their rights are still severely infringed. Rape, for instance, is illegal – and punishable with up to fifteen years in jail - but the law does not cover spousal rape and abuse. Likewise, assault and battery are crimes under Palestinian Authority law, but rarely applied to cases of domestic violence. Moreover, Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza are governed by Shariah law when it comes to marriage, but few women are actually accorded their proper rights from these laws.87

In Gaza, Hamas officials prohibit all mixing of men and women in public while premarital sex and other “ethical crimes” are punishable by incarceration. The “morality police” punish women for dressing “inappropriately” or riding motorcycles. In 2010, Hamas banned women from smoking water pipes in public cafes. Female university students regularly report discrimination by university administrators, professors and their male peers.88

Women’s participation in the workforce in Gaza is approximately 14 percent, compared to 67 percent for women in the West Bank. Cultural restrictions and traditional stereotypes continue to hinder women’s workforce participation, especially in professions such as journalism, where female reporters are often relegated to covering mundane topics, if they are allowed to report on anything at all.89 In March 2011, a handful of Palestinian female journalists complained that they had been beaten and tortured by Hamas security forces in Gaza, just before Hamas raided media offices in Gaza, including those of CNN and Reuters, and confiscated equipment and documents.90

Perhaps the most reprehensible abuse of women is their use as human shields by Hamas. During Operation Cast Lead, a number of incidents occurred where Hamas terrorists used women to protect themselves and military sites.91

“Where women are educated and empowered,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said, “economies are more productive and strong. Where women are fully represented, societies are more peaceful and stable.” 92

The mistreatment of women in the Palestinian Authority should be high on the agenda of human rights organizations as well as politicians interested in Middle East peace. Ensuring the rights of Palestinian women will help make the PA economy stronger, the society more just and the conditions for peace with Israel more favorable.

 

MYTH

"Palestinians are talking about peace with Israelis in Jordan."

FACT

Palestinians refuse to make the simple declarative statement that they support two states for two peoples – as Benjamin Netanyahu did in June 2009. They sit in what are supposed to be peace talks without ever agreeing that peace should be the outcome of negotiations.93

Lacking a mandate from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to actually negotiate, the Palestinian delegation refused to listen when Israel’s security concerns were raised (they prevented the Israeli briefer from entering the room). Moreover, when the Israeli team broached the subject of East Jerusalem and Jewish settlement blocs, chief “negotiator” Saeb Erekat had no counter offer other than accusing Israel of trying to deprive Palestine of territorial contiguity.94

Israel continues to be pressured to make gestures to the Palestinians just to keep them at the negotiating table, ignoring the fact that the Palestinians never consider any Israeli concessions sufficient and simply raise their demands each time Israel gives in to international pressure and offers Mahmoud Abbas a carrot.

Now Abbas has expanded his list of preconditions for Israel to meet before agreeing to future negotiations. In addition to a settlement freeze, Abbas now demands that Israel release more Palestinian prisoners, dismantle West Bank checkpoints, and even cede territory to PA control. In essence, Abbas is seeking to flip the negotiation process on its head - demanding results before talks - and then seeks to blame Israel for the lack of progress until his demands are met.95

Peace seems to be the last thing on the Palestinian agenda. Instead, Fatah and Hamas have announced their reconciliation without Hamas meeting any of the international conditions for recognition, namely recognizing Israel, ending terror and affirming past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas officials have made clear they remain committed to Israel’s destruction and this must now be considered the policy of the unity government.96

Beyond rhetoric, the Palestinians continue to engage in warlike activities, including the firing of rockets into Israel, attempting to carry out terrorist attacks, mounting an international campaign to delegitimize Israel and inciting violence in schools, the media and mosques.97

Some still naively believe the conflict is about land. Israel proved through its withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, however, that it is prepared to give up land in the hope of achieving peace. The Palestinians, however, do not give any indication that they will be satisfied unless Israel withdraws to the Mediterranean Sea. The Palestinians’ leaders today are not just at war with Israelis but with the Jewish people. This was evident in the statement by the Mufti of Jerusalem, the inheritor of the position once held by Hitler’s would-be accomplice Haj Amin al-Husseini. The current Mufti, Sheikh Ikrem Sabri, quoted a hadith on January 9, 2012, which said that:

The hour of judgment will not come until you fight the Jews….The Jew will hide behind the stone and behind the tree. The stone and the tree will cry, ‘Oh Muslim, Oh Servant of God, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’98

The man who introduced the Mufti declared: “Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs is a war of religion and faith. Long live Fatah!”99

Israelis would like nothing more than to have peace with the Palestinians, especially watching the turmoil in the Arab world around them; however, the earthquake we are witnessing in the region makes Israel’s security needs even more urgent. Israelis now see Islamists taking over Egypt and threatening to tear up the treaty with Israel; Hamas terrorists firing rockets from Gaza, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists taking over Lebanon and threatening to fire 50,000 rockets at northern Israel; Syria in shambles, with the prospect of an Islamist regime coming to power in Damascus; the Palestinians in the West Bank joining hands with Hamas and Iran getting closer each day to achieving a nuclear capability.100

As the earth falls in around them, the Israelis need reassurance, not pressure. The inventory of their concessions is long; the list of Palestinian compromises can be written on a postage stamp. It is said that “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” The long journey toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians ultimately begins with the Palestinians taking that first step – one Israel has already taken – and agreeing to two states for two peoples.

MYTH

"Terrorism against Jews is limited to attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories."

FACT

The terror war against Israel and the Jewish people is not confined to the Middle East. For years PLO terrorists attacked Jewish targets around the world, hijacked airplanes, murdered Olympic athletes and targeted diplomats. This worldwide terror campaign appears to be escalating again with the support of Iran, aided by its proxy Hezbollah. As events of early 2012 show, terrorism against Jews is neither a byproduct of “occupation” nor a response to specific Israeli actions but is bred out of wanton incitement to kill Jews wherever they are.

In February 2012, terrorists attacked official Israeli representatives abroad in India and Georgia, while in Thailand, security officials were able to prevent Iranian and Lebanese cells from carrying out their planned strikes.101 Thai security officials arrested several Iranian men who likely were trying to attack Israelis in Bangkok.102 These incidents came on the heels of the January arrest of three Iranian men in Azerbaijan who had planned to kill two Israeli religious emissaries in Baku.103

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated unequivocally that Israel holds Iran responsible for the string of attacks. “In recent months we have witnessed several attempts to attack Israeli citizens and Jews in several countries,” he said. “Iran and its proxy Hezbollah were behind all of these attempted attacks … Iran is behind these attacks; it is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world.”104

These are just the latest atrocities perpetrated by Iran and its allies. Argentina's Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed in 1992, long before any tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. That bomb killed 29 and injured more than 250.105 Among the victims were Israeli diplomats, children, clergy from a church located across the street and other passersby. Two years later, the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 85 and wounding 300.106

“Just as we have seen in the past, the Jews are the convenient first target for crazy dictatorships, but not the last,” Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said.107

For now, Jews are the targets, but if steps are not taken to stop Iran’s nuclear program, the entire world may face the perilous threat of Iranian-sponsored global terrorism buttressed by a nuclear capability.

MYTH

"Israeli democracy is threatened and Americans need to speak out to save it."

FACT

Public figures in the Jewish world from Peter Beinart and Thomas Friedman to Jeffrey Goldberg and Roger Cohen have expressed concern that Israeli democracy is increasingly doomed. “[Among] the greatest danger[s] by far to Israel is that it will squander the opportunities of power,” Cohen wrote in The New York Times.108 Enemies of Israel are wringing their hands with glee as Jews help them try to chip away at one of the critical pillars of the U.S.-Israel relationship, our shared values.

In truth, Israeli democracy is secure and thriving. The contrast with its neighbors is even more glaring today than ever before as Arab states such as Yemen and Syria descend into tribal, religious and civil wars, autocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain brutally crackdown on dissenters and supposedly democratic revolutions in places such as Egypt fizzle and bring to power radical Islamists for whom freedom and democracy are anathemas.

Israel’s Basic Law for Human Dignity and Liberty, one of a handful of laws that collectively serves as the de facto Israeli constitution, declares that “fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free.”109

Israeli government officials are elected by popular vote and Israel protects its citizens’ freedoms of expression, press, assembly and religion, as well as the rights of women, Arabs and minorities.110

In a region where homosexuality can be considered a capital crime, Israel has one of the most progressive records in the world related to the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Israel’s annual Gay Pride Parade dates back to 1998 and, since 2002, there have been Pride Parades in Jerusalem. The Tel Aviv Pride Parade is the largest on the Asian continent with 100,000 participants from around the world.111

Many organizations, including some internationally funded nongovernmental organizations, operate in Israel and pursue agendas that are highly critical of Israeli policies. Some of these perform useful watchdog functions while others appear more interested in undermining the state than improving it. Anger toward some of these groups prompted legislators to propose a variety of measures that some viewed as constraints on freedom of speech or otherwise anti-democratic. Israelis, however, used their democratic rights to oppose these measures and none have been adopted to date.112

When troubling issues arise, the democracy works the way it should. For example, when a woman was mistreated on a public bus by an Orthodox Jew, the free press reported the story, Israelis mobilized to fight against this type of behavior and the political leadership spoke out and said they would not tolerate it. This does not mean that such discrimination will disappear overnight, but the democratic forces inside Israel reacted as they should.113

The political left and right routinely complain about each other’s policies, but this is the nature of a healthy democracy. The political middle helps place checks on the extremists at both poles. Israel also has an independent judiciary that helps ensure Israel’s democratic principles and its laws are upheld.

Israel’s democracy, like other democracies, is not perfect. It still has a distance to go before all people are treated equally in practice as well as in law. The United States faces similar struggles after nearly three centuries of independence; should we be surprised that Israel has not solved the same problems in its first 64 years?

Israelis do not need to be told by outsiders, Jewish or otherwise, how to sustain their democracy. They have learned how to protect their security and their civil rights in a dangerous neighborhood. Israeli democracy isn’t always pretty, but it works.

"As the only regional democracy with a constitutional culture strong enough to sustain its political structure, Israel is a crucially situated outpost of the West."

— Ruth Wisse, Harvard Yiddish literature professor 114

 

MYTH

"Iran is the only Muslim nation in the Middle East seeking to develop nuclear technology."

FACT

Those who argue that the world can live with a nuclear Iran ignore the likelihood that a nuclear arms race is likely to ensue in the Middle East, which will exponentially increase the danger to the region and beyond. The cost of stopping Iran’s drive for a bomb, therefore, must be balanced with the benefit of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

At least 12 Middle Eastern nations have either announced plans to explore atomic energy or signed nuclear cooperation agreements since the exposure of the Iranian program. Like Iran, they say they are interested in only “peaceful uses” of nuclear technology.

The Saudis have been quite explicit about the impact an Iranian bomb will have on their security. “If Iran develops a nuclear weapon,” an official close to Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal said in June 2011, “that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit.”115 In January 2012, Saudi King Abdullah signed an agreement with China for cooperation in the development and use of atomic energy for civilian purposes. 116

In January 2011, Egypt’s prime minister reaffirmed his country’s plan to construct its first nuclear power plant in the coast city of El-Dabaa.117 In 2009, the United Arab Emirates accepted a $20 billion bid from a South Korean consortium to build four nuclear power reactors by 2020.118

Jordan has cooperation agreements related to building nuclear power infrastructure with South Korea, Japan, Spain, Italy, Romania, Turkey and Argentina. Kuwait has agreements with the U.S., Russia, and Japan. In 2010, Qatar raised the possibility of a regional project for nuclear generation. Algeria has one of the most advanced nuclear science programs in the Arab world and is considering the role that nuclear power could play in its domestic energy generation. Two years ago, Oman signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia.119

The international community does not have a good record in preventing rogue nations from developing nuclear weapons, despite arms inspections, sanctions and other measures aimed at reassuring the public. Iraq was believed to be developing a bomb when Israel destroyed its nuclear reactor in 1981.120 Similarly, Syria managed to build a secret nuclear facility under the nose of the international watchdogs and was stopped only by an Israeli military operation.121

President Barack Obama illustrated the danger of a nuclear Iran vis-à-vis the nuclear arms race it would spur: “It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe,” Obama said. “The dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.”122

The task of eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat and the proliferation that will follow should not be the responsibility of Israel. It is true that Israel is the one state that Iran has threatened to wipe off the map, but the Arab states are also on the front line and petrified of a nuclear Iran. This is why the Saudis explicitly called for a military attack on Iran.123 A nuclear arms filled Middle East, however, will ultimately pose a threat to global peace and stability. International action is needed to ensure that Iran does not get the bomb and set in motion the nuclearization of the Middle East.

MYTH

"Women do not have equal rights in Israel."

FACT

Israel is widely considered among the world’s most progressive nations in defending the inalienable rights of women.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence – calling for the equal treatment of Israeli citizens regardless of race, religion, or gender – stands as a beacon of civility, freedom, and justice in a region where women are denied many basic freedoms by the rule of law.124

In fact, Israel was one of the first countries in the world to be led by a female head of state. From 1969 to 1974, Golda Meir served as Israel’s Prime Minister, setting the stage for future generations of women to follow in her political footsteps.125 Today, 24 women serve in the 120-member Knesset, a higher proportion than sit in the U.S. Congress.126 Three women also are ministers in the Israeli cabinet – Sofa Landver, Orit Noked, and Limor Livnat.127 Additionally, the leaders of two of Israel’s three major political parties - Kadima and Labor - are both women, Tzipi Livni and Shelly Yachimovich, respectively.128

Three of the twelve Israeli Supreme Court Justices are women, and the recently resigned President of the Supreme Court was also a woman, Dorit Beinisch.129 Moreover, women now comprise a majority of judges throughout Israel.130

The Israel Women’s Lobby was formed in 1984 to encourage the involvement of women in shaping legislation and influencing the policy of decision-makers. In the 1990s, a new group, Ahoti, was founded to empoower disadvantaged women, particularly Mizrahim (women from Arab countries), Ethiopians, and Arab Israelis.131

Another important litmus test of the status of women in any country is the degree of gender equality in the labor market. In Israel, approximately 50 percent of women participate in the workforce, a number that compares favorably internationally.132 In terms of equal economic participation for women in the workforce, Israel was ranked 15th out of 31 nations in Europe, Asia, North America, and Oceania, by the International Labor Organization.133

Women also play a crucial role in defending the state. Service in the Israel Defense Forces is compulsory for both men and women – women serve for twenty-four months, men for thirty-six months. Today, women take active roles in all units of the IDF, including combat units and the air force.134 In October 2011, 27 female combat soldiers completed the IDF Ground Forces Officers Training Course, and in December 2011, five female pilots graduated from the Israeli Air Force’s elite Flight Academy.135

In addition to preparing for war, Israeli women are also active in the pursuit of peace. A law was adopted in 2005 mandating adequate representation of women in peace negotiating teams. Other women are active in groups such as Peace Now and Women in Black, which advocate Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories, Bat Shalom, an organization of Jewish, Palestinian, and Arab women that encourage Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, and Women in Green, which views settlements as an asset to Israeli security.136

Israel is also working to advance the status of women around the world. Since 1961, the Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center (MCTC) has been training women in Africa and Asia. The center’s courses, workshops, study tours and seminars in Israel and in partner countries raise awareness of gender bias and the need for gender-sensitive policy decisions. Since its establishment, 17,500 participants from more than 150 countries have attended programs related to Community Development, Early Childhood Education and Organization, and Management of Microenterprises.137

Like the United States, Israel has not yet achieved perfect gender equality in all spheres of society. Nevertheless, great strides have been made toward that end. In a region where Egyptian “democracy” protestors attacked and raped women, the Saudi monarchy practices gender apartheid, and other Arab states tolerate “honor killings" and other abuses directed at women, Israel offers a model for those Arabs who believe in liberty and justice for all.138

MYTH

"Israel's policy of targeted killings is immoral and counterproductive."

FACT

On March 9, 2012, the Israeli Air Force targeted and killed two members of the Popular Resistance Committee terror organization in the Gaza Strip, Zuhair al-Qaissi and a collaborator, who were preparing an attack against Israel.. Al-Qaissi was also responsible for planning the infiltration of Eilat from the Egyptian Sinai in August 2011 in which eight Israelis, including six civilians, were brutally murdered, as well as Gilad Shalit’s kidnapping in 2006.139

Israel is faced with the difficult task of protecting its civilian population from Palestinians who are prepared to blow themselves up to murder innocent Jews as well as terror groups that indiscriminately fire rockets into Israeli towns. One strategy for dealing with the problem has been to pursue negotiations to resolve all of the conflicts with the Palestinians and offer to trade land for peace and security. After Israel gave up much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and offered virtually all of the remainder, however, the Palestinians chose to use violence to try to force Israel to capitulate to all their demands.

A second strategy is for Israel to “exercise restraint,” that is, not respond to Palestinian terror. The international community lauds Israel when it turns the other cheek after heinous attacks. While this restraint might win praise from world leaders, it does nothing to assuage the pain of the victims or to prevent further attacks.

“The assassination of Hamas head Sheik Ahmed Yassin in 2004 played in the world as the killing of a crippled holy man by Israeli rockets as he was leaving the mosque in a wheelchair after morning prayers. Because of secrecy surrounding the operation, no file was prepared to explain why he was being killed, that he was an arch-terrorist who had, two days previously, sent two Gaza suicide bombers into Ashdod Port in an attempt to cause a mega-blast of the fuel and nitrates stored there. Or that he had been directly responsible for the deaths of scores, if not hundreds of Israelis.”

— Hirsh Goodman, columnist 140

Moreover, the same nations that urge Israel to exercise control have often reacted forcefully when put in similar situations. For example, the British assassinated Nazis after World War II and targeted IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland. In April 1986, after the U.S. determined that Libya had directed the terrorist bombing of a West Berlin discotheque that killed one American and injured 200 others, it launched a raid on a series of Libyan targets, including President Muammar Qaddafi’s home. Qaddafi escaped, but his infant daughter was killed and two of his other children were wounded. President Reagan justified the action as self-defense against Libya’s state-sponsored terrorism. “As a matter of self-defense, any nation victimized by terrorism has an inherent right to respond with force to deter new acts of terror. I felt we must show Qaddafi that there was a price he would have to pay for that kind of behavior and that we wouldn’t let him get away with it.”141

More recently, the Obama Administration has used drones to kill Taliban fighters and terrorists and found and killed bin Laden in 2011.142

"The Israeli targeted assassinations against Palestinian resistance groups, especially against their leaders, is very effective. It is definitely a policy that aims at paralyzing these groups and stopping them from carrying out future attacks against Israel.”

- Mukhaimer Abu Saada, professor of political science at Al-Azhar University in Gaza City 143

Israel has chosen a third option for defending itself—eliminating the masterminds of terror attacks.

In 2006, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that “it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is prohibited according to customary international law, just as it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is permissible according to customary international law."144

Targeting the terrorists has a number of benefits. First, it places a price on terror: Israelis can’t be attacked with impunity anymore, for terrorists know that if they target others, they will become targets themselves. Second, it is a method of self-defense: pre-emptive strikes eliminate the people who would otherwise murder Israelis. While it is true that there are others to take their place, they can do so only with the knowledge they too will become targets, and leaders are not easily replaceable. Third, it throws the terrorists off balance. Extremists can no longer nonchalantly plan an operation; rather, they must stay on the move, look over their shoulders at all times, and work much harder to carry out their goals.

Of course, the policy also has costs. Besides international condemnation, Israel risks revealing informers who often provide the information needed to find the terrorists. Soldiers also must engage in sometimes high-risk operations that occasionally cause tragic collateral damage to property and persons.

The most common criticism of “targeted killings” is that they do no good because they perpetuate a cycle of violence whereby the terrorists seek revenge. This is probably the least compelling argument against the policy, because the people who blow themselves up to become martyrs could always find a justification for their actions. They are determined to bomb the Jews out of the Middle East and will not stop until their goal is achieved.

CASE STUDY:

In August 2002, we had all the leadership of Hamas—Sheik Yassin and all his military commanders ... in one room in a three-story house and we knew we needed a 2,000-pound bomb to eliminate all of them—the whole leadership, 16 people, all the worst terrorists. Think about having Osama bin Laden and all the top leadership of Al-Qaeda in one house. However, due to the criticism in Israeli society and in the media, and due to the consequences of innocent Palestinians being killed, a 2,000-pound bomb was not approved and we hit the building with a much smaller bomb. There was a lot of dust, a lot of noise, but they all got up and ran away and we missed the opportunity. So the ethical dilemmas are always there. 145

MYTH

"Israel does not support humanitarian development and sustainablity in the Palestinian territories."

FACT

Despite intolerable security threats, a surge in terrorism, and a stymied peace process, the government of Israel continues to support the Palestinian people and invest in their future by providing crucial medical, security, and economic assistance aimed at enhancing their quality of life.

With the Palestinian Authority facing dire financial difficulties in 2011 due to a shortfall in international donations and budget mismanagement, Israel stepped up its economic collaboration to help sustain and stabilize the Palestinian economy. In concrete terms, Israel transferred more than 5 million shekels in tax revenues to the PA - an increase of nearly 6 percent from 2010, Israeli purchases from the PA rose by almost 20 percent to $815.9 million, and Israeli trade with the PA grew to nearly $4.4 billion. Additionally, Israel provided more than 57,000 permits for Palestinians to work in Israel and for Israeli companies in the West Bank. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also adopted measures, together with the Middle East Quartet, that will help the PA better balance their budget, increase tax collection from Gaza, and reform its revenue collection system to minimize losses.146

Israeli security cooperation with the Palestinians has also improved in the past year. Israel agreed to help expand the Palestinian security presence in a number of cities in the West Bank and is working to build at least seven new Palestinian police stations. Nearly 1,000 meetings were held in the last year between Israeli and Palestinian security forces to collaborate on methods for counter-terrorism, gathering evidence for crimes, addressing drug trafficking, and combating auto theft. Moreover, despite a 10 percent surge in terrorist attacks in 2011, the IDF further eased movement for the Palestinian people by dismantling three permanent checkpoints. Israel has now removed 30 checkpoints in the West Bank since 2009, leaving only 11, and measures were also made to ensure that the remaining checkpoints operate more efficiently to reduce travel delays, especially during times of religious worship and Muslim holidays.147

Israel also continues to ensure that Palestinians get proper medical treatment. Last year, 206,958 Palestinian patients from the West Bank and Gaza were treated in Israeli hospitals, an increase of 11 percent over 2010. Many of these patients received life-saving care such as chemotherapy and radiation treatment, organ transplant surgeries, or special birthing procedures that were unavailable to them in the territories. In addition, Israel hosted more than 100 training sessions for medical teams from the West Bank to learn both basic and more advanced treatment methods.148

While much of the world provides lip service to the Palestinian cause, Israel continues to be one of the only true lifelines for the Palestinian people. Despite little interest from Palestinian leaders to return to peace negotiations or clamp down on terrorism from Gaza, Israel is boosting the Palestinian economy, improving security for both Palestinians and Israelis, and providing world-class medical care for residents of the territories. Israel continues to meet all of its obligations under the various bilateral agreements – including stipulations for providing water, sanitation, and electricity to the PA – yet it gets little recognition for its efforts at maintaining the Palestinian quality of life.

MYTH

"Israel is whitewashing history to promote the judaization of Jerusalem."

FACT

Jerusalem is not only the modern day capital of the State of Israel; it was also the biblical capital of the Jewish nation. In the thousands of years that have passed since King David conquered Jerusalem, and in spite of forced exiles, violent revolts, and countless wars, Jews have continuously lived in the holy city and kept it central to Jewish tradition. The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem, from prayer and philosophy to settlement, is unmistakable and unbreakable. Even so, the Israeli government has never tried to whitewash the rich Islamic and Christian histories in Jerusalem to promote a vision of the city as Jewish-only. In fact, this cultural and religious diversity is very much celebrated, and allegations to the contrary are not only patently false, but blatantly incendiary and anti-Semitic.

Defined as a unique form of ethnicization that relies on obliterating Palestinian identity, disenfranchising Jerusalem’s non-Jewish residents, and strategically extending Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries so as to incorporate Jewish areas, claims of “judaization” constitute yet another calculated attempt to garner international condemnation of Israel. Proponents of this theory charge Israel with attempting to imbue Jewish religious value on Islamic shrines and engaging in ethnic cleansing to rid the city of Arabs.149 As Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas asserted, "The Israeli occupation authorities are using the ugliest and most dangerous means to implement plans to erase and remove [Jerusalem’s] Arab-Islamic and the Christian character."150

As in other smear campaigns orchestrated by Palestinian officials, the truth is quite different than the propaganda.

Jews have constituted the majority of Jerusalem’s population since at least 1844, but the Arab population has been exponentially growing since Israel reunited the city in 1967. Far from “cleansing” the city of Arabs, Israeli authorities have watched the Arab population increase by 291 percent, nearly doubling the Jewish growth rate.151 While the media only focuses on the approval for construction of Jewish homes, in 2009 the Jerusalem Municipality began the subsidized construction of more than 5,000 housing units in the city’s predominantly Arab neighborhoods of Tel Adasa, Sawahara, Beit Safafa, and Jabal Mukabar.152 An additional 2,500 homes were approved for these same neighborhoods in 2011.153 Furthermore, the Israeli government does not impede legal Arab construction and the Jerusalem municipal laws allow for anyone, regardless of race or religion, to buy private land anywhere in the city.154

Whereas Jordan destroyed and defiled Jewish holy places during its 19-year occupation of Jerusalem, Israel has scrupulously protected all shrines in the city. While Abbas and other Palestinians reinvent history and try to diminish the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, Israeli leaders have never made any attempt to deny the linkage that exists between Christians and Muslims with the city. The Israeli “Protection of Holy Places Law of 1967” ensures that all holy sites are open to whoever wishes to use them, and criminalizes any vandalization of such sites.155 Muslims freely worship at the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, and Christians are openly welcomed to pray at the more than 300 churches in and around Jerusalem.156

Thousands of Arab students attend Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, hundreds of thousands of Arabs are served equally in Jerusalem’s medical facilities, Arab citizens vote freely in Israeli political elections, and a plurality of East Jerusalem residents routinely tell pollsters they actually prefer to live under Israeli rule in the city.157 Jerusalem remains one of the freest and most open cities in the entire Middle East for people of all faiths, creeds, and colors.

Jews have a 3,000-year connection with Jerusalem, but Israel does not attempt to utilize this historical relationship to wipe out the Palestinian narrative from the city’s history. The Palestinians cannot wish away Jewish history or succeed in reaching their goals by fabricating claims of the “judaization” of Jerusalem. If they wish to change their political status in the city, they will have to enter negotiations with Israel and form an agreement that both sides accept. However, the recognition of the Jewish historical ties to the city and Jerusalem’s legal status as Israel’s capital cannot be open for debate.

MYTH

"The State Department knows the capital of Israel ."

FACT

American students are often ridiculed for their poor knowledge of geography, but the government institution responsible for U.S. foreign policy would be expected to have a better handle on such basic questions as the capitals of the nations of the world.

Apparently, however, the State Department is unable to identify the capital of the State of Israel.

The following exchange took place on March 28, 2012, between State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland and a reporter:

QUESTION: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the department about the travel of your boss … Is it the State Department's position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed …. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it's a permanent-status issue; it’s got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.

Q: Is it the view of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the embassy -- the location of the U.S. embassy?

MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.

Q Does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent-status issue. It's got to be resolved through negotiations.

Q: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?

MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue … and I have nothing further to say on it ….

Q: What is the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.

Q: What is the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Our embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.

Q: So does that mean you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.

Q: I just want to go back to -- I want to clarify something … Perhaps give you an “out" on your Jerusalem answer. Is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final-status issue, or do you think - or is it just East Jerusalem?

MS. NULAND: Matt, I don't have anything further to what I've said 17 times on that subject. OK?

Q: All right. So hold on. So, I just want to make sure. You're saying that all of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem, is a final-status issue.

MS. NULAND: Matt, I don't have anything further on Jerusalem to what I've already said. Please.158

It seems clear from this exchange that the U.S. State Department does not know where the capital of Israel is located and refuses even to recognize West Jerusalem, an area never “occupied” or claimed by the Palestinians, as the capital of Israel.

Jerusalem is not only the biblical heart of the Jewish nation, but it is also the modern day, political capital of the State of Israel. This was consecrated by Israel's founders and further cemented by Israel's Basic Laws. Future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians may change the status of East Jerusalem, but, in the interests of peace, it is crucial that United States leaders categorically and unwaveringly recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State of Israel.

MYTH

"Israeli policy has caused an exodus of Christians from the West Bank."

FACT

Palestinian Christians often suffer because they are stuck in the middle of the conflict created by Palestinian Muslims’ unwillingness to live in peace with a Jewish state. While the Christian Arab population in Israel has grown and prospered, the Palestinian Christian population is discriminated against by Palestinian leaders, particularly Hamas in Gaza, for reasons unrelated to the political dispute with Israel. Specious media reports, including Bob Simon's “60 Minutes” report, have ignored this reality and instead accused Israel of harming the Christian community and provoking a mass exodus from the West Bank over the past four decades.

In a 2009 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) wrote that Christians are a “dwindling community” in the disputed territories because they have been “disproportionately affected by … [Israeli] occupation.”159 Bob Simon’s “60 Minutes” report echoed these allegations, noting “a real possibility” that the area will become a Christian “spiritual theme park, a great place for tourists but not for Arab Christians” because of “burgeoning Israeli settlements” and “the wall that completely surrounds" the area.160

The facts, however, indicate a different story. The “wall” Simon refers to is the 470 mile security barrier Israel erected to protect its citizens - Jews and Arabs, Christians and Muslims - from Palestinian terrorist infiltrations. Only about 5 percent of the barrier is a concrete wall, the rest is a chain-link fence. The fence does create hardships for Palestinians in some places, however, these inconveniences pale in comparison to the loss of life resulting from terrorist attacks prior to the fence's completion. The Israeli courts and government have also taken steps to minimize the problems the fence causes. If the Palestinians put a permanent stop to terror and sign a peace agreement with Israel, the fence will cease to be an issue.

Additionally, the notion that settlements somehow drive Christians out of the territories is typical of the American misperception that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, Palestinians must pick up and leave. If Simon had traveled through the area or simply looked at a map, he could have easily seen that the Jewish settlements do not encroach on the places where Palestinian Christians live. The largest Christian neighborhoods in the West Bank – in and around Bethlehem, Ramallah, and Jenin –do not have any Jews living in them or settlements interfering with the lives of Christians.161

While some Christians have indeed fled the Palestinian-controlled territories to avoid the conflict and Muslim persecution, the overall number of Christians in these areas has actually steadily increased since 1967. Today, the Christian population of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, stands at approximately 52,000 - its highest total since 1945.162 The Christian proportion of the population in the territories, however, has significantly declined - from around 15% to 2% - primarily due to the exponential growth in the Muslim population of the region.163

It is particularly hypocritical for Simon and otheres to feign concern for Christians in Israel and the territories while consistently ignoring the plight of Christians in Arab countries, where they have long faced persecution. It is especially galling now that Christian communities across the Middle East are facing uncertainty and insecurity in the face of Muslim extremism in Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria.

Condemning Israel for the plight of the Palestinian Christians misses the true root of their predicament - official mistreatment by the Palestinian government. The Palestinian Authority relegates Christians to second-class status and has been openly hostile to its Christian minority.164 The PA threatens Christians who wish to purchase land from Muslims, refuses economic assistance to Christian-owned businesses, and, in 2010, shut down Al-Mahed “Nativity” TV, the only Christian broadcast in the territories.165 Former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat even tried to erase Christian heritage by depicting Jesus as “the first radical Palestinian armed guerrilla.”166

The PA has also routinely ignored terrorists who ransack and defile Christian holy places. In 2008, a bomb was detonated in the Christian Zahwa Rosary School in Gaza City and, in 2006, terrorists firebombed no fewer than five West Bank churches in response to a purported slight in a speech by Pope Benedict XVI. In 2002, nearly 200 armed Palestinian gunmen barricaded themselves insides Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity during Israel’s Operation Defensive Shield and took the priests and nuns inside hostage, a situation the Holy See condemned as a violation of religious tradition, the laws of war, and of the bilateral agreement with the PA to protect Manger Square.167

In stark contrast, Christians in Israel are given official protection under the law. The Christian population of Israel has grown from fewer than 35,000 in 1948 to more than 150,000 today. Israeli Arab Christians today are, on average, more affluent and better-educated than Israeli Jews. As Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren noted, Israeli Christians are prominent in all aspects of Israeli life - serving in the Knesset and the Foreign Ministry, sitting on the Supreme Court, and even serving in the Israel Defense Forces even though they are officially exempt from military service.168

Israel welcomes millions of Christians every year - in 2011, a record 3.5 million Christians tourists visited the Holy Land.169 Additionally, Israel helps protect Christian holy sites and has upheld the “Status Quo Arrangement for Christian Holy Places in Jerusalem” which gives the Christian community full custody over the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Garden of Gethsemane, the fourteen Stations of the Cross on the Via Dolorosa, and other religious sites.170

Christians see Israel as the one country that offers them protection against the rising sea of radical Islam in the Middle East.171 While the media and anti-Israel Christian groups focus on alleged deprivations of the Christians who are prospering in Israel, they continue to ignore the serious threats to their future posed by Islamists in the region.

MYTH

"The United States is committed to ensuring a complete halt to the Iranian nuclear program."

FACT

In a surprising and significant move, the Obama administration has reportedly agreed to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium to the 5 percent purity mark in return for Iranian commitments to accept unrestricted inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stricter oversight by the international community, and nuclear safeguards long demanded by the United Nations. This concession is a retreat from the president’s previous declaration that “the United States must lead the world in working to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program.”172

Such a bargaining position would be problematic for a number of reasons. First, it violates Obama’s commitment to halt Iran’s enrichment program. It also undermines his pledge that he would not accept “a policy of containment” with regard to the Iranian nuclear program.173 Second, it ignores the strong bipartisan sentiment in Congress calling for tougher legislation to force Iran to cease all enrichment programs.174

The United States has agreed that Iran has a right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but this does not require any enrichment of uranium by the Iranians. Russia has already supplied Iran with a nuclear power facility that can meet its immediate needs, which are minimal given Iran’s vast oil reserves.

Negotiators appear desperate to reach some agreement with Iran in the hope of staving off a military attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. By agreeing to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium to the 5 percent purity concentration – agreed by scientists as the upper-end for civilian nuclear needs – the United States would be running the risk of giving the Iranians time to assemble the know-how and the infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon at a later date. Obama would also be letting Iran evade the harshest of economic sanctions set to hit the country during the summer of 2012 before seeing if they will force Iran to give up its program entirely.

Uranium is considered weapons-grade at 90 percent purity, though anything enriched above the 20 percent level signifies a move toward weaponization, and the jump from 20 to 90 percent is deemed relatively easy.175 At present, the majority of Iran’s uranium, about 5 tons, is enriched at the 5 percent level, but it has produced approximately 200 pounds at the 20 percent mark, demonstrating its ability to enrich to a higher level.176 IAEA Secretary General Yukiya Amano affirmed that “what we know suggests [Iranian] development of nuclear weapons.”177

To date, the Iranians have shown a willingness to string out negotiations while continuing their nuclear program. Talks end without an agreement while the Iranians move closer to building the bomb. As early as July 2006, the UN Security Council called on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and implement transparency measures for its nuclear facilities; Iran refused.178 In 2008, the P5-plus-1 (the U.S., Russia, China, France, U.K. and Germany) offered Iran technical and commercial incentives to freeze high-level enrichment; Iran not only rebuffed the offer, but vowed to cease cooperating with inspectors.179 Now, after years of complacency by the West, why should anyone expect the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions or to adhere to any agreement they might sign? After all, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty more than 40 years ago but still secretly disregarded the treaty’s terms and proceeded with nuclear weapons development.

Members of Congress, as well as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have said that U.S. interests are threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran. According to one source, the bipartisan opposition to the reported Obama compromise is so strong that any deal allowing continued Iranian enrichment "would be dead on arrival" in Congress.180

The Iranians should be allowed to use uranium for peaceful energy generation but they do not need to do their own enrichment – fuel stocks can easily be purchased from a half dozen different countries or through the international Uranium Enrichment Consortium (URENCO).181

While a compromise with Iran may reduce the chance of a military strike on Iran in the short-run, it could easily result in a more dangerous situation in the long-run. The Iranians may use the time they are given to continue to make technological advances toward weapons development, as well as to better prepare their defenses.

The understandable desire to forestall the need to take military action should not be an excuse for appeasement. The United States must not back down from its insistence that the Iranian nuclear program be permanently shut down. If an agreement is reached to end the program, it must be scrupulously monitored. Negotiators should remember Ronald Reagan’s adage with regard to negotiations with the Soviet Union – trust but verify.

MYTH

"Israel's new unity government reduces the prospect for continued peace negotiations with the Palestinians."

FACT

On May 8, 2012, Israeli Prime Minister and Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu joined with Shaul Mofaz, recently elected head of the opposition Kadima Party, to announce the formation of a new coalition government. Brokered with the support of more than two-thirds of the 120 members of the Knesset, the new unity government not only staves off early elections and the dissolution of the Parliament, but it also represents a unique opportunity for the government to enter into peace talks with the Palestinian Authority while backed by the support of a broad spectrum of Israel's political leaders.

The new coalition, Israel's largest since 1984, has a number of priorties, including bridging the wealth gap, improving the economy, creating a new law to conscript ultra-Orthodox Jews for national service, and determining a response to Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu and Mofaz also immediately expressed a desire to resume peace negotiations with the Palestinians without preconditions. Mofaz said that the new government could reach an "historic territorial compromise with our Palestinian neighbors," while Netanyahu called on PA President Mahmoud Abbas to "use this opportunity to resume the peace talks." 182

Netanyahu's inner political circle now has a peace and security coalition that includes three former IDF chiefs-of-staff - Mofaz, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon - who have advocated compromise with the Palestinians. In 2000, Barak offered to withdraw from most of the territories and create a Palestinian state.183 Similarly, Mofaz has also called for an aggressive approach to the peace process that would lead to an evacuation from many Jewish settlements and most of the West Bank.184

Given the security credentials of Mofaz and Barak, the unity government gives Netanyahu the broad legitimacy and stability necessary to take risks for peace with the Palestinians. The Palestinians, however, may not recognize the political earthquake that occurred in Jerusalem and the opportunity it presents for negotiating a two-state solution. Abbas' first reaction was to declare: "I will not return to the negotiations without freezing settlement activities," and to once again threaten to seek UN recognition if Israel does not capitulate to his demands.185

We will soon learn if the Palestinians will once again demonstrate their proclivity for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

MYTH

Palestinians no longer object to the creation of Israel.”

FACT

While Israelis used April and May 2012 to celebrate their 64th year of independence, Palestinians marked the establishment of Israel by mourning the very creation of the Jewish State. On May 15, ceremonies for what the Palestinians call "Nakba Day" ("The Catastrophe," in Arabic) spawned a number of small but violent protests against Israeli security personnel in Jerusalem, Ramallah, and other major cities.186 Sadly, if the Palestinians and the Arab states had accepted the partition resolution of 1947, the Palestinain people would also be celebrating their 64th independence day right alongside the Israelis.

Palestinians are understandably bitter about their history over the decades, but we are often told that what they object to today is the “occupation” of the territories Israel captured in 1967. If that is true, then why isn’t "Nakba Day" celebrated in June on the anniversary of the Arab defeat in the Six-Day War when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

The reason is that the Palestinians consider the creation of Israel the original sin, and their focus on that event is indicative of a refusal, even today, to reconcile themselves with the Jewish State. This is why Hamas has never left any doubt about its refusal to accept Israel’s existence through its unwavering commitment to the Hamas Covenant which calls for the destruction of Israel. 187 Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a purported moderate, describes of the decision to create a Jewish state in 1948 as a crime. 188

It may be that the current leadership does not truly represent the feelings of the Palestinian people. A January 2012 poll found that nearly 60 percent of the Palestinian public oppose a return to armed resistance against Israel to obtain independence while 58 percent support returning to exploratory peace talks with Israel.189  This is a hopeful sign; however, as long as the Palestinian Authority treats Israel’s creation as a catastrophe, and its leaders refuse to negotiate, the prospects for coexistence will remain bleak.

“Palestine means Palestine in its entirety—from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, from Ras Al-Naqura to Rafah. We cannot give up a single inch of it. Therefore, we will not recognize the Israeli enemy’s [right] to a single inch.”

— Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar 190

"My friends, the root of this conflict never was a Palestinian state, or lack thereof. The root of the conflict is, and always has been, [Palestinian] refusal to recognize the Jewish state. It is not a conflict over 1967, but over 1948, over the very existence of the State of Israel. You must have noticed that yesterday's events did not occur on June 5, the anniversary of the Six Day War. They occurred on May 15, the day the State of Israel was established. The Palestinians regard this day, the foundation of the State of Israel, [as] their nakba, their catastrophe. But their catastrophe was that they did not have a leadership that was willing to reach a true historic compromise between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people."

— Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister 191

MYTH

Mahmoud Abbas has rooted out corruption from the Palestinian Authority.

FACT

In a June 2002 speech outlining a vision for Middle East peace, U.S. President George W. Bush said, “Today, the Palestinian people live in economic stagnation, made worse by official corruption ... If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine.”192

In the decade since Bush's declaration, however, the Palestinian Authority has made no progress toward democratic rule (on the contrary, it has repeatedly postponed elections), has only taken minimal steps to minimize terror in the West Bank, and has lost all control of the Gaza Strip where Fatah’s erstwhile partners in a unity government express a continued commitment to the destruction of Israel.

The PA’s record on confronting corruption is even more abysmal. Under former Chairman Yasser Arafat and current President Mahmoud Abbas, corruption has resulted in the squandering of billions of dollars in international aid, wreaking havoc on the Palestinian economy and leaving most Palestinians to barely eke out a living.

In May 2012, Hasan Khreishah, the deputy speaker of the Palestinian parliament, acknowledged that "corruption in the PA is now more widespread than in the past."193 Fatah representative Najat Abu Bakr expressed a similar sentiment, noting that Abbas manages “the most corrupt government in the Palestinian history.”194 Some of the more high profile incidents of corruption in the past decade include:

  • An IMF report documented how Arafat diverted nearly $1 billion of international aid into his own personal bank accounts, now used by his widow Suha.195
  • Former Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei was accused by the PA ambassador to Romania of depositing $3 million of PLO funds into his personal bank account.196
  • Rouhi Fattouh, one of Abbas’ advisers and the former speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, was caught by Israeli customs officials using his Israeli-issued VIP pass to smuggle thousands of cellular phones from Jordan into the West Bank.197
  • Safwat Ibraghit, PA deputy ambassador to France, was accused of using Palestinian students to spy on Muslim groups in France and then relaying the information to Palestinian intelligence.198
  • PA Economy Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh was charged with fiscal misconduct including embezzlement and insider trading.199
  • Mohammed Rashid, a financial adviser to Arafat, is suspected of transferring millions of dollars out of the Palestinian Investment Fund to set up fake companies to embezzle the money.200

The U.S. and EU have heaped praise on Abbas for implementing reform in the PA - from appointing Western-educated economist Salam Fayyad as Finance Minister in 2003 to establishing an Anti-Corruption Commission in 2010 - but the Palestinian people continue to complain about his corrupt behavior.201 Indeed, the Anti-Corruption Commission seems to be just another asset manipulated by Abbas to target his political rivals. Though accused of siphoning millions of dollars from international aid into his personal accounts and leveraging the Palestinian Investment Fund to enrich his family businesses, Abbas has yet to be investigated by the commission.202

These financial scandals not only undermine Israeli and American peace efforts but also threaten to strengthen Hamas. Without a transparent and honest government with which to negotiate, Israel could never fully rely on the Palestinians to properly implement, oversee, and protect whatever assurances are made for peace. Similarly, it was mistrust of Fatah that brought Hamas to power in the elections of 2006 and the seemingly still unchecked corruption could further bolster support for the terrorist organization as it tries to gain a foothold in the West Bank.

The Palestinians have now had nearly a decade to fulfill President Bush’s requirements for earning U.S. support. Their inability - or unwillingness - to do so is one more reason they have not achieved their goal of statehood.

MYTH

The rise of Islamists in Egypt's government does not pose a strategic threat to Israel.

FACT

When the Egyptian revolution began in late January 2011, many political commentators celebrated the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood remained largely in the periphery and wishfully believed that the Islamists' political clout would be diminished by the surge of secular, liberal-leaning protestors. By the end of June 2012, however, this assumption proved unmistakably misplaced as the Brotherhood – not the secular protestors – emerged empowered through Egypt’s political transition, leaving the country’s strategic relationship with Israel on a very dangerous precipice.

In June 2012, Egyptians narrowly elected the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Freedom & Justice Party” (FJP) candidate Mohamed Morsi to be their new president. This follows the victory of Islamists in the parliamentary elections of late 2011 (two-thirds of the legislative seats were won by the MB and hardline Salafi Al-Nour Party). After decades of suppression by Egyptian leaders who feared the Brotherhood’s extremist ideology, the organization may soon be in a position to impose its radical views on the entire population, including those secular, moderate Egyptians who initiated the protests in Tahrir Square with the hopes of transforming their country into a modern democracy. The potentially hazardous shift in policy for the Arab World’s largest country is currently constrained by the military, which both wants to hold onto power and fears the implications of an Islamist takeover.  

Given the military’s steps to minimize the power of the presidency, it is too early to tell how much power Morsi will actually wield. While he vowed in his victory speech to “preserve international accords and obligations,” many others in the Brotherhood have made no secret of their hatred of Israel and desire to scrap the peace agreement. FJP's deputy leader, Dr. Rashad Bayoumi, told al-Hayat that the Brotherhood would not recognize Israel, saying that such recognition “is not an option. Whatever the circumstances, we do not recognize Israel at all.” 203 Following Morsi’s election, Nader Amram, a member of FJP’s foreign relations committee, said on France Channel 24 that Israel “breaks the law all over the world” and shouldn’t discuss democratic values because they “are suppressing an unarmed people in Gaza and the West Bank.” 204 Morsi himself has held similarly odious stances regarding Israel, telling CNN in February 2011 that he stands “against Zionism” and stressed in November 2011 that Egypt’s leaders should “help the [Palestinian] resistance as much as we can.” 205

The Muslim Brotherhood poses a danger to Egyptians who crave freedom and civil rights. A government run by the MB also represents a security threat to Israel. 206 Egypt’s relationship with Iran may thaw with the rise of Morsi, who apparently told FARS News Agency that he wished to create better relations with the Islamic Republic.207 Morsi also plans to travel to Tehran in August 2012 to participate in an international conference of the Non-Aligned Movement during which he will hand control of the organization over to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.208 This budding relationship could easily place allies of Iran along both the northern and southern borders of Israel.

Terrorism is already on the rise from Egypt. The Sinai is becoming a kind of “wild west” where terrorists have blown up the gas pipeline from Egypt to Israel more than a dozen times and staged a growing number of lethal attacks on Israelis. Additionally, the Brotherhood’s benevolent view of Hamas increases the likelihood that Egypt will actively aid or at best look the other way, in the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip.

More ominous is the possibility of the Brotherhood gaining control of the Arab world’s largest and best-trained military and its arsenal of U.S.-made weapons. Already, Israel has had to completely change its strategic calculus from devoting minimal resources to defend its southern border to preparing for the possibility of the collapse of the peace treaty and a future conflict. The United States also has to shift its strategy now that it cannot count on the same level of cooperation it enjoyed for decades with Sadat and Mubarak.

The people of Egypt are likely to suffer first and foremost from the rise of Islamic extremists who are shattering the hope for democracy. The question is whether the international community is willing or able to take steps to prevent Egypt from turning into another Iran, Lebanon or Gaza and making clear that democracy is not synonymous with an election and must provide the people with freedom the civil rights.

MYTH

The Palestinian Authority promotes a culture of tolerance and peace toward Israel.

FACT

One of the central elements of the peace process since the signing of the Oslo Accords has been the issue of incitement. Signing this agreement on the White House lawn in 1993, the Palestinians pledged to end the practice of using their media and education system to stoke hatred and intolerance toward Israel. Over the two decades since, however, the Palestinian Authority has blatantly broken this promise and continues to glorify terrorists, publish maps without Israel and use the media to promote contempt for Jews and Israel. A whole generation of young Palestinians has now grown up in a culture that demonizes Israelis and discourages peace. As the PA, under President Mahmoud Abbas, obstinately rejects negotiations and seeks instead to delegitimize Israel - both inside the Palestinian territories and outside, in the international community - the anti-Israel incitement has escalated.

In January 2010, the PA named a public square in the Ramallah district after Dalal Mughrabi – a terrorist who murdered 37 civilians including 13 children and an American citizen – generating international opprobrium.209 The Palestinians, however, did not put an end to their unsettling cultural trend for venerating terrorists.

In October 2011, following the release of nearly 500 prisoners in an exchange for abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, Abbas led a jubilant ceremony that welcomed back the “freedom fighters and holy warriors.”210 The released prisoners included 280 serving at least one life sentence for the participation in suicide bombings and shooting attacks that killed thousands of Israelis.211 Even PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, often hailed as a moderate, has glorified Palestinian terrorists by honoring their actions in his weekly radio address or by visiting their families to hand out sweets and other gifts.212

Between April and June 2012, PA-TV repeatedly aired a children’s show highlighting a poem that teaches the viewers to hate Jews and Christians and target them as "inferior and smaller, more cowardly and despised."213 In July 2012, a PA-TV program featured an artist who depicted “the Zionist enemy's cruelty and savagery" in 2009's Operation Cast Lead through a painting that portrayed Israel as a child-eating ogre that impaled Palestinians on a bayonet.214

For many years, children attending Hamas-run summer camps in Gaza have been given paramilitary training and routinely indoctrinated to “love resistance” and to work towards the goal of “killing [Zionists] on a bus in a suicide bombing.”215

It is a sad commentary on Palestinian society that doctors, lawyers, architects and scientists do not achieve acclaim; rather it is the murderers of Jews who get their faces and names commemorated in buildings, at soccer matches, and on trading cards. What hope is there for peace with the younger generation of Palestinians brought up on hatred? Isn’t this the real obstacle to peace that should outrage the world?

MYTH

Egyptian-Israeli security cooperation is at its weakest point in years.

FACT

Since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood has won an expanded role in the Egyptian government, anti-Semitism is on the rise in official Egyptian media outlets, and Israel’s embassy in Cairo was sacked by an angry mob. Growing lawlessness in Sinai has forced Israel to consolidate resources and manpower to protect its southern frontier from cross-border terrorism and new Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has been reticent to tighten control of the region for fear of igniting a Bedouin uprising.

Given these tensions, it would be no surprise if the level of cooperation between the peace partners had eroded. This, however, is not the case. This, however, is not the case.

“We can already see improvement on the ground,” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said with regard to Egyptian-Israeli security cooperation. “I believe that Cairo will enlist to the cause and do all they can,” he added.216

Ayalon’s remarks come in the wake of an August 2012 attack in which a group of nearly three dozen militants stormed an Egyptian army base in the Sinai, massacred 16 soldiers and infiltrated Israel before being subdued by the Israeli military.217 The terror attack stirred swift reactions both in Israel and Egypt and confirmed concerns over increased violence in Sinai and the need jointly to address the problem.218

Though Morsi is fearful that the impression of cooperation with Israel may provoke a public backlash, he has distanced himself from accusations by the Muslim Brotherhood that the Mossad was behind the deadly attack in Sinai. He has also taken the initiative to purge officials - including the governor of North Sinai and the head of Egyptian military police – who were accused of lapses that contributed to the success of the attack, and he has given leeway to his defense organizations to work with their Israeli counterparts.219 Veteran Israeli military correspondents Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff reported that the “renewed honeymoon” in security relations between the two countries includes the passing along of attack warnings, talks between senior field officers, and upgraded intelligence collaboration between the Egyptian and Israeli Ministries of Defense and security services.220

For Israel, which faces imminent threats from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, it is important that Israel maintain close security cooperation with Egypt to ensure that violence does not escalate along their shared border. For Morsi, the strategic alliance with Israel is key to stabilizing a country that faces a myriad of social and economic problems and can ill afford to allow terrorists to undermine his new government. 

Morsi has also taken some alarming steps that indicate the Muslim Brotherhood is solidifying its control over the government, including sacking several senior military officials.221 Still, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted, “Israel and Egypt obviously have a common interest in keeping the border quiet.”222 The continuity and strength of this cooperation could well be an indispensable barometer for the future of Egypt-Israel relations.

MYTH

Israel is culpable in the 2003 death of American activist Rachel Corrie.

FACT

On August 28, 2012, nearly a decade after the incident in which American activist Rachel Corrie was tragically killed while interfering in an Israel Defense Forces operation, Haifa District Court Judge Oded Gershon rejected a lawsuit brought by the Corrie family against the army and dismissed all claims of negligence against Israel. Judge Gershon found that Corrie “put herself in a dangerous situation” by being in a closed military zone and would have been spared by simply removing herself from the situation; thus her death was “the result of an accident she brought upon herself.” At least three investigations found that the driver of the D-9 armored bulldozer whom the family blamed for Rachel’s death could not have seen her and Judge Gershon found no fault with the internal military investigation of Corrie’s death. 223

What has been mostly missed in media reports about the verdict, however, is the role of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) in Corrie’s death. In March 2003, Corrie was part of a group that served as human shields to prevent the IDF from destroying terrorist smuggling tunnels between Egypt and Gaza.224 The area in which they were operating was a war zone by any definition: over the previous two and half years there had been approximately 1,400 shooting attacks, 6,000 grenade attacks, 200 anti-tank rockets fired, and 150 explosive devices detonated against Israeli soldiers.225 By being in this obviously dangerous area, Corrie and the other activists were, for all intents and purposes, pawns used by the ISM in their mission to provoke the Israeli military and create causes celebre for anti-Israel fanatics worldwide. Corrie’s tragic death, a result of placing herself in front of an Israeli military vehicle, has been used by the ISM to vilify Israel and generate support for the organization’s methods.

On its official website, ISM hails itself as a “Palestinian-led movement” that resists Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories by using “nonviolent, direct action methods and principles.” 226 However, as Professor Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, noted, “Leaders of the ISM movement have repeatedly made statements in support of violence.”227 In 2002, ISM co-founders Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf declared: “The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent … yes people will get killed … [but those killed] would be considered shaheed [martyrs].”228 In eulogizing Corrie, her ISM colleague Joseph Smith chillingly noted that, “The idea of resistance is worth anything … the life of one international [activist], I feel, is more than worth the spirit of resisting oppression.”229 Paul Larudee, the Northern California head of the ISM who in the past has openly assisted Hezbollah and received awards from Hamas, similarly stated: “We recognize that violence is necessary and it is permissible.”230

The ISM actively encourages young people to place themselves in harm’s way to "break Israel's siege" while calling the Corrie verdict a “travesty of justice” which must be challenged through boycott, divestment, sanctions, and demonization of Israel.231 At a time when the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is stalled, true peace activists can make a difference by promoting understanding and tolerance between the parties – not by inciting violence and hatred.

MYTH

Intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program may be as faulty as the information about Iraq’s.

FACT

After what happened in Iraq, people may be skeptical about intelligence claims regarding Iran; however, the cases are completely different. It is not only intelligence agencies from multiple countries that believe Iran has accumulated the know-how and most of the components for a nuclear bomb, it is also the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been monitoring Iran’s activities.

The IAEA, for example, reported in 2010 that Iran had raised the level of uranium enrichment up to 20 percent, far beyond the 4 percent needed to run nuclear power reactors that Iran claims is the purpose of their program. The agency also reported that Iran had set up additional centrifuges to increase the level of enrichment to weapons grade.232

In August 2012, the IAEA said Iran had more than doubled the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges at its underground facility at Fordow. The IAEA report also noted that "extensive activities" at the Parchin complex, which has yet to be inspected, prove that Iran is leading a determined effort to cleanup that site from any evidence of illicit nuclear-weapons-linked testing.233

IAEA officials have also said that Iran has advanced its work on calculating the destructive power of an atomic warhead through a series of computer models. This information, gathered by the U.S., Israel, and at least two other Western nations, reinforced IAEA concerns that Iran was working toward a nuclear weapons capability.234

When former President Bill Clinton was asked whether America could risk another flawed military action if it turned out Iran is telling the truth about its intentions, Clinton said the situations were completely different. In the case of Iraq, he said, “I personally never saw any intelligence that was at all persuasive on the nuclear issue.” Iran, he noted doesn’t even pretend that “they don't have centrifuges, that they can't enrich uranium.” Clinton added, “they have the capacity to go well beyond what is necessary to generate the kind of material necessary to turn on the lights, to generate electricity. So I think it's a very, very different thing.”235

If Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, then how can it’s behavior be explained? “If you don't want a nuclear weapon, then why won't you comply with the international community's inspection regime,” Clinton observed. “If you don't want a nuclear weapon, you have been given nine ways from Sunday to prove that.”236

In fact, Iran routinely boasts when it increases the number of centrifuges it is running and enriches uranium to a higher level of purity. The day after the Obama Administration announced new sanctions on Iran in February 2010, for example, the Iranians themselves publicized that they had started to enrich uranium at the 20 percent level.237

Multiple UN resolutions have been adopted, and international sanctions have been imposed on Iran, because most of the world believes Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and should be prevented from doing so.

 

MYTH:  

We will know when Iran has a nuclear weapon and can take action at that time.

FACT

If there is one thing we have learned over the years it is the need for a healthy dose of skepticism about what intelligence agencies know and when they know it. We have myriad examples from the failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union to the misinformation about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to the inability to anticipate the current Arab turmoil. In the case of Iran, the failure of the intelligence community to detect Iran’s secret nuclear program, and continued doubts about whether all of Iran’s activities are known, should give pause to anyone who wants to trust the future of the Middle East to the analysts in Langley or anywhere else.

The question for the international community is whether it can afford to risk the possibility of Iran achieving a nuclear capability without being detected.

Moreover, what will be the implications if the information is wrong or too late? Once Iran has even one nuclear bomb, will any country risk military action against it?

 

MYTH:   

Iran should be allowed a nuclear weapon since Israel has one.

FACT

Iran and some of its supporters have made the argument that there is no justification for Israel and other nuclear powers to have bombs while denying Iran the right to have one as well.

First, the Iranians can’t have it both ways. They can’t say that they are not building a bomb but should be allowed to have one. If they weren’t interested in nuclear weapons, the argument would be irrelevant.

Second, other nuclear nations do not behave the same way the Iranians do. They do not threaten the destruction of a fellow member state of the UN, as they have threatened Israel, and they do not support global terrorism. As former President Bill Clinton observed, “Israel is not supporting Hezbollah. Israel doesn't send terrorists to cross Syria to train in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon....no one thinks that Israel is about to drop a bomb on Tehran. So the difference is this is a government with a record of supporting terror.”239

Clinton’s point about terrorism is a crucial one. He noted that the more nuclear states, the more likely that fissile material will be lost or transferred to third parties. “So the prospect of spreading, in a way, dirty nuclear bombs with smaller payloads that could wreak havoc and do untold damage, goes up exponentially every time some new country gets this capacity.”

Another important distinction is that Israel is presumed to have first developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s, but none of its neighbors have been sufficiently concerned that Israel might use them to feel the need to build their own. Furthermore, Iran’s drive for the bomb is not a response to a threat from Israel; their program began out of the fear that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq might build one.

If Iran obtains a weapon, however, it would also set off a nuclear arms race in the region as many of the Arab states will feel the need to have a bomb in the hope it will deter the Iranians. The Saudis, for example, have explicitly said that if Iran gets the bomb, they will get one too.240

 

MYTH:  

Anti-Semitism is declining around the world.

FACT

Anti-Semitism – the prejudice, discrimination, and hatred of Jews – though often shrouded in the veil of anti-Zionism, is on the rise not only in the Arab World, but in the United States and Europe as well. Venomous slander, libel, and physical violence against Jews are reaching alarming proportions. The March 2012 attack in France that left four Jews dead, and the July 2012 bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists were indications of the threats Jews are facing. And perhaps most disturbing, former Canadian Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler observed, is “the silence, the indifference, and sometimes even the indulgence in the face of such genocidal anti-Semitism.”241

Hatred of Jews, and incitement to violence against them, has unfortunately been commonplace for decades throughout the Arab World. In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, when optimists hoped democracy and liberal values would take hold in the volatile region, the opposite seems to be the case. In Egypt, for instance, hateful rhetoric from the powerful Muslim Brotherhood is the norm rather than the exception and the Egyptian press treatment of Israel is worse than it was under former president Hosni Mubarak.

Vitriol against Jews and Israel continues to emanate from Tehran as Iran continues its quest to build a nuclear weapon. Though it should be shocking, the attacks on Israel by Iran’s President from the floor of the General Assembly have become an annual ritual. In September 2012, for example, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Jewish people “uncivilized Zionists.”242

Incitement from the Palestinian Authority has not abated despite repeated promises in the various peace agreements and negotiations to put a stop to it. For example, during the trilateral talks between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the U.S. in September 2010, Mahmoud Abbas committed to condemning terrorism.243 Similarly, that same month, when Abbas met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama, and former President Mubarak, he pledged his condemnation of the terrorist attacks that occurred the previous day.244 Hamas, meanwhile, makes no secret of its commitment to destroy the Jewish state and has resumed firing barrages of rockets into Israeli cities and towns.

The intensification of anti-Semitism is not confined to the Middle East. In Europe, a February 2012 poll of ten countries conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), found “disturbingly high levels” of anti-Semitic beliefs among European citizens, and that such “values” had even increased in several countries, notably England and France.245

In the United States, anti-Semitism has taken a more tangible spike. The most recent ADL audit on anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. found a 2.3% increase over the previous year, counting a total of 1,239 such cases including 22 physical assaults and 317 cases of vandalism. From assaults to online hate content and from vandalism to harassment, wrote the ADL, levels of anti-Semitism in the United States are not only unacceptably high but are continuously growing.246

Despite this increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, there remains a flagrant and almost pernicious indifference exhibited by the international community. The United Nations, which first acknowledged anti-Semitism as a form of racism in 1998, stood idle as its 2001 and 2011 Durban Conferences on Racism were hijacked by participants who issued anti-Semitic and anti-Israel declarations.247 Ironically, it was the Durban Conference that gave momentum to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign that targets Israel, but is fundamentally anti-Semitic.248

 

MYTH:  

Iran does not believe that it can win a nuclear war.

FACT

One of the reasons that deterrence worked during the Cold War is that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union believed it could win a nuclear war, or at least not achieve a victory without suffering unacceptably horrific losses. Some argue that Iran knows Israel would use its own nuclear weapons to retaliate if it were ever hit by Iranian nuclear missiles and therefore would never risk a first strike.

The problem with this analysis is that some Iranians do believe they can win a nuclear war. Hashemi Rafsanjani, the President of Iran from 1989 until 1997, was just as adamant about destroying Israel as his successor. He said that "Israel is much smaller than Iran in land mass, and therefore far more vulnerable to nuclear attack." Since Iran has 70 million people and Israel has only seven million, Rafsanjani believed Iran could survive an exchange of nuclear bombs while Israel would be annihilated.249

In a 2001 speech, Rafsanjani said: “If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything … [and] only harm the Islamic world.”250

He does have a point since just three bombs, one for Haifa, one for Tel Aviv and one for Jerusalem would wipe out most of Israel’s population and industry. Iran could have a potentially devastating impact on Israel even if it did not start a nuclear war. How many Israelis would want to live in a country under constant nuclear threat? How many people would want to immigrate? Would tourists still visit Israel? Would foreign companies want to set up businesses in a country under a nuclear cloud? Israel’s freedom to act against other threats from its neighbors and terrorists would also be constrained by the risk of provoking a nuclear response from Iran. This is why Israel is so adamant about preventing Iran from having the capability to carry out the threats issued by Rafsanjani and other Iranian officials.

The danger is becoming increasingly acute as Iran inexorably progresses toward the completion of the nuclear fuel cycle and the capability to build a weapon. So far, neither pressure from international sanctions nor official United Nations inspections have convinced Iran to give up its nuclear program.251

Israel has the right to defend itself, but the Iranian threat extends beyond Israel to the Arab countries of the Gulf, U.S. military bases and European capitals. The threat of Iran giving terrorists nuclear materials poses a global threat.

A nuclear Iran that is not afraid of the consequences of nuclear war cannot be deterred or contained. This is why an international consensus exists that Iran must not be allowed to develop the capability to build a nuclear bomb.

 

MYTH:  

Iran wants to control its nuclear stockpile and would never give a bomb or nuclear material to terrorists.

FACT

This is another one of those propositions where the world is asked to place its faith in the goodwill of the Iranians. The truth is the Iranians are global sponsors of terror and the question is really whether it is worth the risk of giving them the means to supply terrorists with material that would give them the capability to launch attacks that would be exponentially worse than 9/11.

At the United Nations in 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad said that “Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”252 Iran has also been sending weapons to Hezbollah, which has targeted Americans, as well as Hamas, which has resumed firing rockets into southern Israel. Imagine if either of these groups were given any radioactive materials.

Former President Bill Clinton noted, “the more of these weapons you have hanging around, the more fissile material you've got, the more they're vulnerable to being stolen or sold or just simply transferred to terrorists.” He added, “even if the [Iranian] government didn't directly sanction it, it wouldn't be that much trouble to get a Girl Scout cookie's worth of fissile material, which, if put in the same fertilizer bomb Timothy McVeigh used in Oklahoma City, is enough to take out 20 to 25 percent of Washington, D.C. Just that little bit.”253

 

MYTH:  

The media is accurately covering Gaza during Operation "Pillar of Defense."

FACT

Typically journalists are allowed in Gaza by sufferance, that is, they are allowed as long as they report favorably on Hamas. Reporters are also usually accompanied by Hamas minders who show them only what they want the journalists to see, especially damaged buildings and injured people in hospitals. The reporters often parrot whatever statistics they are given regarding casualties and do not independently verify the numbers or if the people were injured by Israelis. In fact, a number of cases have already been discovered where the Palestinians attributed injuries or deaths to Israeli raids that were actually the product of misfiring Hamas rockets or were hurt in unrelated incidents.

Palestinians often stage injuries or scenarios in an effort to fool the media and present Israel in a negative light. A classic example of this "Pallywood" phenomenon involved a Palestinian funeral where a man was being carried on a stretcher and the pall bearers dropped the stretcher and the man got up and walked away.254 In the early days of Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense, the Palestinians have been caught in similar efforts to manipulate the press. One of the most successful was a photo that was broadcast around the world and appeared on the front page of many newspapers showing a dead child cradled in the arms of the Egyptian Foreign Minister.

According to most news accounts, the four-year-old boy named Mahmoud Sadallah, was from the neighborhood of Annazla, close to Gaza City. Upon examination of the neighborhood, the New York Times raised questions about whether the damage could have been done by an Israeli plane, “raising the possibility that an errant missile fired by Palestinian militants was responsible for the deaths.”256 The IDF also said that it had not carried out any airstrikes at that time in that area.

An AP report said the boy was in an alley close to his home when he was killed. The area showed signs of an explosion, but “neighbors said local security officials quickly took what remained of the projectile, making it impossible to verify who fired it.”257 But Experts from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights also said they believed that the explosion was caused by a Palestinian rocket.258

In another case, footage from the BBC captured by watchdog group Honest Reporting shows a heavy man lying on the ground and being carried away by residents, apparently after being injured by an Israeli attack. Moments later, that same man again fills the frame, except he is walking about and obviously unhurt.259

In addition to staging phony deaths, Hamas is also trying to pass off photos of casualties from the Syrian civil war as Palestinians killed by Israel. For example, the Arab news site Alarab Net released a picture of a family it said had been massacred in Gaza. It turns out the photo was originally published on an Arab news site weeks before the Gaza operation began under the heading, “Syria killed 122 Friday…Assad Used Cluster Bombs.” Hamas also uploaded a photo on its Twitter page of a dead child in his weeping father’s arms. This picture was also discovered to be an old one taken in Syria.260

Just as photos emanating from Hamas sources must be verified, so too must claims by hospital spokespeople who give reporters casualty figures. Usually reporters simply repeat whatever they are told rather than investigate whether the numbers are accurate. Moreover, we learned in Operation Cast Lead that many of the casualties claimed to be civilians often turn out to be members of Hamas.

Unfortunately, despite the extraordinary measures Israel has taken to avoid civilian casualties, some pictures will accurately show the horrors of war. No one should forget, however, that not a single Palestinian would be injured if Hamas had not bombarded Israel with rockets and casualties are unavoidable given that Hamas terrorists launch rockets and hide in civilian areas. Pictures also do not capture the stress and fear that nearly half the Israeli population lives with under the onslaught of the Palestinian terror blitz.

 

MYTH:  

During Operation Pillar of Defense, Israel deliberately targeted the media in Gaza.

FACT

On November 19, 2012, the IDF targeted a cadre of senior Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operatives who were hiding in a media building in Gaza. The strike hit only the second floor, which is where the senior terrorists were. The rest of the building was intact. Those killed were Halil Batini, a PIJ senior operative and key figure in the organization's long range rocket launching operations, responsible for internal security; Tissir Mahmoud Mahmed Jabari, a senior PIJ operative responsible for training and approving terrorist attacks against Israel and Baha Abu al Ata, the commander of PIJ’s Gaza City Brigade, who was involved in planning attacks against Israel, arms manufacturing, and long range rockets.261

New York Times reporter Jodi Rudoren wrote on her Facebook page that she is staying at "a hotel filled with foreign journalists, a place I am confident that Israel is not trying to hit and in fact is probably trying pretty hard to avoid (I imagine a map with a big Times "T" on it with a red line through it).”262

Israel has received requests for press credentials from at least 500 foreign journalists on top of the nearly 1,400 already covering Israel. These journalists are enjoying unprecedented freedom in covering the Gaza conflict.263

In stark contrast, Hamas is infamous for beating journalists and lately has been forcing reporters to be accompanied by "sponsors." On November 21, Hamas began trapping journalists in the Gaza Strip.264

Rudoren said there were reports that Hamas is not allowing foreign journalists to leave. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs elaborated (November 17, 2012): "Hamas is not allowing at least 22 foreign nationals who wish to exit the Gaza Strip for Israel to do so. Among the foreigners being detained are nine Italian citizens, one Canadian, one South Korean, a French national and six journalists from Japan."265

 

MYTH:  

Israel's operation in Gaza was immoral because more Palestinians died than Israelis.

FACT

One of the more obscene practices used by the media and Israel's detractors during Israel's recent Operation Pillar of Defense was to tally the casualties like it was a sporting event rather than a war. Dissatisfied that Jewish casualties did not equal or exceed the number of Palestinians killed or injured, Israel was accused of disproportionate or indisciminate force. What army fights an enemy with the idea that it is supposed to allow its citizens to be killed so journalists can say the casualty totals were equal so the fight was fair?

The difference in casualties is not that difficult to comprehend. Though the Palestinian terrorists are deliberately targeting men, women and children, their weapons are less accurate than those of the Israeli army. In addition, many lives were saved by the Iron Dome, which intercepted 421 (84 percent) of the rockets it targeted.266 Israelis also have been drilled in how to respond when they hear the warning siren go off and most have shelters in their houses.267

“The Israeli body count isn't low because Hamas is trying to minimize Israeli casualties. Quite the opposite: Hamas's intention is to kill as many Israelis as possible. Without vigilance and luck, and without attempts by the Israeli Air Force to destroy rocket launchers before they can be used, the Israeli body count would be much higher.”

Jeffrey Goldberg268

Still, the impact of the Hamas rocket barrages cannot be underestimated. What is the psychological impact on a population that has only 15 seconds to find shelter? What is the economic and emotional impact of nearly half the Israeli population being in range of Iran-supplied rockets? How many days of school did children miss because their schools had to be closed to protect them?

Psychologists have documented that Israeli children suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of living for years under the threat of being killed by terrorists.269

It is well documented that Israel does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. As Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan testified to the Goldstone Committee in 2009, "The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."270 There is a limit to what the IDF can do when Hamas hides behind the innocent, in civilian neighborhoods, schools, mosques and hospitals.271 Many terrorists escape because Israel will not attack such targets if it risks innocent lives.272

During the eight days of fighting, Hamas fired over 1,500 rockets at Israeli towns and cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, killing six and injuring 239. Despite being under constant attack, Israel continued to provide humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. Israel sent 108 truckloads of supplies into Gaza including medical supplies, food, and gas. During the fighting, 26 Palestinians from Gaza crossed into Israel for medical treatment.273

Israelis should not have to apologize for doing everything in their power to protect their citizens and, as a result, minimizing the number of casualties. They are under no obligation to earn the sympathy of critics by sacrificing their women and children. Israeli soldiers, many in their teens, put their lives at risk to protect their fellow Israelis and should not have to die for the world to recognize that the disparity in casualty totals is a function of how Hamas hides behind its civilians.

“At the end of the day, what these 'disproportionate numbers' show is how we in Israel protect our children with elaborate shelters and missile defense systems, whereas the terror groups in Gaza hide behind theirs, using them as human shields in order to win a cynical media war.

Nira Lee, IDF officer274

No American or person of any other nationality would apologize for their country defending its interests. The United States certainly has not apologized for the civilian toll, numbering in the tens of thousands, in Iraq and Afghanistan. No American would feel better if an equal number of Americans had been killed. We mourn the loss of our 5,000 plus soldiers, but do not worry if the world believes that our actions were disproportionate because our dead and wounded represent a fraction of the number of enemy combatants and civilians who died during the fighting.

Sadly, innocent Palestinians did die as a result of the conflict that Hamas provoked. Israel, however, has no moral responsibility to let the terrorists kill their citizens to make the casualty box score look more even for the media or Israel’s detractors.

“War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours....When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it’s the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you’ll know what to do!”

George S. Patton275

 

MYTH:  

The Israeli construction plan called the E1 project threatens the two-state solution and the contiguity of a future Palestinian state.

FACT

Ma’ale Adumim is a suburb of Israel’s capital, barely three miles outside Jerusalem’s city limits, a ten-minute drive away. Ma’ale Adumim is not a recently constructed outpost on a hilltop; it was established in 1975 and is now the largest Jewish city in the territories, with a population of approximately 46,000. The community is popular because it is clean, safe, and close to where many residents work. Israel has long planned to fill in the empty gap between Jerusalem and this bedroom community -- referred to as the E1 project.

The E1 corridor is approximately 3,250 acres and is largely uninhabited state land on steep hills. According to the plan, a new neighborhood of Ma’ale Adumim would be constructed with approximately 3,500 housing units. The plan also includes tourist, industrial and commercial areas and a nature reserve. 276

Every Israeli prime minister since Yitzhak Rabin has supported the plan and, according to the Clinton parameters, Ma’ale Adumim was to be part of Israel in a final peace agreement. The Palestinians agreed to this as well. The area is also included within the route of the separation fence on the Israeli side.

Clinton Parameters (2001)
[click on map to enlarge]

Critics of the E1 plan complain that it would kill the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute by making it impossible for the Palestinians to have a contiguous state. This is untrue because the Palestinian state would be contiguous around the eastern side of the city.

The other complaint is that linking Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem would cut off east Jerusalem from a Palestinian state, but Israel has proposed constructing a four-lane underpass to guarantee free passage between the West Bank and the Arab sections of Jerusalem that would actually reduce the time for Palestinian drivers traveling in a north-south direction. In addition, “access to Jerusalem through Abu Dis, Eizariya, Hizma and Anata is not prevented by the proposed neighborhood, nor would it be precluded by a string of neighborhoods connecting Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem.” 277

Curiously, none of the critics of E1, who express such concern for the contiguity of a future Palestinian state, are disturbed by the fact that the failure to complete the project would preclude Israel from having contiguous borders as Ma’ale Adumim would become an island in the middle of the Palestinian state. Incidentally, this one-sided concern about contiguity is also evident in discussions regarding linking the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which are not contiguous either, and would require some rail or auto link that would break up the continuity of Israel in the Negev.

The hypocrisy toward the E1 project is further exemplified by the international silence over the illegal Palestinian Arab building in the area. The Palestinians want to prevent Israel from linking Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem by filling the area with their own homes and they also hope to surround Jewish neighborhoods built after 1967. If the Palestinians succeed, they can threaten Jerusalem from the east and block the city’s development while also threatening the Jerusalem-Jericho road, a strategically vital passage for the movement of troops and equipment through the Jordan Valley. The illegal construction has already reduced the area for building Israeli homes and narrowed the corridor to Jerusalem from about one mile to six-tenths of a mile.

[click on map to enlarge]

According to the Oslo II agreement, Israel retained control over the area around E1 and therefore has the right to build in the area, but the Palestinians do not. Israel has built a police station and the infrastructure for completing construction in the area but has refrained from moving ahead on the project. In fact, every time a prime minister announces plans to begin work on E1, they mysteriously reverse course, usually within 24 hours, apparently after being threatened by the United States. This occurred in the most recent case when Prime Minister Netanyahu announced the project would move forward and then almost immediately backtracked after being condemned by the United States and many other Western nations.278

The two-state solution is not threatened by the E1 project; it is in danger from the continuing terrorism from Gaza and the refusal of Mahmoud Abbas to engage in peace negotiations. While settlement construction is controversial in Israel, there is broad consensus that Ma’ale Adumim will be part of Israel after any agreement with the Palestinians and that it should be linked to Jerusalem. After years of planning, the time to complete the E1 project is overdue and should no longer be held hostage to the specious complaints of the Palestinians and their supporters.

 

MYTH:  

Israeli policies are obstructing peace.

FACT

In the Orwellian world of Middle East politics:

  • The country that is bombarded for years by rockets and has half its population at risk has no interest in peace while the terrorists behind the bombardment are viewed as partners for peace negotiations.
  • The leader who has called for negotiations without preconditions is pilloried for an alleged disinterest in peace while the leader who has refused to talk for four years is hailed as a moderate partner for peace.
  • The leader who said in his last speech before his assassination that he did not support the establishment of a Palestinian state is remembered as a great peace maker while the prime minister who has called for the creation of a Palestinian state living beside Israel is a hardliner standing in the way of Palestinian independence.
  • The “moderate” Palestinians wish to unite with Islamic extremists who openly call for Israel’s destruction.
  • The United Nations, which adopted a resolution calling for negotiations to bring about peace for all nations with “secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” undermines its longstanding position by voting to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state with borders that impinge on the rights of another state, are not secure and would be inhabited by people who threaten and carry out acts of force.
Perhaps it is worth reminding the inhabitants of this Orwellian world of the following facts:
  • Israel is the country that is targeted by Palestinian terrorists who openly call for its destruction.
  • Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the leader who has called for negotiations without preconditions and it is Mahmoud Abbas who has set conditions and refused to discuss peace since 2008.
  • It is also Netanyahu who has said he would accept a two-state solution while Yitzhak Rabin, rightly recognized as a peacemaker, said he would not accept a Palestinian state.
  • Mahmoud Abbas, supposedly a moderate, continues to spew vitriol and oversee the Palestinian Authority, at least in the West Bank, where terrorists continue to infiltrate Israel and incitement against Israel regularly appears in the Palestinian media. Abbas now wants to unite with Hamas, whose leader, Khaled Meshal said during his first visit to Gaza: “Palestine from the river to the sea, from the north to the south, is our land and we [Hamas] will never give up one inch or any part of it.”279
  • UN Security Council Resolution 242 has been the basis for peace talks since 1967. It does not mention the Palestinians nor does it require Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders as specified in the non-binding General Assembly resolution unilaterally imposing terms on Israel. Resolution 242 does, however, explicitly say that every state in the region has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.”280

While the Orwellians continue to insist that the Palestinians desire peace and a two-state solution while Israelis oppose this outcome, it is worth remembering the facts about the many opportunities the Palestinians have squandered to establish a state and the repeated peace offers made by Israel:

  • In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
  • In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
  • In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
  • From 1949 until 1967, it was Jordan that occupied the West Bank and Egypt that controlled the Gaza Strip and the Palestinians never sought the creation of a Palestinian state in those territories.
  • The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
  • The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
  • In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
  • Over the course of 35 meetings in 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis, but Abbas did not accept the proposal.
  • From 2009 until today, Prime Minister Netanyahu has invited Abbas to sit down without preconditions to negotiate a two-state solution to the dispute and Abbas has refused to discuss peace.

We are long past 1984 and it is time for Israel’s critics to face reality and the facts.

 

MYTH:  

If Iran has a bomb, it can be deterred the way the U.S. deterred the Soviet Union.

FACT

In the debate about Iran, it is sometimes suggested that Iran is irrational and that is why it should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Others then argue that calling Iranians irrational reflects a Western bias. The truth is that Iranians are rational, but they may be acting according to a different rationale than people in the West.

The Islamic regime’s logic is rooted in a potentially lethal cocktail of history, religion and politics. It is the religious aspect, in particular, that differentiates Iran from the Soviet Union and other nuclear powers. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believes the most important task of the Iranian Revolution was to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who disappeared in 874, bringing an end to Muhammad’s lineage. This imam, the Mahdi or “divinely guided one,” Shiites believe, will return in an apocalyptic battle in which the forces of righteousness will defeat the forces of evil and bring about a new era in which Islam ultimately becomes the dominant religion throughout the world. While Shiites have been waiting patiently for the Twelfth Imam for more than a thousand years, Ahmadinejad may believe he can hasten the Mahdi’s return through a nuclear war. It is this apocalyptic world view, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis notes, that distinguishes Iran from other governments with nuclear weapons.281

Lewis quotes a passage from Ayatollah Khomeini cited in an 11th grade Iranian schoolbook, “I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against the whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all of them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom, which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another’s hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours.”282

Would leaders who did not hesitate to use children as cannon fodder in the war with Iraq, or who send suicide bombers to kill the innocent, be reticent about using nuclear weapons? How can the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction that prevented a superpower clash apply to people who believe the end of the world will lead to “eternal life and martyrdom?”

Some might argue they don’t mean what they say and when the time came, the Iranians would “love their children too” and back down from the nuclear brink, but would you be willing to take that chance with your children?

MYTH:

The Israeli settlements are an obstacle to Middle East peace.

FACT

Paradoxically, perhaps the most prevalent myth about the Arab-Israeli conflict is the easiest to disprove both rhetorically and empirically. Consider the following facts:

  • From 1949?67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.

  • From 1967?77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.

  • In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.

  • One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process, but none would. The Palestinians also rejected an offer of autonomy that most likely would have led to statehood.

  • In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue; if anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.

  • Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.

  • In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlements and withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.

  • In August 2005, Israel evacuated all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in Northern Samaria, but terror attacks continued.

  • In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, but the deal was rejected.

  • In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu froze settlement construction for 10 months and the Palestinians refused to engage in negotiations until the period was nearly over. After agreeing to talk, they walked out when Netanyahu refused to prolong the freeze.

On the last point, President Obama?s special envoy for Mideast peace, George Mitchell noted that the Palestinians were unwilling to accept the settlement freeze offered by Netanyahu because they said it was ?useless.? Mitchell added, ?They refused to enter into the negotiations until nine months of the 10 had elapsed. Once they entered, they then said [the freeze] was indispensable. What had been worse than useless a few months before then became indispensable and they said they would not remain in the talks unless that indispensable element was extended.?283

In late 2012, the myth took on absurd proportions following the Palestinian decision to seek statehood recognition at the UN General Assembly and Israel?s retaliatory announcement of the intention to build more homes for Jews in existing settlements and in Jerusalem. As a Washington Post editorial noted, the hysterical international reaction to Israel?s moves was ?counterproductive because it reinforces two mistaken but widely held notions: that the settlements are the principal obstacle to a deal and that further construction will make a Palestinian state impossible.?284

The Post added that ?Mr. Netanyahu?s government, like several before it, has limited building almost entirely to areas that both sides expect Israel to annex through territorial swaps in an eventual settlement. For example, the Jerusalem neighborhoods where construction was announced last month were conceded to Israel by Palestinian negotiators in 2008 [emphasis in original].285

The biggest uproar, the Post observed, was over Netanyahu?s decision to plan for construction in a four-mile strip known as E-1 that would connect Jerusalem with the suburb of Ma?ale Adumim. The Palestinians, and many media outlets including the New York Times, claimed this project would make it impossible to establish a contiguous Palestinian state. The Post correctly reported that Israel will undoubtedly annex Ma?ale Adumim ? a city of 40,000 ? in any peace deal so the E-1 project is essential to ensure that it does not become an island in the middle of a Palestinian state.286

While UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called Israel?s actions an ?almost fatal blow? to the two-state solution and British Foreign Secretary William Hague said new building would make it ?very difficult to achieve,? the Post called the rhetoric ?offensive at a time the Security Council is refusing to take action to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians ? including many Palestinians ? by the Syrian regime. Like Obama?s initial call for a settlement freeze, the rhetoric also encourages Mahmoud Abbas to continue to insist on a freeze before negotiating. ?If Security Council members are really interested in progress toward Palestinian statehood,? the Post concluded, ?they will press Mr. Abbas to stop using settlements as an excuse for intransigence ? and cool their own overheated rhetoric.?287

Even though settlements have not impeded peace, many Israelis still have concerns about the expansion of settlements. Some consider them provocative, others worry that the settlers are particularly vulnerable, and note they have been targets of repeated Palestinian terrorist attacks. To defend them, large numbers of soldiers are deployed who would otherwise be training and preparing for a possible future conflict with an Arab army. Some Israelis also object to the amount of money that goes to communities beyond the Green Line, and special subsidies that have been provided to make housing there more affordable. Still others feel the settlers are providing a first line of defense and developing land that rightfully belongs to Israel.

The disposition of settlements is a matter for the final status negotiations. The question of where the final border will be between Israel and a Palestinian entity will likely be influenced by the distribution of these Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria (the border with Gaza was unofficially defined following Israel?s withdrawal). Israel wants to incorporate as many settlers as possible within its borders while the Palestinians want to expel all Jews from the territory they control.

If Israel withdraws toward the 1949 armistice line unilaterally, or as part of a political settlement including land swaps (i.e., in exchange for more territory in the West Bank, Israel would cede land in the Negev or elsewhere to the Palestinians) many settlers will face one or more options: remain in the territories (the disengagement from Gaza suggests this may not be possible), expulsion from their homes, or voluntary resettlement in Israel (with financial compensation).

The impediment to peace is not the existence of Jewish communities in the disputed territories; it is the Palestinians? unwillingness to accept a state next to Israel instead of one replacing Israel.

MYTH:

The Palestinians are now ready to make peace with Israel.

FACT

In his first comments as America?s new Secretary of State, John Kerry said that pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace would be one of his top priorities. "So much of what we aspire to achieve and what we need to do globally, what we need to do in the Maghreb and South Asia, South Central Asia, throughout the Gulf, all of this is tied to what can or doesn't happen with respect to Israel-Palestine. And in some places it's used as an excuse. In other places it's a genuine, deeply felt challenge."290

Kerry's statement was alarming because it represented the long discredited State Department view that the Palestinian issue is the root of all Middle East problems and ignored the turmoil in the region unrelated to the Palestinian issue, including threats from Al-Qaeda, unrest in Iraq, ongoing fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan, new terror threats in North Africa, Syria in flames, Egypt on the verge of chaos, and most important, Iran nearing the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

The timing also was dubious because of the public pronouncements of the Palestinians. Just a few months ago at the United Nations, Mahmoud Abbas gave a vitriolic speech accusing Israel of ?one of the most dreadful campaigns of ethnic cleansing and dispossession in modern history;? of unprovoked ?aggression? in Gaza; and of ?an apartheid system of colonial occupation, which institutionalizes the plague of racism.?291 Are these the words of a leader interested in peace?

Similarly, in December 2012, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal used his first visit to Gaza to declare: ?From the sea to the river, from north to south, we will not give up any part of Palestine ? it is our country, our right and our homeland.? He added that Palestinians are ?all united in the way of resistance.?292

The situation is even worse given that Abbas wants to reconcile with Hamas, which has repeatedly stated it will not accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and the Palestinian public opinion supports Hamas. In a December 2012 poll, for example, 41% of the Palestinians think that armed attacks on army and settlers can force Israel to withdraw from the territories; while 24% think peaceful non-violent resistance can force Israelis to withdraw and 30% think that negotiations with Israel can bring it to withdraw.293

When Palestinians were asked, given the outcome of the war between Hamas and Israel and the UN recognition of a Palestinian state, whose way is the best to end the Israeli occupation and build a Palestinian state: Hamas? way or Abbas?s way, 60% say Hamas? way and 28% Abbas? way. By contrast, more than 60% of Israelis said they were willing to give up some or all of the West Bank.294

Everyone in Israel longs for peace, so the Secretary will not be turned away or discouraged; nevertheless, he should not be blind to regional realities and recent history. Israeli nerves still raw from absorbing thousands of Palestinian terror rockets and seeing half their population forced to be on constant alert. Even the most dovish Israelis are unwilling to make concessions in the West Bank unless they have security guarantees that will prevent the territory from becoming another Hamistan terror base.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly invited Abbas for negotiations, and Abbas has spent the last four years rejecting the overtures, doing everything in his power to subvert a negotiated settlement and trying to convince the international community to impose Palestinian terms on Israel.

Secretary Kerry needs to make clear to the Palestinians that their only chance for statehood is through direct talks with Israel; that Hamas cannot be a part of the Palestinian leadership; that the Palestinian Authority must cease incitement, and demonstrate through words and deeds a commitment to the two-state solution; and that the United States will not accept excuses or preconditions to negotiations.

Kerry should also reassure Israelis that he understands the Gaza precedent, the new strategic dangers they face from their neighbors, and the necessity of eliminating the Iranian threat before Israelis can be expected to take new risks for peace.

MYTH:

Attacking Iran will create more instability in the Middle East.

FACT

More instability?! Have the proponents of this idea been following the news for the last two years?

Even in the best of times, the Middle East is an unstable region because of ongoing disputes between various Arab states. Now, an increased level of chaos has spread across the region as a result of upheavals in North Africa, Yemen and the Persian Gulf, continuing unrest in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a bloody civil war in Syria.

Among the possible worst case scenarios, it is conceivable that a military strike on Iran would cause a backlash among peoples in the region angered by an attack on a Muslim nation; it may unite the Iranian people in defense of their country; or, current rulers of conservative regimes may come under attack for complicity in the attack.

The consequences of a strike could, however, have positive consequences for the region. The Israeli military strikes on nuclear facilities in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007), for example, did not provoke greater instability in the Middle East despite lacking any international consensus. Both attacks eliminated potentially destabilizing nuclear weapons programs and discouraged a nuclear arms race in the region. Arab leaders now are petrified of a nuclear Iran and will, at least tacitly, support measures that would eliminate Iran?s nuclear threat.295

While the negative scenario envisions the Iranian population rallying around its leaders in the event of a military strike, it is also possible that, when liberated from the intimidation of the mullahs, the Iranian people will launch a ?Persian Spring? demanding freedom and democracy from their government. Iran?s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is obviously nervous about this possibility, noting in April 2012 that he believes Libya?s abandonment of its nuclear program in 2003 eventually hastened the overthrow of Qaddafi.296

In the short-term, an attack on Iran might have a deleterious impact on oil prices as speculators react to the possibility of reduced supplies; however, in the long-term, an attack could actually help stabilize the oil market as it would hamper Iran?s ability to threaten global oil supplies and weaken its position within OPEC, where it has advocated stricter quotas to drive up prices.

A successful strike on Iran could also help free two countries that have been under its thumb for three decades. Without the support of the radical Shiite leaders in Iran, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will lose his principal patron in the region and Syria will no longer serve as a forward Iranian base for harboring terrorists and interfering in the affairs of Lebanon. The fall of Iran?s leadership would also put an end to its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, effectively thwarting the organization?s ability to terrorize Israel and control Lebanese affairs.

Furthermore, destroying the Iranian nuclear program would eliminate the threat of Iranian sponsored nuclear terrorism and proliferation, and would signal to the rest of the region that nuclear weapons programs will not be tolerated. This outcome is especially important in light of nuclear agreements signed by more than a dozen Arab countries in response to Iran?s continued nuclear developments.

It is easy for opponents of military action to construct nightmare scenarios that will scare the public and sway world leaders away from confrontation with Iran. However, military planners and statesmen must analyze the current situation objectively and weigh the risk of a negative outcome, as well as the danger posed by inaction, against the potential benefits of a proactive strike against Iran.

MYTH:

If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was solved, the Middle East would be at peace.

FACT

A cardinal view of Arabists is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the core of all Middle East problems. According to Middle East scholar Martin Kramer, this " linkage" theory holds that the Israeli-Palestinian issue, practically alone, prompts the rise of terrorists, weakens friendly governments, and makes it impossible for the United States to win Arabs and Muslims over to the good cause.297 Though this doctrine has been proven erroneous, President Obama?s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, continues to adhere to this discredited viewpoint.

"The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the underlying Arab-Israeli conflict," Hagel said in 2006. "The failure to address this root cause will allow Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorists to continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support."298 In 2008, Hagel took this view even further, noting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "cannot be looked at in isolation. Like a stone dropped into a placid lake, its ripples extend out father and father. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon feel the effects most noticeably. Farther still, Afghanistan and Pakistan; anything that impacts their political stability also affects the two emerging economic superpowers, India and China."299

As events across the Middle East have shown, however, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is but one of many ethnic, religious and nationalist feuds plaguing the region, most of which are independent of each other. Here is but a partial list of conflicts that have occurred in the Middle East over the past two and a half decades: the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88); the First Gulf War (1991); the Lebanese Civil War (1975-90); the Sudanese Civil War (1983-2000); the "Arab Spring" upheavals (2011- ); and the ongoing Syrian Civil War (2011- ). None of these are connected to the Palestinian issue.

"Almost every border in that part of the world, from Libya to Pakistan, from Turkey to Yemen, is either ill-defined or in dispute," scholar Daniel Pipes notes in his book The Long Shadow, "But Americans tend to know only about Israel?s border problems and do not realize that these fit into a pattern that recurs across the Middle East."300

If the Israeli-Palestinian problem was solved, it would have either minimal or no impact on the many intra-Arab rivalries or the Iranian nuclear threat to the region. Sunnis and Shiites would still be competing for influence, as will secularists and fundamentalists, and a host of other conflicts would remain unaffected by a change in relations between Israelis and Palestinians. Moreover, espousing linkage may have a deleterious impact on the Middle East, as it could "lead to panicked overreaction whenever Israelis and Arabs do exchange blows."301

The achievement of a peace agreement will also have little impact on regional disputes. Israel will still have to remain vigilant to ensure that a Palestinian state does not become a threat or the first stage of the policy of liberating "greater" Palestine over time. Peace with the Palestinians may be a catalyst for regional peace, but it is no guarantee that Syria or Lebanon will change their policies toward Israel, especially if Iran continues to influence their behavior and Hezbollah remains in power and committed to Israel?s destruction. Furthermore, a treaty with the Palestinians would not satisfy the Iranians? desire to "wipe Israel off the map."

Our leaders should have a realistic - as opposed to a 'realist' - understanding of the root causes of Middle East strife. How can they protect us from threats if they don't understand the causes of these threats? Decades of dictatorship, [not the Arab-Israeli conflict], brought the Middle East to its current condition, along with misogyny, poor education, corruption, the politicizing of Islam and sectarian hatred.?

Jeffrey Goldberg 302

 

MYTH:

Israel has created separate bus lines to segregate Jews and Palestinians.

FACT

Leave it to the Palestinians to turn an Israeli accommodation to make their lives better into a political attack. The latest example relates to Israel?s decision to create a bus line exclusively for Palestinians to expedite their travel into Israel to work, which some Palestinians and their supporters are now claiming to be a policy of segregation.

The need for the new bus line was created because Israel has significantly increased the number of work permits given to Palestinians and the existing bus lines have become overcrowded. After years of being prevented from working in Israel because of the Palestinian War (2000-2005) and the wave of terrorist attacks, Israel has been gradually easing restrictions on Arabs in the West Bank, and the number of Palestinians now allowed to work in Israel is at or near the prewar levels. While Israel?s detractors accuse Israel of mistreating Palestinians, nearly 40,000 now go to work each day in Israel. Many others, paradoxically, work in the Jewish settlements that their leaders castigate.

Before establishing the new lines, Palestinian workers had no direct line from their communities to the border crossing. They had a choice of traveling to an Israeli settlement and taking a bus from there into Israel or using ?pirate? driving services that have been transporting Palestinian workers by circuitous routes ?at exorbitant prices.? Thanks to the new buses, the cost of traveling to Tel Aviv will be reduced by nearly 75 percent.303

While Israel maintains the new bus lines are a goodwill gesture, critics have called it an example of Israeli racism. In fact, the buses pick up Palestinians in Arab communities and have different endpoints than the buses they used to take. Furthermore, no Palestinians are prevented from using the old buses, which most disliked because they had to travel with Jewish settlers. The settlers also had complained about what they viewed as a security threat from riding with Palestinians from the West Bank.

Palestinian workers agree with Israeli officials that the new buses make their lives much easier. The Times of Israel reported: ?Hundreds of laborers gathered at the Eyal checkpoint before dawn to take advantage of the new service. Outside of some overcrowding from heavier-than-expected demand, few problems were reported, and riders seemed pleased with the new arrangement.?304

Not only did Israeli officials discover there weren?t enough buses to meet the demand, but Palestinian workers requested additional buses to run on Fridays so they would not have to pay ?pirates.?305 The attitudes of Palestinian workers might best be summarized by Naim Liftawi, a 40-year-old employee at an upholstery factory in Kfar Sava, ?the [critics] can say what they want, as long as I'm safe on the bus. I just want to put bread on the table for my children.306

Unfortunately, the buses have already come under attack. Unknown assailants set fire to two buses on the new line on March 5, 2013.307

MYTH:

The European Union has no reason to name Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

FACT

For decades, the Europeans have taken a ?head in the sand? approach to recognizing the obvious ? that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. If Hezbollah?s terror attacks were limited to the Middle East, European leaders might have cause to suggest the group does not threaten them, but the truth is that Hezbollah is engaged in terror on an international scale and has also killed internationals in Lebanon.

In February 2013, after an exhaustive investigation, the Bulgarian government announced that it believed Hezbollah was responsible for a July 2012 attack in the resort town of Burgas that killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver and injured dozens more. As U.S. National Security Adviser Thomas E. Donilon observed, ?This report is significant because a European Union member state, Bulgaria, explicitly pointed a finger at Hezbollah and lifted the veil on the group?s continued terrorist activities. Europe can no longer ignore the threat that this group poses to the Continent and to the world.?308

Most people forget that, excluding the terrible events of 9/11, more Americans have been killed by Hezbollah than any other terrorist group. In 1983, Hezbollah bombed the United States Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Then the group bombed the American and French Marine Barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans and 58 French service members. In 1996, Hezbollah assisted in the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 Americans. Subsequently, in 1997, Hezbollah became one of the first groups added to the State Department?s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Even before the Bulgaria attack, Hezbollah had a bloody record of international terror marked by kidnappings, airplane hijackings, bombings in Paris and an attempted bombing in Bangkok. Two of the group?s most heinous attacks occurred thousands of miles from the Middle East, in Buenos Aires. In 1992, Hezbollah detonated a car bomb outside the Israeli Embassy, killing 29 people and injured more than 250 others. Among the victims were Israeli diplomats, children, clergy from a local church and other innocent bystanders. Two years later, Hezbollah struck again, bombing the Asociaci?n Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires - 87 people were killed and more than 100 people were injured.

With the help of Iran and Syria, Hezbollah has terrorized Lebanon and essentially taken over the country. Currently, at fear of losing the patronage of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian arms smuggling routes, Hezbollah fighters have even joined in the defense of the dictatorial regime.

Given its indisputable record of terror and the fact that United States, Israel, Canada, the UK, Egypt and Bahrain all consider it a terrorist organization, it is hard to understand the reluctance of the European community to do the same. A number of excuses can be manufactured, such as the traditional European fear of doing anything that might alienate the Arabs; the concern that European nationals serving in the peacekeeping force in Lebanon could become targets; the desire not to complicate relations with Hezbollah?s sponsor, Iran; the fear of the French, in particular, of jeopardizing their historic role in Lebanon; the specious argument that because Hezbollah has a ?political wing,? it is not a terror organization; or, the desire to keep channels of communication open.

Hezbollah?s freedom of action would be severely restricted if the EU labeled it a terrorist organization; however, this requires all 27 member states to agree on the designation.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called on the EU to act, as have more than 100 members of the U.S. Congress. Donilon called on the Europeans to respond swiftly to ensure no other attacks occur in Europe. He said they ?must disrupt [Hezbollah?s] operational networks, stop flows of financial assistance to the group, crack down on Hezbollah-linked criminal enterprises and condemn the organization?s leaders for their continued pursuit of terrorism.? 309

Following the Bulgarian report on the Burgas bombing, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said ?It is important that the EU respond robustly to an attack on European soil.? Hague promised to discuss with his European colleagues ?measures we can now take to continue to make our citizens safer.?310

 

MYTH:

Non-lethal Palestinian rocket attacks have no impact on Israel's civilian population.

FACT

The years of rocket attacks from Hamas terrorists in Gaza have given researchers an opportunity to study their impact on the Israeli population that has come under fire. While apologists for Hamas have downplayed the severity of the thousands of rockets and mortars that have been fired into Israel because of the low number of casualties, the damage caused is far more serious and widespread than news reports at the time of the attacks suggest.

The latest research finding to document the severity of these terror attacks found that women in Sderot had significantly more miscarriages than those who are not exposed to warning sirens and missile barrages. In an article published in Psychosomatic Medicine Journal of Bio-Behavioral Medicine, Tamar Wainstock and Professor Ilana Shoham-Vardi of Ben-Gurion University's Department of Epidemiology, suggested the increased number of miscarriages was most likely attributable to the stress of living with the threat of a rocket attack.311

After eight years of rocket attacks, health officials are also reporting that ?many residents have to be treated for hearing loss, dizziness, tinnitus, and/or central auditory processing disorders.? 312

Not surprisingly, children have been especially traumatized by the anxiety and fear provoked by the attacks. It takes months of treatment to recover and a single rocket attack during the therapy period can send the whole process back to square one. According to a 2008 study conducted by Natal, the Israel Center for Victims of Terror and War, between 75 percent and 94 percent of Sderot children aged 4-18 exhibit symptoms of post-traumatic stress, and 28 percent of adults and 30 percent of children in Sderot have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The distinction between post-traumatic stress symptoms, such as problems sleeping and concentrating, and PTSD itself, is that the latter can interfere seriously with daily life. One of the goals of therapists is to try to prevent stress disorders before any rocket attacks by teaching adults and children how to reduce anxiety in a place that is under ongoing danger.313

What do these statistics mean for the lives of children living under fire? Here are a few examples:

In Sderot it is now normal practice to take showers in under a minute for fear that a siren will sound while they are washing up. Music is seldom played as it may block out the sound of the red alert, and even seat belts are no longer worn in cars because they can restrict a quick exit. When rocket fire is more constant, entire families will often live in bomb shelter for days on end.314

Palestinian terrorism poses not only a physical threat to Israelis, but also a psychological one. The years of attacks are now taking a toll, especially on women and children.

MYTH:

Israelis overreact to harmless rock-throwing by Palestinians.

FACT

Of the many ?David versus Goliath? images that are portrayed in the media to dramatize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the most common may be that of the helpless Palestinian throwing rocks at heavily armed Israeli soldiers. These images are powerful but also frequently misleading, failing to distinguish between the aggressor and the victim.

While the media is often drawn to rock-throwing riots against IDF troops (often staged by Palestinian instigators), many of these incidents occur beyond the glare of media lights and are directed not at soldiers, but Jewish men, women and children, often innocently driving along a roadway.

The ?David vs. Goliath? imagery is typically used to illustrate an underdog battling against a much greater power, yet those applying this analogy to the Palestinians ignore the fact that David?s rock actually killed Goliath and marked the beginning of the end to the rule of the Philistines in Biblical Israel. Over the years, Palestinian ?Davids? have killed many Jews with their stones - but none of them were ?Goliaths.?

The media typically ignores these near-daily terror attacks against Jews, or significantly downplays their lethality. A March 2013 cover article in the New York Times? Sunday Magazine, for example, called Palestinian rock throwers ?unarmed? resisters.315 Christian Science Monitor referred to the tactic as "peaceful palestinian resistance" while the Los Angeles Times labelled rock throwers as ?Palestinians who see nonviolence as their weapon.?316

The incidents of March 14, 2013, however dispel the false notion that rock-throwing is nonviolent or harmless. That day, a woman was driving with her three young daughters past the city of Ariel when a group of Palestinians threw rocks at a truck coming in the other direction. The truck swerved and collided with the family?s car, injuring the mother and the two older daughters. The youngest, a three-year-old child, was critically injured, and doctors are still trying to save her life.317 Later that same night, on the same highway, a 10-month-old baby was injured when rocks thrown at his parents? car shattered the windshield. 318

These are but two examples, but many more can be cited in which Palestinian rock throwers have murdered, or attempted to murder, innocent Jews. For example:

November 2012: Ziona Kalla, wife of Israeli singer Itzik Kalla, sustained serious injuries as a result of stones hurled at her car by Palestinians near Beitar Illit.

September 2011: Asher Palmer and his 1-year-old son were killed in a stone-throwing attack near Kiryat Arba. Two Palestinians from the nearby village of Halhul admitted to instigating the attack. Waal al-Araja ? a member of the Palestinian security forces -- was convicted of murder in the case in March 2013.319

June 2001: Five-month-old Yehuda Haim Shoham?s family was returning from visiting relatives in Ra'anana when a Palestinian threw a rock at the front windshield that hit and killed baby Yehuda in the back seat.320

May 2001: Koby Mandell (13) and Yosef Ishran (14) were beaten to death with rocks when they were hiking on the outskirts of Tekoa. Their bodies were found in a cave, covered with stones. The perpetrators have still not been found.321

October 2000: Bachor Jean (54) was killed by rocks thrown at his vehicle while he was travelling from Haifa to Rishon Lezion. The rocks shattered the windshield and struck his chest. His brother, who was driving the car, sped to the hospital but was too late. The perpetrators were found to be from the nearby Arab village Jisar a-Zarka.322

January 1983: Esther Ohana (21) was killed by a rock thrown at her car that hit her in the head while driving near the Palestinian village Dahariya.

In 2013 alone, the IDF has already recorded 1,195 rock throwing incidents in the West Bank.323 No one should be fooled into believing stone-throwing is harmless or a form of non-violent protest; rocks are weapons used by Palestinians to injure and kill Israeli Jews.

MYTH:

The Palestinian Authority is committed to reforming Palestinian society.

FACT

At the end of March 2013, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signed the PA?s 2013 fiscal year budget, which totals $3.9 billion in spending. Despite persistent complaints of insufficient funds to meet the PA?s obligations, economic stagnation, the failure of Arab donors to make good on their aid pledges, and a recurring debt of more than $1 billion, Abbas increased the budget by nearly $400 million over 2012.324

Beyond the increase in expenditures and the over-reliance on foreign aid to cover spending, the 2013 budget also reveals the priorities of the Palestinian government. A whopping 28 percent is allocated for defense, more than the sums budgeted for education (16 percent) and medical services (10 percent) combined.325 By comparison, Israel allocates 19% of its budget on defense, Britain 5.8%, Germany 3.6%, Jordan 14.8%, Egypt 6.3%, Iran 7.9% and Turkey 3.7%.326

The PA lacks a formal army, does not maintain an official state of war with any country- including Israel, and faces no military threats except from internal political rivals.327 So where does the PA plan to spend nearly one-third of its budget? Much of the money will go to buy the loyalty of 65,000 ?defense workers?? 41 percent of all the PA?s civil servants ? despite the fact that more than half of these workers live in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip and pay no taxes to the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority.328

How does this budget reflect an interest in peace with Israel? The PA might justify some of the cost if it was allocated for preventing terror and incitement, but, instead, 4 percent of the budget actually goes to pay ?salaries? of convicted terrorists who are currently incarcerated in Israeli jails. Payments to these convicts range from roughly $1,100 to $3,300 depending on the length of their sentence.329

Meanwhile, it is Israel that carries most of the burden of preventing Palestinian terror.

Curiously, though Abbas is a vocal advocate toward the plight of Palestinian refugees, no money was allocated in the budget to build permanent housing for the nearly 800,000 Palestinians living in 19 refugee camps under the PA?s control in the West Bank.330 Even after being responsible for the welfare of these people for almost 40 years, Palestinian leaders still prefer to use them as pawns to exemplify victimization and to be encouraged by their environment to become terrorists.

Perhaps more outrageous than the PA budget is the fact that it is almost completely dependent on foreign aid from Western donors whose values the Palestinians? reject. U.S. taxpayers have contributed more than $4 billion to subsidize people who are engaged in terror and have killed Americans; who do not believe in freedom of speech, religion, the press or assembly, and routinely abuse the rights of women and gays. Is there any other government in the world that so clearly rejects our values and interferes with our interests that receives this level of financial aid? If you answered, Egypt, you correctly identified the only other example.

How much longer will Western nations be expected to financially and politically support a Palestinian leader who drafts a budget based on money he doesn?t have, and devotes nearly a third of its resources to defense rather than meeting the social needs of his people? How much longer will Western nations prop up a leader who refuses to negotiate with Israel and has only dragged the Palestinians further down the road to perpetual conflict?

MYTH:

Now is a good time to revive the Arab peace initiative.

FACT

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has made no secret of his desire to jumpstart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Press reports have suggested that to do so he may attempt to convince the parties in the region to reconsider the so-called Arab peace initiative.

However, with all of the necessary parties focused on regional turmoil and threats - from the instability in Egypt to the civil war in Syria to the Iranian nuclear program - this does not seem to be a propitious time to push Israel to make dangerous concessions to neighbors who show no new interest in peace. In fact, rather than expanding peace, the greater fear at the moment is that the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty might unravel.

Beyond the current atmosphere, the substance of the Arab peace proposal is problematic.

When the plan was originally announced in 2002, Israel said it was prepared to negotiate with the Arab states but that many of their demands were simply unacceptable.

It is worth remembering that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah presented a vision of peace at a time when the Saudis were under scrutiny for their involvement in the 9/11 attacks and were desperate to project themselves globally as peacemakers not supporters of terror. Abdullah?s plan was subsequently revised and adopted by the Arab League as a peace initiative that offered Israel "normal relations" in exchange for a withdrawal to the pre-1967 ?Green Line? and a resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue.

The "new" initiative was actually a restatement of the Arab interpretation of UN Resolution 242, namely that Israel must withdraw from ?all? territories captured during the Six Day War of1967. The resolution, however, only calls on Israel to withdraw from territories, not "all" the territories, in exchange for peace.

Additionally, Resolution 242 states that every nations has the right to live within "secure and recognizable boundaries," which military analysts have understood to mean the pre-1967 armistice lines, with modifications, to guarantee Israel' security. Incidentally, the resolution does not put precedence for one or the other, rather holds them as equal principles. Israel, therefore, is under no legal obligation to withdraw before the Arabs agree to live in peace.

The Arab plan calls for Israel to withdraw specifically from the Golan Heights. In the past, Israel expressed a willingness to do so, but now that rockets are being fired across the border and the Syrian army has lost control of the surrounding area, no Israeli government would contemplate withdrawing from the strategic high ground.

The plan?s demand that Israel withdraw from "the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon" is not only ingenuous, but at odds with the UN conclusion that Israel has completely fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from Lebanese territory.

The Arab initiative also calls for a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194, a resolution the Arab states all voted against. The Arabs interpret the resolution as requiring Israel to allow all of the nearly five million Palestinians who claim refugee status to move to Israel. In fact, the UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The solution to the problem, like all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Palestinians to be resettled in Arab lands.

Israel has agreed to allow some Palestinian refugees to move to Israel on a humanitarian basis and as part of family reunification. Thousands have already been admitted this way.

The refugee issue was not part of Abdullah's original proposal and was added later under pressure from other Arab delegations. Also, it is important to note that Resolution 242 says nothing about the Palestinians and the reference to refugees can also be applied to the Jews who fled and were driven from their homes in Arab countries.

Another change from Abdullah's previously stated vision was a retreat from a promise of full normalization of relations with Israel to an even vaguer pledge of "normal relations."

The Arab demand that Israel accept the establishment of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital has been part of the negotiations since Oslo. Israel's leaders have accepted the idea of creating a Palestinian state in part of those territories and offered to evacuate as much as 97 percent of the West Bank in exchange for peace; however, the Palestinians have rejected all of Israel?s compromises.

It is also worth noting that most of the Arab League nations have no reason not to be at peace with Israel now. Israel holds none of their territory and is more than willing to make peace with the members of the League.

If the Arab proponents of the plan were sincere, the response should be that they are prepared to sit down with Israel?s leaders and discuss how to overcome the disagreements. But this has not been the Arab response. Rather than accept an Israeli invitation to come to Jerusalem to negotiate or exploit the willingness of Israel?s leaders to go to an Arab capital for talks, the Arabs have told Israel it must accept the plan or face the threat of war.

Peace plans are not worth the paper they are printed on if the proponents continue to talk about war and pursue policies such as supporting terrorists, arming radical Muslims, inciting their populations with anti-Semitic propaganda and enforcing boycotts that promote conflict.

Progress toward real peace requires the Arab states to show by words and deeds that they are committed to finding a formula for coexisting with Israel. The only ultimatum should be that if the first efforts to reach an understanding do not succeed, they will try and try again.

MYTH:

Syria?s chemical weapons pose no threat outside of Syria.

FACT

While the world rightly focuses on the dangers posed by Iran?s nuclear program, the threat from other radical countries that possess weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) ? namely, chemical and biological weapons ? has largely been ignored.

Aside from those who monitor the proliferation and storage of these weapons, most people are likely unaware that a number of Middle East countries possess these deadly agents. Saddam Hussein was the only Middle Eastern leader known to have used chemical weapons - against his own people ? until April 2013, when intelligence reports confirmed that Bashar Assad?s Syrian regime used sarin gas against rebel forces.331 This nerve agent, which interferes with the functioning of glands and muscles in the body, is potentially lethal.

Syria has one of the largest chemical weapons caches in the region. These agents include sarin, tabun, VX and mustard gas.332 Beyond the humanitarian concern for protecting innocent Syrians from contamination, international fears are growing that these weapons are not well guarded and could be acquired and used by rebel forces. Especially worrisome is the possibility that radical Muslim elements, such as rebels associated with al-Qaida, could get their hands on these WMD?s and use them against regime forces or as weapons of terror against Israel or other enemies.

Assuming that most, if not all, of these weapons remain in the country, the next leader of Syria will assume control over them. Until the current civil war, the Assad regime built up its stockpiles but never used them; however, there is no assurance a future leader will resist the temptation to use WMDs against foreign or domestic enemies.

Another fear is that Assad or his Iranian allies may try to transfer WMD?s to Hezbollah, or that Hezbollah fighters inside Syria could steal them. Israel has said this would be a threat to its security and that it would act to prevent Hezbollah from acquiring WMDs.333

Western countries and Syria?s Arab neighbors are also concerned about the security of Syria?s non-conventional weapons and their use against innocent people. In August 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama said the use or movement of chemical weapons would be ?a redline for us and that there would be enormous consequences?.That would change my calculations significantly.?334 He reiterated in April 2013 that Syria?s use of chemical weapons would be ?a game changer? because it meant more attacks could be launched against civilians and the probability that the weapons could fall into the wrong hands would increase.335

Now that British, French, Qatari, American and Israeli intelligence agencies have confirmed the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the world is waiting to see whether President Obama will act on his ultimatum. If Obama fails to act after setting the red line, it will send a message to Iran and other enemies of the United States that American threats need not be taken seriously.336

MYTH:

Israel has refused to compromise on the future of Jerusalem.

FACT

Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab entity. Palestinians have no special claim to the city; they simply demand it as their capital. Nevertheless, Israel has recognized that the city has a large Palestinian population, that the city is important to Muslims, and that making concessions on the sovereignty of the city might help minimize the conflict with the Palestinians. The Palestinians, however, have shown no reciprocal appreciation for the Jewish majority in the city, the significance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people or the fact that it is already the nation’s capital.

The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles (DoP) signed in 1993 left open the status of Jerusalem. Article V said only that Jerusalem is one of the issues to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations.

“Anyone who relinquishes a single inch of Jerusalem is neither an Arab nor a Muslim.”

— Yasser Arafat 15

Most Israelis oppose dividing Jerusalem, still, efforts have been made to find some compromise that could satisfy Palestinian interests. For example, while the Labor Party was in power, Knesset Member Yossi Beilin reportedly reached a tentative agreement that would allow the Palestinians to claim the city as their capital without Israel sacrificing sovereignty over its capital. Beilin’s idea was to allow the Palestinians to set up their capital in a West Bank suburb of Jerusalem — Abu Dis. The PA subsequently constructed a building for its parliament in the city.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered dramatic concessions that would have allowed the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state, and given the Palestinians control over the Muslim holy places on the Temple Mount. These ideas were discussed at the White House Summit in December 2000, but rejected by Yasser Arafat.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a peace plan that included the partitioning of Jerusalem on a demographic basis. Abbas rejected the offer.

MYTH:

'Nakba Day' has nothing to do with the peace process.

FACT

On May 15, 2014, Palestinians across the Middle East commemorated the 66th anniversary of “al-Nakba,” marking “the catastrophe” of Israel’s creation in 1948. Palestinians are understandably bitter about their national history over the last six and a half decades, but if the Palestinians and the Arab states had accepted the United Nations partition resolution in 1947, the State of Palestine would instead have celebrated its 66th birthday alongside Israel.

We are often told that Palestinian intransigence in the peace process is because they object to the “occupation” of territories - namely the West Bank and East Jerusalem - which Israel captured in the Six Day War of 1967. But if this is true, then why is “Nakba Day“ celebrated on the date that Israel gained independence in 1948 rather than in June on the anniversary of the Arab defeat in the Six Day War?

The simple answer is that the Palestinians consider the creation of Israel the original sin, and their focus on that event is indicative of a refusal - even today - to reconcile themselves with the Jewish State. While Palestinian rivals Fatah and Hamas have many other political disagreements, they equally value the importance of publizing “Nakba Day.” As such, it should come as no surprise that Israelis find it difficult to be optimistic about the prospect of negotiating a two-state solution with a united Fatah-Hamas government that believes their country has no right to exist.


“Palestine means Palestine in its entirety - from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, from Ras Al-Naqura to Rafah. We cannot give up a single inch of it. Therefore, we will not recognize the Israeli enemy's [right] to a single inch.”

Hamas Leader Mahmoud Zahar 341

 


“The root of this conflict never was a Palestinian state, or lack thereof. The root of the conflict is, and always has been, [Palestinian] refusal to recognize the Jewish state. It is not a conflict over 1967, but over 1948, over the very existence of the State of Israel. [Nakba Day] events did not occur on June 5, the anniversary of the Six Day War. They occurred on May 15, the day the State of Israel was established. The Palestinians regard this day, the foundation of the State of Israel, [as] their nakba, their catastrophe.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 342

 

MYTH:

An Israeli attack on Iran would endanger U.S. interests in the Middle East.

FACT

Israel is doing everything possible to avoid the necessity of launching a self-defense operation to stop Iran’s nuclear program; nevertheless, it is conceivable that military action may be required if sanctions and negotiations continue to fail. Some, like former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have warned that an attack on Iran will “haunt us for generations” in the Middle East.343 The truth is that U.S. interests are already threatened in the region, and will become more tenuous if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon.

This is not the first time that U.S. officials have feared dire consequences as a result of Israeli strikes against Arab threats. However, in the two prior examples of Israel attacking Arab nuclear sitesIraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 – the threats were eliminated without any harm to American interests. In fact, in the former case, Israel ensured the United States would not face the possibility of an Iraqi nuclear response during the 1991 Gulf War.

Some analysts have warned that Iran will attack U.S. targets if Israel acts against Iran. This would be counterproductive since no one expects an Israeli military strike to be as effective as an American one. If Iran were to retaliate against the United States for any Israeli operation it would only provoke American forces to respond to protect our interests and exponentially increase the punishment inflicted on Iran.

Some analysts have warned that Iran will attack U.S. targets if Israel acts against Iran. This would be counterproductive since no one expects an Israeli military strike to be as effective as an American one. If Iran were to retaliate against the United States for any Israeli operation it would only provoke American forces to respond to protect our interests and exponentially increase the punishment inflicted on Iran.

This is not to say that American interests in the Middle East are not in danger, but the threats are unrelated to any action against Iran. Radical Islamists already threaten U.S. interests in the region and will continue to do so regardless of how the Iranian nuclear issue is resolved because they are determined to drive America out of the Middle East and to restore the Muslim empire.

 

MYTH:

The United States helped Israel defeat the Arabs in six days in June 1967.

Maps of Battle for Sinai (l) & Battle for Jerusalem (r) - Click to Enlarge

FACT

The United States tried to prevent the war through negotiations, but it could not persuade Nasser or the other Arab states to cease their belligerent statements and actions. Still, right before the war, President Johnson warned: “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone.” 344 Then, when the war began, the State Department announced: “Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed.” 345

Moreover, while the Arabs were falsely accusing the United States of airlifting supplies to Israel, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on the region (France, Israel’s other main arms supplier, also embargoed arms to Israel).

By contrast, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. Simultaneously, the armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.346

 

MYTH:

The election of Hassan Rouhani eliminates the Iranian nuclear threat.

FACT

The Iranian regime has apparently succeeded in bamboozling the Western media by portraying newly elected Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, as a moderate who could end the Islamic Republic’s showdown with the international community over its nuclear program. The Guardian, CNN, Reuters and Yahoo News all headlined stories about “Rouhani the Moderate” while The Washington Post went even further with the headline, “Rouhani seen as best hope for ending nuclear standoff with West.”347

The election of Rouhani, however, changes nothing in Iran’s strategic vision for its nuclear program and may even be a tactical victory for the Ayatollahs.  As Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator in the early 2000s, Rouhani never agreed to any real compromise with the West and later admitted that the temporary suspension of certain elements of the program in 2003 was a ploy to enable Iran to build up its nuclear infrastructure. In 2004 he spoke of using a “calculated strategy” in negotiations with the EU3 – France, UK, and Germany – to buy time, and then finding “the most suitable time to do away with the suspension.”348 In his first press conference as president-elect, he firmly announced that “the era of suspension is gone.”349

Moderation is a relative term.  Compared to the genocidal anti-Semite he will succeed, Rouhani may seem reasonable, but he has always been a staunch supporter of the Islamic Revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini. He became a close political ally of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and served as his personal assistant to the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC). Rouhani also served as national security advisor to past presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani who oversaw the advancement of Iran’s nuclear program.350

Rouhani’s comparative restraint, however, is irrelevant to the nuclear question since Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard control Iran’s nuclear policy.351 Rouhani has no mandate to modify Iran’s position toward its right to enrich uranium and has given no indication that he has any desire to do so anyways. Following his electoral victory, Rouhani pledged to continue to safeguard Iran’s “inalienable rights” to nuclear power.352

Rouhani’s election gives comfort to Iran’s apologists who now argue he should be given an opportunity to play his hand in negotiations. Some even argue that sanctions should be lifted and harsher measures delayed. That, however, would be an irreversible mistake that would give Iran more time to continue to advance toward the breakout point where it cannot be prevented from building a nuclear bomb.  Already, Iran is closing in on this red line – in mid-June, International Atomic Energy Agency Chief Yukiya Amano reported that Iran has made a “steady increase in capacity and production” of its nuclear program despite punitive measures taken by the West.353

If Rouhani is willing and able to shift Iran’s policy to comply with United Nations resolutions, then he should act accordingly; otherwise, he is just Ahmadinejad in a more palatable package.

 

MYTH:

The United States must be involved in any successful peace process between Israel and her neighbors.

FACT

Less than 24 hours after President Obama’s second inauguration, the first op-ed appeared suggesting he prioritize pushing Israel into a peace agreement with the Palestinians. This notion has become a familiar refrain from people frustrated with the reality that the Palestinians are divided and have demonstrated no interest in negotiating with Israel since Obama first took office.

Now, Secretary John Kerry is about to embark on his fifth trip to the Middle East in the last half-year with Israel's leaders continuing to say they are prepared to negotiate without preconditions. Meanwhile, the Palestinians persist in demanding that Israel make concessions (a settlement freeze and the release of convicted criminals) and agree to unacceptable terms (e.g., recognition of the 1967 border as the basis for negotiations) before they will sit with any Israeli officials. Given the intransigence of Mahmoud Abbas, and the outright hostility of Hamas, few people expect talks to occur or to achieve any breakthrough on the core issues that have bedeviled negotiators since 1993. Moreover, history shows American initiatives have not only been failures but sometimes make the situation worse by creating unreal expectations.354

While the United States can play a valuable role as a mediator, the parties themselves must resolve their differences.

The list of failed American initiatives to broker peace between Israel and her neighbors includes:

  • 1953: The Eisenhower Administration tried to ease Arab-Israeli tensions by proposing the joint Arab-Israeli use of the Jordan River, a plan that would have helped the Arab refugees by producing more irrigated land and would have reduced Israel’s need for more water resources. Israel cautiously accepted the plan, the Arab League rejected it.

  • 1967: President Johnson outlined five principles for peace. “The first and greatest principle,” he said, “is that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors.” The Arab response came a few weeks later: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it ... ”

  • 1969: President Nixon’s Secretary of State, William Rogers, offered a plan that sought to ““balance“” U.S. policy, but leaned on the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders; to accept many Palestinian refugees; and to allow Jordan a role in Jerusalem. Israel deemed the plan completely unacceptable, and even though Rogers’ plan tilted toward the Arab position, they too rejected it.

  • 1975: President Ford’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had a little more success in his shuttle diplomacy, arranging the disengagement of forces after the 1973 war, but he never put forward a peace plan, and failed to move the parties beyond the cessation of hostilities to the formalization of peace.

  • 1978: Jimmy Carter was the model for presidential engagement in the conflict. He wanted an international conference at Geneva to produce a comprehensive peace. While Carter spun his wheels trying to organize a conference, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat decided to bypass the Americans and go directly to the Israeli people and address the Knesset. Despite revisionist history by Carter’s former advisers, the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was negotiated largely despite Carter. Menachem Begin and Sadat had carried on secret contacts long before Camp David and had reached the basis for an agreement before Carter’s intervention. Carter’s mediation helped seal the treaty, but Sadat’s decision to go to Jerusalem was stimulated largely by his conviction that Carter’s policies were misguided.

  • 1982: President Reagan announced a surprise peace initiative that called for allowing the Palestinians self-rule in the territories in association with Jordan. The plan rejected both Israeli annexation and the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel denounced the plan as endangering Israeli security. The plan had been formulated largely to pacify the Arab states, which had been angered by the expulsion of the PLO from Beirut, but they also rejected the Reagan Plan.

  • 1991: George Bush's Administration succeeded in convening a historic regional conference in Madrid in 1991, but it ended without any agreements and the multilateral tracks that were supposed to settle some of the more contentious issues rarely met and failed to resolve anything. Moreover, Bush’s perceived hostility toward Israel eroded trust and made it difficult to convince Israelis to take risks for peace.

  • 1993: President Clinton barely had time to get his vision of peace together when he discovered the Israelis had secretly negotiated an agreement with the Palestinians in Oslo. The United States had nothing to do with the breakthrough at Oslo and very little influence on the immediate aftermath. In fact, the peace process became increasingly muddled as the United States got more involved.

  • 1994: Peace with Jordan also required no real American involvement. The Israelis and Jordanians already were agreed on the main terms of peace, and the main obstacle had been King Hussein’s unwillingness to sign a treaty before Israel had reached an agreement with the Palestinians. After Oslo, he felt safe to move forward and no American plan was needed.

  • 2000: In a last ditch effort to save his presidential legacy, Clinton put forward a peace plan to establish a Palestinian state. Again, it was Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s willingness to offer dramatic concessions that raised the prospects for an agreement rather than the president’s initiative. Even after Clinton was prepared to give the Palestinians a state in virtually all the West Bank and Gaza, and to make east Jerusalem their capital, the Palestinians rejected the deal.

  • 2002: President George W. Bush also offered a plan, but it was undercut by Yasser Arafat, who obstructed the required reforms of the Palestinian Authority, and refused to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and stop the violence. Bush’s plan morphed into the Road Map, which drew the support of Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United Nations, but was never implemented because of continuing Palestinian violence. The peace process only began to move again when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made his disengagement proposal, a unilateral approach the State Department had long opposed. Rather than try to capitalize on the momentum created by Israel’s evacuation of the Gaza Strip, however, the Bush Administration remained wedded to the Road Map.

  • 2007: In his own last-ditch effort to bring momentum to a stalled process toward peace, George W. Bush organized the Annapolis Conference in Washington, D.C. While the conference did mark the first time the two-state solution was agreed upon as a framework for eventually ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this abstract commitment from both Israeli and Arab parties made no difference to the situation in Israel or the West Bank; and terrorist organization Hamas had been elected rulers of the all-Palestinian Gaza Strip just several months prior.

  • 2009: President Obama tried in his first term to bring about a peace agreement and not only failed, but was counterproductive and undermined hope for negotiations during those four years. Rather than proposing a peace plan, he began by focusing on a demand for a settlement freeze in the West Bank and Jerusalem in 2009. This, combined with other public comments and policies, caused the Israeli government to doubt his commitment to Israeli security and created tension in the U.S.-Israel relationship. Simultaneously, because Israel agreed only to a temporary 10-month freeze in the West Bank, Arab leaders saw Obama as too weak to force Israel to make concessions, and refused to respond positively to the administration’s requests that they take steps to show their willingness to make peace with Israel if a Palestinian state were established. Meanwhile, the Palestinians, who had negotiated for years without insisting on a settlement freeze, refused to talk to the Israelis unless a total settlement freeze was imposed. After two years, Obama had succeeded in alienating all the parties and the Palestinians refused all Israeli invitations to restart peace talks.

  • 2013: On his fourth visit in six months to the region, Secretary of State John Kerry tried to convene a four-party summit in Amman between Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, and American negotiators before Israeli-Palestinian direct talks. Instead, the press conference to announce the summit was postponed and Kerry ended that trip claiming progress but that more work was needed. Since he took office, Kerry has been shuttling between that Palestinians and Israelis but no breakthrough has been achieved to date.

Secretary Kerry's determination is admirable, but that is insufficient to change the dynamics that have created a stalemate. Despite his best intentions, he will fail so long as the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and accept that they will have to make compromises and agree to end the conflict. The Secretary would be wise to wait for conditions for negotiations to ripen and focus on the more urgent issues in the region: chaos in Egypt, civil war in Syria, the risk of civil war in Lebanon, and the Iranian nuclear threat.

 

MYTH:

Israel “occupies“ the West Bank.

FACT

In politics words matter and, unfortunately, the misuse of words applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict has shaped perceptions to Israel’s disadvantage. As in the case of the term “West Bank,” the word “occupation” has been hijacked by those who wish to paint Israel in the harshest possible light. It also gives apologists a way to try to explain away terrorism as “resistance to occupation,” as if the women and children killed by suicide bombers in buses, pizzerias, and shopping malls were responsible for the plight of the Palestinians.

Given the negative connotation of an “occupier,” it is not surprising that Israel’s detractors use the word or some variation as many times as possible when interviewed by the press. The more accurate description of the territories in Judea and Samaria, however, is “disputed” territories.

Nonetheless, the European Union has fallen for the propaganda and accepted the fallacious terminology. In July 2013, the EU published new guidelines severely limiting interaction with Israeli entities beyond the pre-1967 lines. The new rules enforce the union’s “long-held position that bilateral agreements with Israel do not cover the territory that came under Israel’s administration in June 1967,” the statement announcing the guidelines read. This means that the EU has banned any funding of and cooperation with Israeli institutions that operate beyond the “Green Line.” 355

This directive is another example of Israel being singled out for special treatment.

In fact, most other disputed territories around the world are not referred to as being occupied by the party that controls them. This is true, for example, of the hotly contested regions of Kashmir, Cyprus, and Tibet. Yet rarely does the international community make a fuss over these territories.356

Occupation typically refers to foreign control of an area that was under the previous sovereignty of another state. In the case of the West Bank, there was no legitimate sovereign because the territory had been illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Only two countries—Britain and Pakistan—recognized Jordan’s action. The Palestinians never demanded an end to Jordanian occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.

“For a Texan, a first visit to Israel is an eye-opener. At the narrowest point, it’s only 8 miles from the Mediterranean to the old Armistice line: That’s less than from the top to the bottom of Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport. The whole of pre-1967 Israel is only about six times the size of the King Ranch near Corpus Christi.”

President George W. Bush357

It is also necessary to distinguish the acquisition of territory in a war of conquest as opposed to a war of self-defense. A nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers is an occupier. One that gains territory in the course of defending itself is not in the same category. This is the situation with Israel, which specifically told King Hussein that if Jordan stayed out of the 1967 war, Israel would not fight against him. Hussein ignored the warning and attacked Israel. While fending off the assault and driving out the invading Jordanian troops, Israel came to control the West Bank.

By rejecting Arab demands that Israel be required to withdraw from all the territories won in 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 acknowledged that Israel was entitled to claim at least part of these lands for new defensible borders.

Since Oslo, the case for tagging Israel as an occupying power has been further weakened by the fact that Israel transferred virtually all civilian authority in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. Israel retained the power to control its own external security and that of its citizens, but 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and 100 percent in Gaza came under the PA’s authority. The extent to which Israel has been forced to maintain a military presence in the territories has been governed by the Palestinians’ unwillingness to end violence against Israel. The only way to end the dispute over the territories is for the Palestinians to negotiate a final settlement. Until now, the intransigence of the Palestinian Authority’s leadership has been the only serious roadblock to serious talks, the only route to an agreement that will lead to a sustainable future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

The EU action is especially ill-timed because it undermines the current peace efforts of Secretary John Kerry by creating the impression that the international community will pressure Israel to make concessions without the Palestinians having to negotiate or compromise.

 

MYTH:

Palestinian leaders enter peace talks with Israel sharing a common desire for democracy.

FACT

Since the creation of the Palestinian Authority by the Oslo agreements, the PA has been run as a dictatorship, first by Yasser Arafat and, since his death in 2004, by Mahmoud Abbas. The PA held one election, in which Hamas emerged victorious, and all subsequently scheduled elections have been cancelled for fear Hamas would dominate the results and take complete control over the PA.

Of course, Hamas does not need the ballot box to exert control; in 2007 the terrorists staged a coup to take over the entire Gaza Strip and now exercises their radical Islamic despotic rule over all 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza and enjoys the support of many of the 2.7 million living in the West Bank.358 This means that Abbas enters negotiations representing only 60 percent of the population.

Hamas makes no secret of its opposition to the resumption of peace talks or the negotiation of any peace agreement with Israel. “Hamas rejects Kerry's announcement of a return to talks and considers the Palestinian Authority's return to negotiations with the occupation to be at odds with the national consensus,” said Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri.359

Abbas does not even have the support of the full PLO, which he chairs. At least two factions oppose talks: “The PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] is against a return to negotiations,” said one of the party’s leaders, Khaleda Jarar. “It is an individual move,” she said, in allusion to Abbas. The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) joined the PFLP in protest against the peace talks.360

The Arab Spring's deterioration into the Islamic Winter does not bode well for the future of “Palestine.” Even today, the PA denies the Palestinian people basic rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and provides scant protection for women’s rights and opposes gay rights. According to the U.S. State Department: “The three most egregious human rights violations across the occupied territories were arbitrary arrest and associated torture and abuse ... restrictions on civil liberties; and the inability of residents of the Gaza Strip under Hamas to choose or hold to account their own government.” The report also noted the ongoing problem of corruption in the PA and terrorist attacks by Hamas, which included launching deadly rockets and mortars against civilian targets in Israel.361

The conditions are likely to worsen as extremists push for the adoption of Sharia law and the recognition of any new entity as an Islamic state. If the record of other Islamic states in the region is any indication, it is likely a future Palestinian government would not only limit the rights of its people but impose severe restrictions on non-Muslims, assuming any are allowed or choose to remain in such a state.

Even before negotiations have started, Palestinian officials have made clear they plan to conduct a policy of ethnic cleansing of Jews reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Abbas said in December 2010, “If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it.”362 The PLO's ambassador to the United States, Maen Areikat, said on September 13, 2011, that a future Palestinian state should be free of Jews.363 These were not the first instances where Palestinian officials have suggested making “Palestine” judenrein and reflect an ugly undercurrent of anti-Semitism within the Palestinian Authority.

Lest anyone believe such remarks were anomalies, Abbas, the man often referred to as a “moderate,“ announced on the eve of the resumption of peace talks that “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands.”364

Such shocking racist and anti-Semitic views should provoke world condemnation, but the media ignores them, and peace activists are so desperate to reach some agreement that they make excuses for Abbas. This was the same mistake made following the Oslo Accords when Arafat was inexplicably portrayed as a man of peace even as he continued to foment incitement and terror.

The call for ethnic cleansing of Jews is especially outrageous given that more than 1 million Arabs, more than 20 percent of the population, live peacefully in Israel and enjoy the rights guaranteed by Israel’s democracy. In fact, Israeli Arabs are so afraid of what a Palestinian government would do to their freedom that they overwhelmingly tell pollsters they would prefer to stay in Israel to moving to “Palestine.” Many Palestinians in the West Bank have moved inside Israel’s security barrier in hopes of staying in Israel rather than becoming citizens under the corrupt and despotic Abbas regime.

Why doesn’t Secretary Kerry ask Abbas why Jews should be expelled from their homes? The same question could be asked of most Arab countries, but is particularly relevant in this case because the area likely to become Palestine incorporates territory that has been the home of Jews for centuries.

Imagine the uproar if any Israeli official suggested that no Arabs or Muslims should be allowed to live in Israel.

It is even more ironic that Abbas wants to expel all Jews from their homeland while simultaneously demanding that Palestinians should be allowed to move to Israel.

 

MYTH:

Israel must make concessions for the peace process to succeed.

FACT

The Palestinians, and their supporters worldwide, continue to operate under the impression that Israel must make “goodwill” gestures - such as prisoner releases, settlement freezes and checkpoint dismantlement – to get the peace process back on track. While Israel is routinely pressured by the United States and others to make such gestures, the Palestinians are not expected to make any corresponding goodwill gestures.

What seems to be forgotten, however, is that compromises and concessions are supposed to be the subject of peace talks, not a price Israel should be expected to pay just to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table. If the Palestinians are truly committed to peace, as they claim, then they should be anxious to sit down and discuss all the outstanding issues without preconditions.

Nevertheless, Israel has made countless concessions in the past both to entice the Palestinians to start talks and during negotiations themselves. In late July 2013, the Israeli cabinet voted to release 103 Palestinian prisoners over the course of nine months to fulfill a precondition set by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas before he would return to the negotiating table.365

The idea of releasing convicted prisoners is odious to Israelis and it is important to understand the magnitude of such a move. Not only does a prisoner release increase Israel’s immediate security concerns – recidivism to terror amongst released Palestinian prisoners is more than 60% - but it also takes a heavy emotional toll on the Israeli populace, which suffered at the hands of these terrorists and must now watch passively as they are set free.366

The prisoners slated for release are not political dissidents; they are hardened killers. All 26 set to be released in mid-August were convicted of murder or accessory to murder.367 To give just a few examples of the heinous crimes committed by prisoners to be freed: Abu-Musa Salam Ali Atia (of Abbas’ own Fatah party) murdered Holocaust survivor Isaac Rotenberg in 1994; Salah Ibrahim Ahmad Mugdad (also of Fatah) bludgeoned to death 72-year-old Israel Tenenbaum in 1993; also in 1993, Sha’at Azat Shaban Ata orchestrated the stabbing of 51-year-old Simcha Levi, a woman who made her living by transporting Palestinians day laborers to work; and, Maslah Abdullah Salama Salma (Hamas) murdered store owner Reuven David in 1991 by beating him death after tying up his arms and legs.368

Israel should not be expected to satisfy Palestinian demands before negotiations begin. Peace takes two willing parties, and by their latest painful sacrifice, Israel’s leaders have proven once again they will take risks for peace. Now the ball is in the Palestinians’ court. Will they finally seize the opportunity and make the necessary compromises to achieve independence and live in peace beside Israel, or will they demonstrate again, in the words of Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, their penchant “to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

 

MYTH:

Christians are a protected minority in the Middle East.

FACT

“First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people” has been an adage in the Muslim world envisioning the extermination of the Jews followed by the Christians.369 As violence sweeps through the Middle East, transforming the Arab Spring into an Islamic Winter, the order has been reversed (few Jews live in the Arab World anymore) and Muslim anger and bigotry is now directed at the small Christian communities across the region - notably in Egypt, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Syria. These ancient communities  are facing existential threats to their survival that if left unchecked could drive away the remnants of Christianity in the Middle East. The only thriving Christian community in the region is in Israel, where the Christian community is protected, respected and growing.

The inferior status – dhimmitude - of Christians in lands under Islamic rule has been reinforced for centuries by systematic discrimination; however, even their status as “People of the Book,” has not protected them from the outburst of Islamist violence across the region.

In Egypt, where Coptic Christians are the largest minority group and account for approximately 10 percent of the population, they have been the target of frenzied assaults by Muslim Brotherhood loyalists since the military ouster of President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013.370 The Maspero Youth Union (MYU), a Coptic rights group, estimated that more than five dozen churches have been looted, vandalized or completely destroyed across at least nine Egyptian governorates and a number of Copts have been killed.371

In Syria, where Christians also account for roughly 10 percent of the population, the bloody civil war pitting the regime of Bashar Assad against a host of Islamist and non-Islamist rebels has left the Christian community caught in the middle.372 In Homs, Latakia and other areas, both rebel and government forces have killed Christians and burned churches.373 Vladimir Bulygin, head of the Constitutional Legislation Committee of Russia’s Federation Council, noted in late August 2013 that “Syria’s Christians are in serious danger, as the world ignores crimes committed against them.”374

Unfortunately, the experience of Christian minorities in Egypt and Syria is not unique to those countries.

In Saudi Arabia, Christians are barred from becoming citizens and laws make it illegal to import, print or own Christian religious materials.375 In Lebanon, the only Muslim country in the Middle East where Christians once formed a majority of the population, the steady radicalization of the government and the growth of Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah Shiite terror have led to a large-scale exodus of Christians over the years.376 Christians have also been the target of Islamists in Gaza since the violent coup that brought Hamas to power in 2007.  The small remnant of Christians in Gaza has tried to flee, but many have been unable to leave and now suffer regular persecution. In Iraq and the PLO-controlled West Bank, Arab Christians have also been targets of discrimination and sometimes violence that has prompted many to leave. Cities with rich Christian history, such as Bethlehem, are now under control of a Muslim majority and almost completely devoid of Christians.377

The only place in the Middle East where Christians face no restrictions on the practice of their faith is Israel. Christians comprise a little more than two percent of Israel’s population, but the country assures them freedom of worship, grants them unfettered access to their holy sites and allows the Christian community to legislate their own religious affairs, such as marriage and divorce.378

Shockingly the world appears indifferent to Christian suffering in the Middle East. Groups such as the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, Sabeel and the American Friends Service Committee are so obsessed with the behavior of Israeli Jews that they can’t muster even a modicum of indignation over the mistreatment of their brethren in Muslim countries. Arab-American organizations have no difficulty denouncing any alleged Israeli discrimination against Christians but are silent when Muslims persecute and kill them. Similarly, successive Popes have had a lot to say about the importance of Middle East peace but have been silent while Christians are abused and compelled to flee their homelands in the Arab world.

The Christian position in the Middle East is increasingly precarious; the old adage may yet come to fruition, and soon. In the words of Palestinian Christian journalist Samir Qumsiyeh, “If the situation continues, [Christians] won’t be here anymore in twenty years.”

 

MYTH:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is disinterested in peace with the Palestinians.

FACT

With renewed attention on the restarting of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the international media continues to portray Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a hardliner who is unwilling to compromise with his Palestinian interlocutors. Since his election to lead Israel’s government in January 2013, however, Netanyahu has unwaveringly supported the two-state solution and repeatedly offered compromises and goodwill gestures to the Palestinians.

Though he had no obligation to do so, Netanyahu suspended settlement construction in East Jerusalem and outside the “consensus settlement blocs” in the West Bank just to get Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to talk peace.379 He also authorized the release of more than 100 Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails – most of whom are convicted murderers – to fulfill another of the Palestinians’ preconditions.380 Following the resumption of talks in September 2013, Netanyahu agreed to grant an additional 5,000 permits, to the 35,000 previously approved, allowing Palestinian laborers to work inside Israel.381

Abbas, on the other hand, has yet to compromise on any substantive issue and refused to return to the bargaining table before winning concessions from Israel. It is this intransigence of Abbas – not Netanyahu – that has stalled peace negotiations. Abbas has refused every step that would help build confidence and has allowed violence to spread in the territories and incitement to linger within his own government.382 Rather than display any interest in peace with Israel or a willingness to cooperate with Secretary Kerry’s renewed initiative, Abbas has said he wants to take Israel to the International Criminal Court if it does not capitulate to his demands. The Palestinian President has also reiterated his blatantly anti-Semitic refusal to accept “the presence of a single Israeli” in a future Palestinian state.383

Following the beginning of negotiations in September, both sides agreed to keep talks secret to allow negotiators the greatest possible flexibility; however, the Palestinians quickly leaked to the press what they claimed were unreasonable Israeli offers.384 This demonstrated, yet again, a lack of Palestinian credibility and exacerbated the mistrust Israelis already feel as a result of decades of terror attacks, incitement and intransigence.

While Netanyahu has never wavered from his commitment to Israel’s security, his views on the permanence of Israeli control over the whole of Judea and Samaria have evolved over time. He now actively campaigns for a permanent resolution to the conflict that would result in the creation of a Palestinian state beside Israel. This is the position of a statesman and peacemaker, terms the media should be using to portray Israel’s prime minister.

 

MYTH:

Palestinians support the boycott and divestment movement against Israel.

FACT

In an effort to delegitimize, isolate and ultimately destroy Israel, organizations around the world have called on universities, governments, labor unions and co-ops to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel (termed the BDS movement). Supporters claim that international pressure through the BDS movement will help the Palestinian people achieve independence.385 However, BDS advocates do not support a Palestinian state coexisting beside Israel, do not help individual Palestinian businesses and do not represent the views of the Palestinian Authority or even most Palestinians living in the territories.

Palestinians do not boycott the Jewish State; in fact, they actively engage in trade with the Israeli government. The Palestinian Authority shares a variety of cooperative agreements with Israel in nearly 40 spheres of activity, from joint security measures to environmental protection and conservation. In 2008, Israel’s Histadrut labor union signed an agreement with the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions to advance common goals and build fraternity. In August 2012, then-PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz signed a series of bilateral trade agreements that took effect January 2013 and marked an important step in bolstering economic ties between Israel and the PA.386 Overall, Israeli-Palestinian trade (import/export of goods & services) totals nearly $4 billion annually.387

Palestinians also work with Israelis in business and industry. In September 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to increase the number of work permits - to 40,000 - for Palestinians in the territories who work for various companies inside Israel proper.388 What is especially ironic is that while the PA’s leaders constantly complain about Israeli settlements, at least 30,000 Palestinians work in those settlements, helped construct them or supplied some of the building materials.389 A survey conducted by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics found that Palestinians working for Israeli businesses are paid more than twice the salary that their peers receive from Palestinian employers.

Moreover, Palestinians invest in Israel. Statistical data from 2011 shows that private Palestinian investment in Israeli companies - notably hi-tech and industry - amounted to roughly $2.5 billion, more than double the Palestinian investment within the West Bank.390 For example, Hani Alami, a leader in the Palestinian telecommunications industry, bought 30 percent of the Israeli company Alvarion. Israeli Arab Hisham Adnan Raya, a construction magnate, was an angel investor in the Israeli web design company Webydo.391

Ironically, the founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, does not personally boycott Israel - he obtained a Master’s Degree and, since 2009, has been pursuing a Doctorate at Israel’s Tel Aviv University.392 He is just one of thousands of Palestinians who study at Israeli colleges and institutions.

While BDS advocates try to paint Israel as a demonic country practicing the type of discrimination associated with old South Africa, tens of thousands of Palestinians enjoy the benefits of working, studying and investing with Israelis. Which begs the question: If Palestinians don’t support BDS, who does the movement represent?

 

MYTH:

Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a fatwa against producing nuclear weapons.

FACT

With its suspected nuclear weapons program under the close watch of the West and its economy struggling under the pressure of economic sanctions, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to insist that it is uninterested and morally opposed to developing weapons of mass destruction. For nearly a decade, Iran has attempted to convince world leaders that the head of its government, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued an official religious edict, a fatwa, opposing the development of nuclear weapons and calling them a sin. “Khamenei has been consistently saying at least for the past seven or eight years,” according to Iranian journalist Muhammad Sahimi, “that the production of nuclear weapons is against Islamic teaching and therefore Iran will never pursue such a path.” 393

Even President Barack Obama, in his 2013 address to the United Nations General Assembly, repeated the canard. “The Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons,” Obama said. In a press conference, Obama  said a diplomatic solution can be achieved regarding Iran’s nuclear program because of this fatwa.394

The problem, however, is that Khamenei has never issued such an edict – nor has any other leading Iranian cleric. Suspicion grew when Iranian officials gave various dates for when it was supposed to have been issued - 2004, 2005 and 2012. Even Western organizations couldn’t agree on the date of Khamenei’s fatwa; for example, the Washington Institute said it was 2003 while Newsweek claimed it was 2004. 395

To clear up the confusion, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) examined Khamenei’s fatwas dating back to 2004. MEMRI found no evidence that Khamenei had ever said Islam did not allow Iran to produce nuclear arms. 396  Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, similarly noted: “Khamenei lists all of his fatwas on his webpage, but the nuclear fatwa isn’t among them.” 397

“There is no such fatwa. It is a lie from the Iranians, a deception, and it is tragic that President Obama has endorsed it,” MEMRI Founder and President Yigal Carmon said. 398

If Khameini did issue a religious edict on the subject, it has obviously been ignored and is irrelevant so long as Iran continues to violate UN resolutions, enriches uranium and, according to the IAEA, continues its steady progress toward building a nuclear weapon. 399

 

MYTH:

Iran is isolated because of the international sanctions regime.

FACT

International sanctions were imposed on Iran to isolate the regime and pressure Iran's leaders to give up their nuclear weapons program. Iran, however, was never completely isolated and now Western countries are even beginning to restore diplomatic ties with Tehran before any agreement is reached.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of the failure to isolate Iran occurred when Iran hosted the summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in August 2012. Despite U.S. efforts to discourage attendance, representatives of 120 nations attended, including several heads of state. The U.N. Secretary-General also attended.400

In October 2013, after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani swooned world leaders with his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, several European nations began thawing their relations with Iran. British Foreign Minister William Hague announced that the United Kingdom and Iran would resume diplomatic ties at the nonresident charge d’affaires level, one step below ambassador, while Germany and the Netherlands both assigned new ambassadors to Iran.401 Additionally, French parliamentarians met with their Iranian counterparts to discuss opening a new chapter in bilateral relations, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida scheduled a visit to Tehran to discuss issues of mutual benefit and Tajikistan okayed an official visit from President Rouhani.401a

The sanctions are meant to isolate Iran economically, but this too has largely failed as many countries have continued to trade with the Islamic Republic. In June 2013, the Obama Administration exempted a number of countries, including China, India, South Korea and Singapore, from fully complying with the terms of U.S. sanctions.402 China, for example, even went as far as to abuse the exemption and increase its imports of Iranian oil, showing an 18% increase over the previous year.403 Meanwhile, other nations, such as Turkey, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates, have strengthened their own bilateral trade ties with Iran during the 2013 summer months.404

Isolating Iran and forcing its leaders to dismantle the nuclear weapons program -- without a military confrontation – necessitates the enforcement and commitment to sanctions until Iran fully complies with UN resolutions.

 

MYTH:

Israel is responsible for expelling the Arabs of Palestine during the 1948 War of Independence.

FACT

One of the greatest canards associated with the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is that all the Arabs living in Palestine were expelled by the Jews. A plethora of evidence, however, demonstrates that the Palestinian refugees were told to leave their homes by their own leaders. Contemporary press reports do not  mention  forcible expulsions, but they do frequently describe the Arabs as “fleeing” or “evacuating.” Moreover, in recent years, many Arab leaders - including PA President Mahmoud Abbas - have candidly admitted this truth.

According to historian Benny Morris, as early as December 1947, “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments ... There can be no exaggerating the importance of these early Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations.” 405

In March 1948, the Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: “Any opposition to this order ... is an obstacle to the holy war ... and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.” The Arab Higher Committee also ordered the evacuation of “several dozen villages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more” from April to July 1948.406

Time Magazine, in their May 1948 report on the battle for Haifa, noted: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city.” 407

In August 1948, John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, said: “[Arab] villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war.”408

The Economist, a frequent outspoken critic of the Zionists, issued a similar report in October 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.”

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, would later write: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders, that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country.” 409

“The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two,” Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub on August 16, 1948. “Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the ’Zionist gangs’ very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”

“The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies,” wrote the Jordanian newspaper Filastin in February 1949.

These historical accounts are bolstered by more recent statements from Palestinian and Arab leaders confirming that the Jews' role in the Palestinian exodus of 1948 is exaggerated.

Dr. Walid al-Qamhawi, a former member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, noted in the 1970's that “it was collective fear, moral disintegration and chaos in every field that exiled the Arabs of Tiberias, Haifa and dozens of towns and villages.” 410

Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948, admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave in his memoirs written in 1973:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.” 411

Similarly, Jordan’s King Hussein blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

“The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue.” 412

In December 2006, Palestinian journalist Mahmoud Al-Habbash wrote in the PA’s official newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida:

“The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the 'catastrophe' in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave only until they put their trust in those 'Arkuvian' promises made by the leaders and the political elites.” 413 [Arkuvian is a reference to Arkuv, a figure from Arab tradition known for breaking promises and lying.]

PA President Mahmoud Abbas, explained what happened in his home town of Safed in an interview with PA-TV in January 2013:

“The [Arab] Liberation Army retreated from [Safed], causing the people to begin emigrating. In Safed, just like Hebron, people were afraid that the Jews would take revenge for the massacre in 1929 ... The people were overcome with fear, and it caused the people to leave the city in a disorderly way.” 414

The truth, confirmed by historians, contemporaneous documents and accounts, and recent research and statements by Palestinians, is that the overwhelming majority of Arabs who became refugees fled their homes. They did so for a variety of reasons: their leaders told them to; their leaders and troops abandoned their towns; Arab propaganda spoke of massacres that frightened many Arabs; evacuations by Arabs demoralized many who stayed behind; and noncombatants wanted to get out of a war zone and find safety in neighboring countries.

It is also true that thousands of wealthy Palestinians left before the fighting began and that during the war Jewish forces did expel a small number of Palestinians who were usually in villages behind their lines making them a strategic threat.

As Morris notes, “In general, Haganah and IDF commanders were not forced to confront the moral dilemma posed by expulsion; most Arabs fled before and during the battle, before the Israeli troops reached their homes….” 415

 

MYTH:

The Palestinians have made concessions to advance the peace process; Israel has remained uncompromising.

FACT

With renewed attention on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the international media continues to portray Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a hardliner, unwilling to compromise with his Palestinian interlocutors. For example, The Independent beat on the overused canard that Netanyahu approving settlement projects impedes peace prospects while The Guardian wrote that Netanyahu’s negotiation tactics are “hardline” and “uncompromising.” 416

Palestinian officials, not surprisingly, have echoed these sentiments while continuing to stick to their policy of insisting that all their demands be met without any concessions on their part. In fact, the Palestinians refuse to even soften their bargaining position - a Palestinian official involved with the negotiations leaked that the PA insists on a full right-of-return, the release of all prisoners in Israeli jails, the ability to sign agreements without Israeli intervention, control over water and border crossings with Israel.417 As Maen Rashid Areikat, the PLO’s chief representative to the United States, said in early October 2013, “We cannot accept a compromise [on Jerusalem as capital] … it would undermine the creation of a Palestinian state.”418

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has repeated his commitment to a two-state solution,  and made goodwill gestures to the Palestinians in hopes of achieving peace.  In particular, after saying he would not do so, Netanyahu defied members of his own government and instituted a quiet freeze of settlement construction in the West Bank.379 Netanyahu has done even more to help individual Palestinians and their families - in September 2013, he agreed to grant 5,000 permits, in addition to the 35,000 previously approved, to allow Palestinian laborers to work inside Israel.381

In August 2013, Netanyahu authorized the first phase in a four-stage release of more than 100 Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails to satisfy a Palestinians demands to begin negotiations.419 Two months later, despite strong opposition from members of his ruling coalition, Netanyahu approved the release of 26 prisoners in the second phase.420 All of those released were convicted for murder, or attempted murder. Families who lost loved ones murdered by those released are understandably upset, nevertheless, Netanyahu said he must “honor government decisions, even if it is difficult and unpleasant” - hardly the stance of a hardline leader trying to obstruct the peace process.421

What has Israel received in return for these confidence-building measures?

Nothing. Not peace, not direct talks with Palestinian leaders, not a cessation of violence and not any reciprocal concessions. In fact, incitement continues to grow within the PA, there has been a dramatic upsurge in terror incidents emanating from the West Bank and rocket attacks have renewed from Gaza.422 The only statements coming from the Palestinian side are the well-worn belligerent expressions of intransigence, such as the message PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave during the ceremony welcoming back the released prisoners on October 29.”There will never be a deal with Israel if even just one prisoner remains behind bars,“ said Abbas.”We are obligated to continue using any measure to free all prisoners until they return home.”423

The discussions between the two parties have involved key officials but neither leader. To jumpstart the talks Netanyahu has called for face-to-face talks with Abbas. As of the end of October 2013, Abbas remained unwilling to sit with the one person who ultimately must be persuaded that an agreement can be reached that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state and provides the security Israelis need.

 

MYTH:

A third intifada will erupt if Israel does not satisfy Palestinian demands.

FACT

With the Palestinian economy stagnant and the peace process with Israel stalemated, many Palestinians are understandably frustrated. Their leaders are ineffectual, their diplomatic tactics are losing support internationally and the media is focused on Syria, Iran and Egypt. The combination of exasperation and the unalterable commitment of some Palestinians to destroy Israel have led to a surge in terror attacks from the West Bank and Gaza throughout September and October 2013. In addition, after months of relative quiet, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are calling for renewed violence against Israel.424

Terrorism and the threat of violence has always been a tool of Palestinian leaders to blackmail and coerce others. Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk, for example, said “We are on the verge of a third intifada and the talks between the [Palestinian] Authority and Israel will blow up in their faces.”425 Fatah leader Abu Jihad, meanwhile, told Al-Jazeera, “I can tell you with a high degree of certitude that an intifada is coming.”426

Israelis have heard it all before. Even as they open their borders to tens of thousands of Palestinian workers, release convicted murders from jail and attempt to negotiate a settlement of the conflict, the Palestinian reaction to getting anything less than everything they demand is to threaten violence.

Renewed terrorism on the scale of a widespread uprising, however, would sabotage negotiations, further destabilize the region and undermine the peace efforts of the Obama Administration. And despite the calls for violence, the Palestinian public is actually opposed to a return to “armed struggle,” in part because of its history of failure and also because the standard of living has improved in recent years in the West Bank. According to a November 2013  Arab World for Research & Development (AWRAD) poll, only 29 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza support a third intifada.427 This number is already down from the 35 percent of Palestinians who said they would support a new intifada in February 2013.428

 “Overall the Palestinian reality is not ripe for the outbreak of a new uprising,” said Nayef Rajoub, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.429 Walid Suleiman, editor of the Akbar al-Khalil newspaper, concurs with that sentiment and adds that “Palestinians must always look before they leap, especially in light of the bitter experience of the past two uprisings.”430

Despite the surge of terrorism, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said, “There is no sign of a popular uprising or so-called third intifada  … There is no motivation for it, and we see no organization of it.”431

PA President Mahmoud Abbas warned of “explosive” and “catastrophic” repercussions should the Kerry-led round of peace talks with Israel fail.  His “constituents,” however, appear reluctant to follow the senseless path of violence yet again, especially at a time when Israel is offering concessions and openly talking about the establishment of a Palestinian state living in peace.

 

MYTH:

The negotiated compromise with Iran removes Tehran's nuclear weapons threat.

FACT

On November 23, 2013, the United States and other Western powers (P5+1) struck a negotiated compromise with Iran over its nuclear program. The agreement offers Iran limited sanctions relief that could be worth between $10 and $40 billion if fully implemented and tacit recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes in exchange for the Islamic Republic taking concrete steps to freeze its nuclear program. 432

Critics argue that allowing Iran to continue uranium enrichment, even with limits on scope and capacity level, without forcing the mullahs to turn over all previously enriched material, remove its centrifuges and completely dismantle the Arak heavy water reactor will not prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon.

As of November 2013, Iran had already amassed 7,150 kg of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) enriched to 5% U-235 and nearly 200kg of UF6 enriched to 20% U-235.433 Though creating a nuclear bomb requires more highly enriched uranium (HEU), both totals are near the figure needed to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear device.434 Iran also has nearly 18,000 centrifuges already installed and spinning at its Fordow and Natanz plants, which the interim deal does not address. The agreement also does not address Iran’s continued refusal to allow inspectors to assess whether the Parchin facility was used for nuclear testing and ignores the possibility that Iran may have already established secret facilities for its nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal with Iran “is not an historic agreement, it is an historic mistake … the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.”435

Though Netanyahu has been pilloried for campaigning against the arrangement - which he believes leaves Israel vulnerable - plenty of others have also questioned the wisdom of the deal with Iran.

French President Francoise Hollande walked away from the first round of negotiations with Iran after effectively vetoing the deal that the Obama Administration wanted to sign.436 Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird noted he was "deeply skeptical" of the interim deal with Iran and said that "Iran has not earned the right to have the benefit of the doubt." 436a

Saudi Arabia has made no secret of its anger toward the Obama administration for its overtures to Iran. Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan told diplomats in October 2013 that the Kingdom is considering a “major shift” in relations with the U.S. so as not to be “dependent” on Obama’s handling of Iran.437 The Prince’s statement only adds to prior Saudi declarations that it would build a bomb in the event of an Iranian nuclear breakout, and new revelations suggest the Saudis may have already paid Pakistan to produce bombs for delivery to Riyadh.438

The U.S. Congress is also dissatisfied and wants to impose tougher sanctions against Iran. The White House, however, lobbied for a delay in proposing new sanctions legislation for fear of giving Iran an excuse to renege on the agreement and break off negotiations. Still, many members of Congress believe that Iran only came to the negotiating table as a result of the impact of sanctions and that therefore the sanctions regime must be tightened to keep the pressure on Iran and ensure that a final agreement completely eliminates Iran’s capacity to build a bomb.

Congressional action may not be sufficient to prevent European and Asian states from rushing to reestablish ties with Iran, reinforcing the Islamic Republic’s belief that it can weather the sanctions storm, retain the right to enrich uranium and, thus, maintain its ability to develop nuclear weapons in the future. Furthermore, the resumption of relations with Iran undermines the remaining sanctions and makes it more difficult to reverse those being eased if Iran reneges on the agreement or refuses to accept the terms proposed in future rounds of talks.

The only way to remove Iran’s nuclear weapons threat, without resorting to force, is to intensify the pressure on Tehran and insist that  the final agreement eliminates its nuclear program. This requires the cessation of enrichment, the removal of centrifuges and the destruction of the Arak reactor. Any deal that falls short of these objectives represents a victory for Iran that will leave it with the capability to build  nuclear weapons in the future.

 

MYTH:

The Iranian government is committed to fulfilling the terms it agreed to in the Geneva nuclear deal.

FACT

The agreement negotiated on November 24, 2013, between Iran and the P5+1 (United States, UK, Russia, France & China) is not scheduled to go into effect until sometime in early 2014 and the U.S. State Department admitted that all of the details have yet to be worked out.439 The United States, however, is behaving as though the agreement was completed and Iran has begun to implement its obligations. The agreement is controversial, but even if it were not, the fact that the United States is already delivering on its promises while Iran is backtracking on theirs is not a good sign.

The Geneva agreement calls on Iran to make limited concessions to slow down its nuclear program, but falls short of requiring Iran to end all enrichment activites, as stipulated by six U.N. Security Council resolutions. Nevertheless, the P5+1 agreed to unfreeze a limited amount of Iranian assets and loosen some economic sanctions. Iranian government Spokesman Mohammad Baqer Nobakht confirmed that the United States has already released to Iran $8 billion in frozen assets.440

Iran, however, has not taken any reciprocal steps to implement the agreement. On the contrary, the Iranian government is already declaring victory and claiming it has no intention of eliminating its weapons program. In fact, Iranian leaders won’t even acknowledge agreeing to the terms of the deal. Iran’s Foreign Ministry, for example, issued a statement critical of the U.S. for its “one-sided interpretation of the agreed text.”441 Tehran then released its own version of the agreement, which contradicted a number of key points in the version released by the Obama Administration relating to Iran’s commitment not to install more centrifuges or continue work on the Arak Heavy Water Reactor.442

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif fed doubts about Iran’s commitment to the deal when he announced that, “Iran will decide the level of enrichment according to its needs for different purposes.” According to the Geneva deal, however, the enrichment level was to be agreed upon by both sides, not unilaterally by Iran, and was meant to ensure the Islamic Republic’s stockpile of enriched uranium remains below the level required to build a nuclear weapon.443

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi declared that Iran does not consider the deal legally binding and retains the right to nullify it. “The moment we feel the opposite side is not meeting its obligations or its actions fall short, we will revert to our previous position and cease the process,” said Araqchi. “[And] we are in no way optimistic about the other side.”444

Even more alarming were comments made by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani after agreeing to the Geneva deal. Rouhani said that Iran has no intention of dismantling its nuclear facilities; insead, Tehran plans to intensify its nuclear activities by building a second nuclear reactor near the existing Bushehr facility. When asked by The Financial Times if dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities was a “red line,” Rouhani replied, “100 percent.” He added that Iran would continue to enrich uranium according “to our needs for nuclear fuel.”445

Another indication that Iran has not dramatically changed its policy was Tehran’s response to the prospect of Israel participating in future talks between Iran and the six world powers. “Such a thing will never happen and we definitely will not be in the room in which representatives from the Zionist regime will have [a] presence,” Zarif declared.446

Rouhani said the Geneva talks were a first step to see if mutual trust could be established with the United States. Based on their words and deeds so far, however, the Iranians have failed to build that trust while reinforcing the suspicions of the agreement’s critics.

MYTH:

Academic boycotts are popular in America.

FACT

In December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) passed a resolution calling for an academic boycott of Israel and specifically demanding that American universities end all collaboration with Israeli institutions. The ASA itself, and its members, were not required to comply with the resolution; nevertheless, the  Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement crowed about the “victory” and expect it to set a precedent for other academic institutions to follow suit. So far, only the tiny Native American Studies Association has done so, but the ASA has paid a high price in the court of public opinion and academia for its decision.

Of the ASA’s total membership of 5,000, 826 members (17 percent) voted for the resolution. Subsequently, the ASA has faced a torrent of criticism from the academic community and beyond. Among the critics are prominent academic associations, many university presidents, and a group of students who won awards from the ASA. 447

Like most campus-related BDS “victories,” this one will have no impact on Israel and do nothing to help the Palestinians, many of whom now benefit from attending Israeli universities and from collaboration between colleges in the West Bank and Israel. In fact, many professors in Israel are very active in the peace camp and their research often examines issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute from a critical perspective. Moreover, hundreds of American scholars enjoy fruitful collaboration with Israeli colleageues each year.

The call for a boycott was especially ironic given that just a few weeks earlier Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, told South African journalists, “We do not ask anyone to boycott Israel itself.…We have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel.” 448

The principal impact of the ASA action was to give the association a black eye and associate it with other zealots who believe academic freedom does not apply to research or cooperation with Israel. Though it may have come as a shock to the ASA, the backlash did not surprise anyone knowledgeable about Israel or committed to the free exchange of ideas. Within a month more than 100 universities rejected the idea of boycotting Israel. 449 Another fifty institutions specifically denounced the ASA’s decision. Drew Faust, President of Harvard University, said, “the recent resolution of the ASA proposing to boycott Israeli universities represents a direct threat to [academic freedoms and values], ideals which universities and scholarly associations should be dedicated to defend.” 450

Individual universities were not the only ones to denounce the ASA boycott. The American Council on Education (representing 1,700 academic institutions), the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (216 institutions), the Association of American Universities (62 institutions) and the American Association of University Professors (48,000 members) criticized the ASA vote. Not one university defended the ASA resolution and five universities - Bard College, Brandeis University, Indiana University, Kenyon College and Penn State Harrisburg - announced they would terminate their membership in the ASA. Thus, roughly 2,000 academic institutions representing tens of thousands of faculty disagree with the minority within the ASA which has aligned itself with a movement that openly calls for Israel to be replaced with a Palestinian state. 451

Writers in the media have also poured scorn on the ASA. Alan Luxenberg, president of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, wrote, for example, that the ASA boycott showed a “stunning lack of diversity of intellectual interests and perspectives” by the ASA’s Higher Council. Walter Reich, the Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University, said “boycotting Israeli academic institutions not only trashes the sacrosanct academic principle of the free exchange of ideas; it's also hypocritical and wrong. Most egregiously, it targets Israel to the exclusion of countries with immeasurably worse human-rights records.” Stanley Fish of the New York Times said the boycotters' argument was “as pathetic as it is laughable.”452

And Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at CSU East Bay, and first vice president of the American Association of University Professors, said the boycott is “at best misguided” and “is the wrong way to register opposition to the policies and practices it seeks to discredit; it is itself a serious violation of the very academic freedom its supporters purport to defend.” 453

The BDS movement may have thought the ASA action would act as a clarion call for academics to join their anti-Semitic campaign to delegitimize and demonize Israel, but it has attracted only a tiny minority of professors, the overwhelming majority of faculty are smarter and better informed.

 

MYTH:

Arab militaries do everything possible to protect civilians in war zones.

FACT

The militaries of Arab countries across the Middle East have time and again shown a callous disregard for human life, including the lives of their own citizens. The Syrian civil war, in which more than 100,000 people have been killed, is but one example of this behavior. Since the beginning of hostilities in March 2011, the Syrian army has poisoned, bombed, shelled and tortured Syrian civilians. This is nothing new for the ruling Assad family, which committed perhaps the largest mass murder in the region in the last century when Hafez Assad ordered the military to raze the Syrian town of Hama in 1982 to suppress opposition to his regime, and killed an estimated 20,000 people.

During the Arab Spring and subsequent “Islamic Winter,” tyrannical regimes throughout the Middle East murdered tens of thousands of dissidents and demonstrators to maintain power. Such incidents have taken place in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen.

In addition, irregular Muslim “armies” -- a euphemism for terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas -- have indiscriminately fired rockets into Israeli civilian areas for years while using their own civilians as human shields

Students of Middle East history, and followers of current events, will not find this Arab on Arab or Muslim on Muslim carnage surprising. What may come as a shock is that even Al-Jazeera, the leading media outlet in the Arab world, known for its harsh criticism of Israel, chastised the Syrian army and asked the audience why Arabs cannot behave more humanely in war - like the Israeli army.

Here are a few of the comments from the show:

“Why don’t they learn from the Israeli army which tries, through great efforts, to avoid shelling areas populated by civilians in Lebanon and Palestine?

“Didn’t Hezbollah take shelter in areas populated by civilians because it knows that Israeli air force doesn’t bomb those areas?”

“Why doesn’t the Syrian army respect premises of universities, schools or inhabited neighborhoods? Why does it shell even the areas of its supporters?”

“The Israeli army, if it wanted to break up a demonstration, would have used water cannons or rubber bullets, not rockets or explosive barrels as happens in Aleppo today.”

“You mustn’t compare the Syrian army with French or Israeli… The Israeli army didn’t shell Aleppo University and students there. They didn’t shell the university with rockets, killing dozens of students.”454

The Israel Defense Forces has a strict code of ethics and takes pride in protecting civilians in combat zones. During Israel’s most recent operation in the Gaza Strip, for example, the IDF went so far as to drop leaflets and make phone calls to encourage civilians to leave the battlefield and prevent Hamas from using them as shields. Pilots aborted missions, after locking in on terrorists, if even one civilian was spotted in the vicinity.

Whether or not the Al-Jazeera show starts a conversation in Muslim countries about their military tactics, it was refreshing to hear Arab commentators acknowledge the extraordinary efforts made by the IDF to avoid civilian casualties. It is too bad that it took Syrian war crimes for them to recognize the difference between the morality of Israeli and Arab soldiers.

 

MYTH:

Jews will be welcome in a future Palestinian state.

FACT

One of the most disturbing aspects of Secretary of State John Kerry’s otherwise praiseworthy efforts to achieve a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is the fact that Kerry, the media and the international community all ignore outrageous Palestinian statements and positions. While the State Department lambastes Israel every time an Israeli deigns to question the U.S. approach, it is silent when Palestinians attack Kerry’s intentions as well as his proposals. The most disgraceful Palestinian position that has gone uncontested is their plan to ethnically cleanse a future Palestinian state of Jews.

Even before negotiations started, Palestinian officials made clear they plan to conduct a policy of ethnic cleansing of Jews reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Abbas said in December 2010, “If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it.”362 The PLO's ambassador to the United States, Maen Areikat, said on September 13, 2011, that a future Palestinian state should be free of Jews.363

Lest anyone believe such remarks were anomalies, Abbas, the man often referred to as a “moderate,“ announced on the eve of the resumption of peace talks (in summer 2013) that “in a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands.”364

These were not the first instances where Palestinian officials have suggested making “Palestine” judenrein, and reflect an ugly undercurrent of anti-Semitism within the Palestinian Authority. One might expect such racist and anti-Semitic views to provoke world condemnation, but the media ignores them, and peace activists are so desperate to reach an agreement that they make excuses for the Palestinians. Imagine the uproar if any Israeli official suggested that no Arabs or Muslims should be allowed to live in Israel.

Besides being immoral, the Palestinians’ position is also hypocritical: Abbas demands that Palestinian refugees be allowed to move to Israel while simultaneously planning to expel all Jews from territory where they have lived for centuries.

Moreover, while 1.68 million Arabs, more than 20 percent of the population, live peacefully in Israel with full civic rights, no Jew can live in the Palestinian state. “Well, what is that?” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked. “There are Arabs who live here, but they can't contemplate Jews living there.”455

 

MYTH:

The Palestinian Authority no longer engages in terrorism against Israel.

FACT

One of the three prerequisites to Israel’s recognition of the PLO and subsequent peace negotiations was that the Palestinians cease all terrorism against Israel. Yet, almost from the day Yasser Arafat sent this promise to Yitzhak Rabin in 1993, assaults have continued. The heinous attacks conducted in the 1990s killed the Oslo process and a spike in terror in the last 14 months threatens to derail President Obama’s peace efforts as well.

Since the first Oslo agreement in September 1993, more than 1,500 Israelis have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Even after withdrawing from nearly half the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, the attacks continue. Thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel and terrorists try to infiltrate from the West Bank on an almost daily basis. In an effort to build confidence and minimize inconvenience, Israel removed all but a handful of checkpoints in the West Bank, but terrorists continue to be caught attempting to smuggle weapons through them.

Now, just as Secretary of State John Kerry is working tirelessly to bring Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to the negotiating table he has avoided for the last eight years, the level of violence has escalated, continuing an alarming trend that began in 2013.

“Last year, not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank,” Kerry told guests at a conference February 19, 2014. The Shin Bet reported a few days earlier, however, that six Israelis were killed in 2013 -- three civilians and three members of the security forces. The number of attacks recorded in the West Bank more than doubled from the year before to 1,271. The Shin Bet also reported that “Circa 190 significant attacks orchestrated to occur this year [in 2013] were thwarted (as opposed to 112 last year), mostly from Judea and Samaria. They included: 52 kidnapping plots, 52 shooting plots, 67 IED plots, and 16 suicide plots.” 456

Kerry also acknowledged that in 2014 “there’s been an uptick in some violence.” In fact, more than 30 rockets have been launched from Gaza at Israel in the first six weeks of the year. Five were intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system, as they were approaching Ashkelon, a city of approximately 118,000 people.

In January alone, a variety of other terror incidents were recorded:

Rock-Throwing Incidents: 468
Firebombs: 121
Shootings: 2
Injured Israeli Civilians: 14
Security Forces Injured: 14 457

The PA’s commitment to violence is also reflected in its financial support for terrorists. Even as it pleads poverty and is unable to meet its budget obligations, the PA manages to find money for “martyrs,” their families and terrorists released from Israeli prisons. The PA has allocated an additional $46 million in 2014 just for the former prisoners, many of whom were convicted of murdering Israelis, who the Palestinians consider “heroes.” Since the PA relies on Western donors to cover much of its budget, and that money is fungible, Americans, Europeans and other contributors to the Abbas kleptocracy are essentially subsidizing rewards for terrorists. 458

Despite repeated assurances, the PA has not stopped terrorists from targeting Israel. If the Palestinians did not live up to these promises in the past - or the present - why should Israelis trust them to do so in the future? After giving up land and getting more terror rather than peace, is it surprising that Israelis are reluctant to make further concessions to the Palestinians or that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that security guarantees are a sine qua non for any new agreement?

 

MYTH:

If Israel makes peace with the Palestinians the other Arab states will normalize ties with Israel.

FACT

One way that Israel is being pressured to make concessions to the Palestinians is to suggest that by doing so it will bring about a sea change in the region whereby the rest of the Arab world will normalize relations with Israel. Proponents of this idea often point to the Arab peace initiative of 2002 as evidence for this belief. Unfortunately, neither the Arab plan nor the words and the deeds of Arab states support this rosy scenario.

First, it is doubtful the Arab “peace“ initiative was ever a serious proposal given that it was formulated originally by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah primarily as a publicity ploy to divert attention from the Saudi role in 9/11. Abdullah's unwillingness to negotiate with Israel has reinforced this suspicion. In addition, the proposal requires Israel to capitulate to demands the Arabs have been making for decades, which Abdullah and his comrades know are unacceptable, and fails to demand anything of the Palestinians or Arab states.

Most important, the initiative does not say what most of its proponents think it does; that is, it does not promise peace or an end to the conflict even if Israel accepts all the conditions. Rather than full normalization of relations, the plan offers only a vague pledge of “normal relations.”

Several Gulf Arab states established ties with Israel without any Israeli concessions, and some continue today, but these states are pressured by others, especially Saudi Arabia, not to have any relations with Israel. Moreover, few people believe that Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon or Saudi Arabia will change their orientation toward Israel regardless of its actions.

In early March 2014, the Arab League sent a powerful message that its members have no intention of changing their relationship with Israel when Arab foreign ministers said they reject the idea of “recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also reiterated that he would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The Arab League seems intent on sabotaging U.S. peace efforts since Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly plans to include the demand that Abbas recognize Israel as a Jewish state in the framework agreement he has been preparing to jumpstart negotiations. The Arab position was also a direct rejection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand for evidence the Palestinians (and other Arab states) accept the permanence of Israel and the Jewish people's right to self-determination in their homeland. Netanyahu has made this the sine qua non for an agreement because he believes recognition of the Jewish state “would finally make clear that you are truly prepared to end the conflict.”459

MYTH:

The Palestinians have recognized Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

FACT

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that one of the most important precursors for achieving a peace agreement with the Palestinians is their recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. In his speech to AIPAC on March 4, 2014, Netanyahu explained:

Just as Israel is prepared to recognize a Palestinian state, the Palestinians must be prepared to recognize a Jewish state. President Abbas, recognize the Jewish state, and in doing so, you would be telling your people, the Palestinians, that while we might have a territorial dispute, the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own is beyond dispute. You would be telling Palestinians to abandon the fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees, or amputating parts of the Negev and the Galilee. In recognizing the Jewish state, you would finally making clear that you are truly prepared to end the conflict. So recognize the Jewish state. No excuses, no delays, it's time.460

Mahmoud Abbas gave his response three days later when he vowed the Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "They are pressing and saying, 'no peace without the Jewish state,'" he said, without clarifying if he was referring to Israel or the United States. Regardless, he said, "There is no way. We will not accept." Two days later, the Arab League backed Abbas' stance, emphasizing "its rejection of recognizing Israel as a 'Jewish state.'"461

After unequivocally rejecting any recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas has been dissembling by suggesting that the Palestinians already recognized Israel in 1988 and 1993. He is referring to Yasser Arafat satisfying U.S. conditions for opening a dialogue with the PLO during the Reagan Administration and the exchange of letters between Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin mutually recognizing the Palestinians and Israel to make the Oslo peace process possible.

Here is what Arafat said on December 14, 1988: "In my speech also yesterday (Tuesday) it was clear that we mean our people's right to freedom and national independence according to Resolution 181 and the right of all parties concerned in the Middle East conflict to exist in peace and security and as I have mentioned including the state of Palestine and Israel and other neighbors according to the Resolutions 242 and 338." The PLO also renounced terrorism to fulfill another requirement for opening a dialogue with the United States. Notice that Arafat's statement says nothing about recognizing Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

After agreeing to speak to the PLO, President Reagan said, "I am under no illusions about the PLO. Their words will have to be supported by actions, namely a continuing renunciation of terrorism everywhere and disassociation from those who perpetrate it." History has shown that Palestinian deeds have not matched their words as they have continued their longstanding efforts to destroy Israel through a combination of diplomacy and terror.

In his 1993 letter to Rabin, Arafat again said nothing about Israel as a Jewish state, only that the "PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security." He also declared that "all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations," a pledge inconsistent with the refusal of Abbas to negotiate and threats to circumvent talks by seeking recognition for Palestinian demands at the UN. Arafat's promise to renounce "the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" also proved illusory and has been reiterated by Abbas without any end to terror directed against Israel.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry continues his rewriting of history by telling members of Congress that international law already declares Israel a Jewish state and that Netanyahu's insistence on a public declaration of Israel's Jewish character from the Palestinians is "a mistake." According to Kerry, the "'Jewish state'" issue was "resolved in 1947 in Resolution 181 where there are more than 40-- 30 mentions of 'Jewish state.'" 462 The part that Kerry left out is that the Arab and Muslim states rejected the resolution and subsequently invaded the new Jewish state in hopes of destroying it at birth.

Kerry also seems oblivious to the present reality in which Abbas has no political legitimacy given his refusal to hold elections for the last decade, his limited authority within the West Bank and total lack of control over the Gaza Strip. In fact, reports indicate internal rifts are threatening Abbas' control of the Palestinian Authority, and those are separate from the virtual civil war between Fatah and Hamas, whose leaders explicitly say they will never recognize Israel or accept a Jewish state on Islamic land.

Is it any wonder that polls indicate that 64 percent of Israelis do not trust Kerry to take account of Israel's security as a crucial factor or that 74 percent of Israelis believe the United States is exerting more pressure on Israel than the Palestinians?463

The Shin Bet reports that terrorism from the West Bank is escalating, combined with the resumption of rocket barrages into Israel from Gaza and Abbas' refusal to bargain with Netanyahu reflect a total betrayal of the promises made in 1988, 1993 and all subsequent negotiations, and reminders of why Israelis do not take Palestinian rhetoric seriously. Even if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, most Israelis will remain skeptical until they see those words translated into deeds that will permanently end the conflict.

MYTH:

The Arab world and the Palestinians have changed since the three "noes" of 1967.

FACT

After the 1967 War, Israel expected to sign a peace agreement with the Arab states, thinking they had finally been convinced they could not drive the Jews into the sea and would be better off coexisting with the Jewish State. Instead, the Arab states held a summit in Khartoum and decided they would not make peace with Israel, negotiate with Israel or recognize Israel. Recall also that this declaration was made at a time when there were zero settlements in the disputed territories. Only Egypt and Jordan have changed their position since that time. This is the reason a comprehensive peace has eluded every American president and Israeli prime minister.

The obstacles to peace with the Palestinians are similar. At the Fatah conference of August 2009, the Palestinians declared their own series of noes: no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel. Meanwhile, they issued more than a dozen demands, including Israeli acceptance of the “right of return“ of Palestinian refugees, the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, the freezing of all settlement construction and the lifting of the Gaza blockade. They also vowed to continue the struggle against Israel “until Jerusalem returns to the Palestinians void of settlers and settlements.”

As Secretary of State John Kerry heroically attempts to bridge the gaps between the parties, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas emerged from his meetings at the White House boasting that he had rejected the administration's proposals. He also announced a new version of the three noes: no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, no forsaking the demand for Palestinian refugees to be allowed into Israel, and no commitment that a peace agreement will end the conflict. 464

The final “no“ is the most unambiguous statement of the Palestinians' absolute refusal to accept a two-state solution, which, in turn, explains the objection to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. According to the “moderate“ Abbas, if Israel cedes the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, the conflict will continue. These declarations make clear the Palestinians are still pursuing the strategy of stages whereby they first seek control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and then plan to “liberate“ the remainder of “Palestine.”

According to reporter Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas is now hoping to turn himself into a hero by telling his people that he had the guts to say no to Obama and Kerry.” To give the perception of support, Fatah activists organized rallies welcoming Abbas home.

The desire of the Palestinian people to coexist with their Israeli neighbors is being sublimated to the Islamist ideology of fanatical leaders who cannot accept a Jewish state in the Islamic world or Jews ruling over Muslims. Roughly half of the population is under the thumb of Hamas, which is at war with Fatah; while Fatah is at war with itself and fractured. The bottom line is that none of the men -- and they are all men -- who claim to represent the people (Abbas has not won an election in nearly a decade) are interested in peace. 464a

It has been nearly 47 years since the Arab states originally issued the three noes and Abbas has demonstrated nothing has changed for the Palestinians during that time. Will a 48th year pass before the Palestinians say “yes“ to peace?

MYTH:

Jonathan Pollard's conviction for espionage proved that Israel works against American interests.

FACT

News reports suggested that the United States is considering releasing Jonathan Pollard in exchange for Israel agreeing to continue peace talks with the Palestinians. The idea appears moot now that the Palestinians have violated the terms of the current talks by asking for recognition from 15 United Nations bodies and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's refusal to meet with his Israeli counterpart. Nevertheless, since the idea was put on the table, it is useful to review the Pollard case.

Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, began spying for Israel in June 1984; he learned that he may have been discovered in November 1985 and fled to the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., which refused to take him in. He was subsequently arrested by the FBI on charges of selling classified material to Israel. Pollard was convicted of espionage and sentenced to life imprisonment. His wife, Anne, got five years in jail for assisting her husband.

Initially, Israel said Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but quickly apologized.”It is Israel's policy to refrain from any intelligence activity related to the United States,“ an official government statement declared, “in view of the close and special relationship of friendship“ between the two countries. Prime Minister Shimon Peres stated: “Spying on the United States stands in total contradiction to our policy.” 465

While it was always suspected that the United States routinely spied on Israel, this was not confirmed until years later when Edward Snowden released classified documents from the National Security Agency. Nevertheless, the United States and Israel worked together to investigate the Pollard affair. The Israeli inquiry revealed that Pollard initiated the contact with the Israelis and was recruited by a small, independent scientific intelligence unit unrelated to Israeli military intelligence or the Mossad. 466

A subcommittee of the Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee on Intelligence and Security Services concluded: “Beyond all doubt ... the operational echelons (namely: the Scientific Liaison Unit headed by Rafael Eitan) decided to recruit and handle Pollard without any check or consultation with the political echelon or receiving its direct or indirect approval.” The Knesset committee took the government to task for not properly supervising the scientific unit.

As promised to the U.S. government, the spy unit that directed Pollard was disbanded, his handlers punished and the stolen documents returned.467 The last point was crucial to the U.S. Department of Justice's case against Pollard.

Pollard denied spying “against“ the United States. He said he provided only information he believed was vital to Israeli security and was being withheld by the Pentagon. This included data on Soviet arms shipments to Syria, Iraqi and Syrian chemical weapons, the Pakistani atomic bomb project and Libyan air defense systems.468

Pollard's life sentence was severe and controversial, but other spies received longer prison terms, such as Arthur Walker who is serving three life terms plus forty years. Aldrich Ames was also sentenced to life but his crime led to the death of at least 10 intelligence assets. On the other hand, John Walker Lindh received a 20-year sentence for joining the Taliban in Afghanistan, and William Kampiles, a CIA officer, sold secrets to the Soviets and served only 18 years of a 40-year sentence. Pollard supporters have argued that his sentence was also far longer than the average term imposed for spying for the Soviet Union and other enemies of the United States. 469 Some argued that his sentence should have been more lenient because he was spying for an ally; however, the law makes no distinction regarding the beneficiary of the stolen material.

Moreover, the person who coordinated the government's damage assessment, said "there are no other Americans who have given over to an ally information of the quantity and quality that Mr. Pollard has." 469a

As an example, Bowman said one of the documents Pollard stole was a Top Secret Radio Signal Notations Manual. "The manual listed the physical parameters of every known electronic signal, noted how America collected signals around the world, and listed all the known communications links then used by the Soviety Union. It would permit any recipient to take measures to avoid the United States' collection of signals and communications intelligence information, and we have no idea how widely this might have been shared."

Though initially shunned by Israel, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu granted him citizenship. Netanyahu requested clemency for Pollard during Middle East peace talks at the Wye Plantation in Maryland in 1998; however, CIA Director George Tenet threatened to quit if President Bill Clinton released Pollard. Since then, Israeli officials have made repeated entreaties on Pollard's behalf.

At the end of Clinton's term, the issue was again raised and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), chairman of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, along with a majority of senators argued against a pardon. "Mr. Pollard is a convicted spy who put our national security at risk and endangered the lives of our intelligence officers," Shelby said. "There are not terms strong enough to express my belief that Mr. Pollard should serve every minute of his sentence ... " 470

In November 2003, a federal judge rejected requests by Pollard to appeal his life sentence and review classified government documents that Pollard said would prove his spying was not as damaging or as extensive as prosecutors had charged. The judge said that Pollard had waited too long to object to his sentence and ruled that Pollard's attorneys offered no compelling justification for seeing the sealed intelligence documents. 471

A U.S. federal appeals court in July 2005 rejected Pollard's claim that he had inadequate counsel in his original trial and denied his request to downgrade his life sentence. The court also denied Pollard's attorneys access to classified information they hoped would help in their attempt to win presidential clemency for their client. The rulings leave Pollard with little recourse but the Supreme Court to change his fate. The Supreme Court, however, refused in 2006 to hear his case.472

In 2012, the 1987 damage assessment of Pollard's crimes was declassified. Though heavily redacted, the document indicated that Pollard was asked to collect U.S. intelligence on Arab states, Pakistan and the Soviet Union. The full scope of Pollard's espionage activities remains secret.

After years of embarrassment over Pollard's actions, and its implications for the Jewish community (e.g., bringing greater suspicion on Jews applying for or belonging to intelligence agencies and raising questions about the “dual loyalty“ of American Jews), major Jewish organizations have joined the chorus of officials and former officials calling for Pollard's release.473 Former U.S. officials who now support commuting Pollard's sentence include former CIA director James Woolsey, secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former attorney general Michael Muckasey, former deputy secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb and a number of former and current members of Congress (a bi-partisan letter circulated in Congress and signed by nearly 40 members calls on their peers to urge President Barack Obama to commute Pollard's life sentence to time served). Opponents also remain vocal, including the man who prosecuted Pollard, Joseph diGenova, and the Naval investigator who conducted the inquiry into Pollard's actions.

Federal guidelines at the time of Pollard's sentencing made prisoners eligible for parole if they had a record of good behavior and had served 30 years of a life sentence. If granted, Pollard could be released on November 21, 2015.

MYTH

Hamas-Fatah reconciliation paves the way to peace negotiations with Israel.

FACT

After several prior claims of reconciliation, it remains to be seen if Hamas and Fatah, rulers of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, respectively, can form a united government. The immediate impact of the announcement to reconcile was to stop all peace talks. After refusing to talk to his Israeli counterpart for six years, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas decided to blow up any chance of an agreement by secretly agreeing to join forces with an organization committed to Israel's destruction.

If implemented, the agreement joins the two leading Palestinian parties and sets the stage for long overdue parliamentary elections. This is not just a blow to peace, but a defeat for the Palestinian people. Neither party has shown any interest in democracy. Fatah has repeatedly delayed scheduled elections, primarily due to fear of losing to Hamas as it did in the last election. Both, meanwhile, have ruled autocratically and abused the human rights of the Palestinians under their control. Hamas remains committed to creating an Iranian-style Islamic government and has created an oppressive environment in Gaza for non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

Internal politics are of less concern to Israel than the unwavering antagonism of Hamas toward peace. Hamas officials have repeatedly said they are committed to Israel’s destruction and have said their views have not changed in reconciling with Fatah. While Fatah officials have said that Hamas has agreed to peace talks with Israel, no Hamas spokesmen have said this. To the contrary, Hamas officials continue to say the opposite: “The issue of Hamas recognizing Israel is a complete nonstarter ... aimed at primarily weakening the movement's positions on Israel,“ Hamas spokesman Taher Nunu said. The last time the two were supposed to reconcile, Nabil Shaath, a high-ranking aide to Abbas, said that demanding Hamas to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel is “unfair, unworkable and does not make sense.” 544

The future of security cooperation between Hamas and Fatah also looms as a major concern to both Israel and the United States. The United States has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to train and arm the Palestinian Authority’s National Security Force in the West Bank.. 545 Under the unity pact, Hamas’ security apparatus- which prides itself on actively targeting Israel - will presumably be integrated into the PA force, basically spelling an end to the Palestinian commitment to fight terror. 546 Moreover, the agreement will likely require both sides to release hundreds of militants held in each other's jails, a move that would pose a serious security risk for Israel and destroy the goodwill the PA built with Israel from arresting these men in the first place. 547

The decision to reconcile appears to be a tactical one based on necessity rather than a commonality of views. Fatah has grown progressively weaker in the West Bank and is known for its corruption. Officials seeing the revolutionary fervor against similarly corrupt, autocratic regimes fear an uprising against them and believe a unity deal will mollify the Palestinian street. Fatah also wants to press the UN to declare a state of Palestine unilaterally and is afraid that countries may have an excuse to vote against them if they are divided. Hamas also has an incentive to work with its rivals because of fears it has also lost public favor by its failure to improve the lives of Gazans and because the new Egyptian government's opposition has weakened the group. It also has lost support from Syria as a result of its failure to stand behind Bashar Assad.

Given the deep divisions it remains to be seen if a power sharing arrangement can be reached. Hamas believes it can ultimately take over the Palestinian Authority from within if elections are held and it is allowed to spread its tentacles further in the West Bank.

The Fatah decision to abandon the way of peace and join the terrorists calling for armed struggle to bring about Israel’s destruction also threatens Palestinian well-being. After watching its economy boom in the last few years, in large part because of Israeli and international assistance, the world is likely to reconsider its support for a government that includes terrorists.

The Quartet has made clear it will not work with Hamas unless it recognizes Israel’s right to exist, eschews terror and agrees to honor past Israel-Palestinian agreements. If Hamas meets these conditions, it will cease to be Hamas, given that its covenant is unambiguous in stating that Islam (as they interpret it) requires the destruction of Israel.

The United States immediately criticized the Palestinian decision to reconcile and members of Congress are calling for withholding aid to the PA. According to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), “U.S. taxpayer funding [to terrorist organizations] is prohibited under current law.” 550

Ultimately, the Palestinians must unite to achieve their national goals, but by allowing terrorists to become part of their government, Fatah has distanced itself even further from those who have worked to create an independent Palestine. The Palestinians do indeed need to reconcile — but with Israel, not Hamas.

MYTH

Mosques are sacrosanct and never used by terrorists.

FACT

Even in the asymmetric fight against terror in which civilians are routinely used as shields by militants one might expect mosques to be out of bounds for use by terrorists. They are not. Terrorists find mosques to be ideal places to store weapons and to hide out because they have the benefit of being civilian targets and holy places so that targeting them would lead to international criticism regardless of their non-religious use.

During Operation Cast Lead, Hamas stored ammunition and fired rockets into Israel from mosques.474 This tactic has been used by radical Muslims in many places including Lebanon (by Hezbollah), Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan (by the Taliban). 475

Today, mosques continue to be used by terrorists for nefarious purposes. In Gaza, for example, Hamas has attached reconnaissance cameras to minarets. In April 2014, Egyptian soldiers discovered entrances to six smuggling tunnels in Al-Nasr Mosque’s, including one in the washroom and another behind the pulpit.476

The exploitation of mosques by radical Islamic groups is especially ironic given their self-proclaimed piety. Then again, it should not be surprising that people who commit murder can rationalize their use of holy places to further their goals.477

Once a mosque is used for military purposes, it becomes a legitimate target and makes it more difficult to justify placing holy places off limits. This is just one example of the nearly impossible dilemmas Israel faces in the fight against Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror groups.

MYTH

Human rights organizations present unbiased reports on Israel.

FACT

Human rights organizations regularly pillory Israel for real and imagined abuses. Israel frequently argues that these groups’ research is shoddy, biased, falsified and untrue. The groups see official Israeli channels as less credible than Arabs who are often proven liars, unreliable witnesses and members of terrorist organizations.

In a rare example of candor Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigator Donatella Rovera admitted some difficulties in reporting on armed conflicts.478 “Responding effectively to human rights violations and humanitarian crises resulting from armed conflict requires accurate and credible factual information and analysis.” Sadly, these essentials are often missing from the reports of HRW and other human rights monitors.

Consider the impartiality standard. In 2001, during the UN’s conference to address intolerance, a parallel NGO conference convened to publicize “the voices of the victims.” Delegates adopted a resolution labeling Israeli policies racist and war crimes.479

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson called the allegations accusing Israel of war crimes “inappropriate and unacceptable,” Nevertheless, Amnesty International, HRW, Lawyers for Human Rights and Physicians for Human Rights endorsed the resolution. 480

The disclosure that HRW’s Middle East and North Africa director tried to raise money from Saudi Arabia by touting HRW’s history of anti-Israel reportage was further evidence of the group’s bias.481

Rovera admits the information gathered by human rights groups is often inaccurate and leads to specious accusations. “Access to relevant areas during the conduct of hostilities may be restricted or outright impossible ... Evidence may be rapidly removed, destroyed, or contaminated - whether intentionally or not. ‘Bad’ evidence,” she concludes, “can be worse than no evidence, as it can lead to wrong assumptions or conclusions.”

Human rights organizations play an important role in monitoring Middle East conflicts; however, they cannot meet Rovera’s standards if they start with an anti-Israel bias. If the principles outlined by Ms. Rovera are adhered to, and the challenges she acknowledges are admitted, it may be possible to fairly and accurately report on the behavior of Israel and its neighbors.

MYTH

Human rights organizations use reliable information in reports criticizing Israel.

FACT

Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigator Donatella Rovera admits that the civilians NGOs rely on for information are often unreliable. “Especially in the initial stages of armed conflicts,” Rovera reported, “civilians are confronted with wholly unfamiliar realities - armed clashes, artillery strikes, aerial bombardments, and other military activities and situations they have never experienced before - which can make it very difficult for them to accurately describe specific incidents.”482

Rovera noted that she interviewed civilians in Gaza “who described what they thought were artillery or bomb strikes being launched by far away government forces and striking near their homes - whereas in reality the loud bangs and tremors were caused by mortars or rockets being launched by opposition fighters from their positions nearby. For the untrained ear it is virtually impossible to distinguish between incoming and outgoing fire, and all the more so for those who find themselves close to the frontlines.” Rovera admits the difference “is vastly important to investigators.”

Rovera correctly observes that “even individuals and organizations with a proven track record of credible and objective work” can present biased and inaccurate information. She also acknowledges that “interested parties go to extraordinary lengths to manipulate or manufacture “evidence” for both internal and external consumption.” For example, she says, combatants “manipulate video footage of incidents which occurred at other times in other places - including in other countries - and present them as “proof” of atrocities.” We've seen this behavior from the Palestinians and Lebanese many times, such as the false allegation that Israeli soldiers killed Muhammad al-Dura, the specious claim that Israel committed a massacre in Jenin and the manipulated photos from Lebanon showing toys or stuffed animals amidst rubble to suggest the deaths of innocent children when it is clear that these were props carefully placed after the building was destroyed.

“Fear can lead victims and witnesses to withhold evidence or give deliberately erroneous accounts of incidents,” Rovera notes. “In Gaza, I received partial or inaccurate information by relatives of civilians accidentally killed in accidental explosions or by rockets launched by Palestinian armed groups towards Israel that had malfunctioned.” She also found that “witnesses” often lied because “they feared reprisals by the armed groups.”

Having all these concerns does not prevent HRW and other NGOs from issuing inaccurate reports that quickly circle the globe through various media. Israel is tarred by false accusations that it can refute, but too late to undo the damage. Three weeks after the beginning of the war initiated by Hezbollah on July 12, 2006, for example, HRW charged Israel with indiscriminate attacks against civilians in Lebanon.483 The failure of investigators to find evidence of Hezbollah's presence at bomb sites did not mean the terrorists had not been there since it is possible that any weapons, documents or bodies were removed before HRW arrived on the scene. As analyst Joshua Muravchik observed, “There was no dependable method by which HRW could assess the veracity of what it was told by the “witnesses,” many of whom were in areas where the population was sympathetic to, or intimidated by Hezbollah. Indeed, there was no means by which it could be sure that they were not Hezbollah cadres, since members of the group do not ordinarily wear uniforms or display identity badges.”484

HRW also found no evidence for the scurrilous accusation that civilians were “deliberately” killed. On the contrary, a great deal of evidence was available showing the efforts Israel made to avoid harming noncombatants, such as dropping leaflets to warn civilians to evacuate locations before they were attacked, pinpoint attacks on Hezbollah targets that could more easily have been carpet-bombed, and Israeli pilots who withheld fire because of the presence of civilians in target areas.

Anyone watching television coverage of the Second Lebanon War saw the images of rockets being fired from civilian areas, and the photos of weapons and armed men in what should have been peaceful neighborhoods. Numerous witnesses told reporters very different stories than those reported by HRW, giving examples of weapons caches in mosques and fighters using UN troops as shields.485 HRW had no trouble accepting the word of the Lebanese people it interviewed, but gave no credence to evidence presented by Israel, such as weapons captured in fighting in civilian areas or videos showing the deployment and launching of rockets from areas that were attacked.

One important matter Rovera did not acknowledge is the human rights community's frequent failure to make basic moral and legal distinctions. For example, HRW did not differentiate between Hezbollah's action in initiating the conflict and Israel's reaction in self-defense, or between Hezbollah's deliberate targeting of civilians and Israel's efforts to avoid civilian casualties. HRW also failed to note the contrasting goals of the combatants: Hezbollah's declared aim is to destroy Israel, while Israel's goal is to protect its citizens. Now that Rovera has admitted the flaws in the reporting system, the question is whether they will be rectified.

MYTH

Summer camp for Palestinians in Gaza is a fun escape for children like American camps.

FACT

Palestinian children would probably love to have the summer camp experience many American kids enjoy. For Palestinians in Gaza, however, the purpose of camp is not to have fun but to indoctrinate children with the Hamas ideology and to train them to join their terrorist ranks. This is nothing new; similar camps have been run for years.

Summer camp teaches Palestinian children how to resist the Israelis and that the greatest glory is to be a martyr. Campers stage mock kidnappings and learn how to slit the throats of Israelis. Islamic Jihad has run “Paradise Camps” that offered 8-12 year-olds military training and encourage them to become suicide bombers (Near East Report, June 25, 2001; Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2001).

Hamas has run as many as 700 camps for more than100,000 children and teenagers. Included in the camps’ curricula were lessons in shooting firearms and dismantling grenades. Some Palestinian parents were so upset about the military training and incitement of their children against Israel and Fatah they pulled them out of the camps (Arnon Ben-Dror, “Welcome to Camp Hamas,” Israel Defense Forces, August 29, 2009).

In the summer of 2014, thousands of Palestinian children, some as young as five-years-old, learned the skills to become terrorists. Photos from the camp showed campers with war paint on their faces standing at attention. Others showed kids running through an obstacle course with open flames and squirming beneath barbed-wire fences. The Hamas counselors taught their wards how to carry an assault rifle and how to protest at a political demonstration. Kids not only learned to hold weapons, they get to shoot Kalashnikov rifles and anti-tank weapons and to have live fire exercises (Michael Morrow, “Hamas groups run brutal summer camps for Palestinian kids,” News.com.au, June 11, 2014; Sophia Rosenbaume, “Inside the summer camp for child terrorists,” New York Post, June 11, 2014).

In the summer of 2015, the military wing of Hamas, the Al-Qassam Brigades, included girls for the first time in the military and terror training program. Hamas spokeman Mushir Al-Masri said, “This year will include military training for girls, in which they will carry weapons. This is not limited to men only (“Intense Campaign by Hamas's Military Wing to Recruit Youths for Its Summer Camps,” Middle East Media Research Institute, July 6, 2015).”

The participants of the militant camp were also trained in firing sniper rifles, using the portraits of Israeli leaders for targets. The Palestinian youth simulated attacks on Israeli destinations through model terror tunnels, meant to recreate the experience of infiltrating Israeli territory. Human rights activists condemned the camps as a forced militarization of Gazan society and a violation of children's rights (“Hamas Summer Camp Trains 25,000 Gazans as Fighters,” Ynet News, (July 25, 2015).

In 2017, Hamas camps had a theme, “Marching on Jerusalem,” with the goal of training the next generation of Palestinians to “lead the campaign of liberation.” The camps include political indoctrination and, in the final ceremony at one Gaza camp, teens pretended to storm mock security checkpoints, stab campers dressed as Israeli soldiers and liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque. (Jack Moore, “Hamas Summer Camp Teaches Children How To Liberate Jerusalem Holy Site, Says Report,” Newsweek, August 2, 2017; “Hamas Military Wing Summer Camp: Teens Enact Scenes From Al-Aqsa Mosque Standoff, ‘Kill’ Israeli Soldiers, ‘Liberate’ Al-Aqsa Mosque,” Middle East Media Research Institute, July 19, 2017).

At a camp run by the “moderate” Fatah organization in the West Bank with funding from the EU and UN, boys and girls dress in uniforms and receive various types of military training (B. Chernitsky and S. Schneidmann, “2017 Summer Camps In The Palestinian Authority – Part I: Military Training, Glorification Of ‘Martyrs’ In Camps Run By Higher Council For Youth And Sports Headed By Jibril Rajoub,” Middle East Media Research Institute, August 29, 2017).

Another Fatah camp was named after Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist involved in the 1978 Coastal Road massacre, in which 39 people — including 13 children — were killed (Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “Fatah summer camp named after terrorist murderer Dalal Mughrabi,” Palestinian Media Watch,” August 2, 2017).

A third camp in the West Bank, housed in a building partly paid for with funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, Palestinian teens from around the world are taught about “Palestinian culture, cuisine, life and work, and the Arabic language.” To give a sense of the camp bias, several students were listed as coming from “Haifa, Palestine.” Haifa, of course, is in Israel, not the disputed territories. Activities included watching anti-Israel movies, learning about the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement and hearing a lecture from a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist group (Rafael Medoff, “Senators concerned about extremist summer camp for Palestinian Americans,” JNS.org, August 9, 2017).

 

MYTH:  

Israel is indiscriminately attacking Palestinian targets in Gaza.

FACT

During the years since Israel’s last major operation in Gaza, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, Hamas terrorists and their affiliates continued to build up their arsenals to prepare for the next round of fighting. During these last three years more than 3,000 rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel. These attacks caused minimal damage but reminded Israel that the Hamas arsenal was growing in size and sophistication and would eventually pose such a severe threat that it would have to be neutralized.

For most of the last three years, Hamas has been careful to fire just enough rockets to scare Israelis in the south but not enough to provoke a large military response from Israel. While the Israeli government tolerated this level of violence, the Israelis living within rocket range continued to be traumatized by the unpredictability of the terrorists and random targeting of the explosives, which required them to seek shelter within 15 seconds of the Code Red alarm sounding.

Despite improvements, the terror rockets remain essentially unguided missiles; otherwise the loss of life and property would be much more severe. The terrorists simply aim in the direction of Israel’s major cities and hope they land somewhere that will cause destruction and panic. Some do hit their mark and a number of Israelis have been killed or wounded. More ominously, rockets during this round of fighting have reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

This latest round of fighting was inevitable; Israelis have been talking for some time about the need to end the rocket threat once and for all. The spark that set off this conflagration was the murder of three Israeli teenagers whose killers have yet to be found by the Palestinian Authority. Additional fuel was thrown on the fire by the alleged murder of an Arab youngster in a revenge attack. Israeli officials condemned this heinous act and police arrested the alleged perpetrators within four days.

Palestinian rabble rousers, who need little incentive to attack Jews, have been incited by Hamas and Fatah. For example, the Fatah Facebook page posted this threat on July 7, 2014:

Sons of Zion, this is an oath to the Lord of the Heavens: Prepare all the bags you can for your body parts.;489

Palestinians inside and outside Israel have taken to the streets in what turned out to be riots that threaten to widen the war beyond Gaza.

As in past conflicts, the Palestinian propaganda machine is working to paint Israel's Operation Protective Edge as indiscriminately attacking Gaza and killing dozens of Palestinians. The BBC found, however, that many pictures being disseminated through Twitter at #GazaUnderAttack are bogus. Some photos are from the conflict; however, many others were taken as far back as 2009 or were taken during conflicts in Syria or Iraq.490

Israel is once again fighting an asymmetric war in which the IDF does everything possible to protect civilians and keep them out of harm’s way, Hamas uses Palestinians as shields, hoping Israel will attack and kill these innocents to win propaganda points and media coverage. For example, “When Gazan terrorists want to try to avoid being killed (always) they merely grab a child, ask civilians to go into a building, launch a rocket from a children’s playground…. And the IDF will do nothing (unless sometimes, when the attack is absolutely imminent).”

In addition, Hamas built its military command center underneath Shifa hospital (ironically, built by Israel for the safety of the Gazan population). “But the IDF isn’t about to attack a hospital, even if that would end the war, or significantly hamper Hamas’s ability to attack Israel.”491

Hamas' arsenal contains an estimated 10,000 rockets ranging from crudely constructed Qassam rockets to Iranian-developed, technologically-advanced Fajr rockets. Hamas took advantage of the years of relative quiet to smuggle into Gaza increasingly sophisticated weapons, mostly from Iran, but also from post-revolutionary Libya. Hamas now has the capability of reaching Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and putting 4.5 million Israelis - more than half the population - at risk and many confined to shelters.

The Iron Dome missile defense system, cooperatively developed by Israel and the United States is 90 percent effective in protecting populated areas and has stopped numerous rockets; however, the system cannot stop rockets fired at short distances, such as those targeted at Sderot, and the 10 percent that get past the Iron Dome can cause severe damage and casualties. Rockets have already landed in Tel Aviv.

Looking only at casualty figures tells only part of the story of the impact of rocket barrages. They forced the closure of schools in southern Israel and brought life to a standstill. “There is a whole generation of kids there who have known nothing except sirens and bomb shelters,” said Mark Regev,492 spokesperson for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Many of these children will suffer from post-traumatic stress for years to come.

As in past operations, Israel is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Meanwhile, Israel’s behavior is on solid legal ground; Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. “The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality -- by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets -- is absurd,” according to Alan Dershowitz. “First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian. Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk posed.”493

No innocent Palestinians would be in any danger if the Palestinian Authority took the long promised steps to stop terrorism, or if the international community, especially the Arab world, pressured Hamas to stop attacking Israel. No innocent Palestinians would be in danger if Hamas terrorists did not deliberately hide among them. If the peace-seeking Palestinians prevented the terrorists from living in their midst and firing rockets from their neighborhoods, Israel would have no reason to target those areas.

MYTH:  

Hamas is firing rockets at Israel to end the 'occupation.'

FACT

“The Palestinians are only resisting occupation” is a favorite talking point of apologists for Palestinian terrorism, and Hamasrocket attacks on Israel’s civilian population are no exception. This fallacy was proven when Israel evacuated all troops and civilians from Gaza in 2005 and, instead of peace, was rewarded with an increase in terrorism. Still, Palestinians and their advocates maintain that “the occupation” is the primary motivation for terrorism against Israel.

Unlike Mahmoud Abbas, who makes moderate statements when he wants to win public relations points, and radical ones when speaking to his constituents, the message of Hamas is unequivocal and consistent. As stated in the organization’s covenant, the Islamic Resistance Movement “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine” and that “there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.”

The head of the Hamas political bureau, Khaled Meshaal was not afraid to speak plainly during a 2012 rally in Gaza:
 

Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land...We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation, and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel. 494


While Israelis lament the loss of innocent Palestinian lives; Hamas rejoices whenever Israelis are murdered. On July 13, 2014, Hamas released a music video celebrating the bombing of an Israeli school bus that killed 16-year-old Daniel Viflic.495

This is not the behavior of resistance fighters grudgingly forced to take up arms in defense of their homes and families, but a culture of martyrdom in which even killing the children of the enemy is praised and admired.

Palestinian Christians in the territories live under similar conditions and yet they do not engage in terrorism or call for Israel’s destruction. This is also true of many other suffering peoples living in far more difficult circumstances than the Palestinians. The intentional murder of civilians is a horrendous abuse of human rights and a war crime; Palestinians are the only people who believe terrorism is a legitimate tactic.

 

If Hamas was interested in ending the “occupation,” it would join rather than oppose peace negotiations. Peace, however, has never been the goal of Hamas. The group’s true objective is expressed in the title of a book written by the political adviser to then Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas: “The End of the Jewish State: Just a Matter of Time.”

 

 

 

MYTH:  

Hamas never endangers Palestinian civilians, especially children; it is the Israelis who target them.

FACT

Hamas has been shown to use mosques, hospitals, ambulances and schools to conceal and transport weapons and as bases and hiding places for its fighters on multiple occasions. Many rockets are also fired from near these normally sacrosanct places to attract Israeli fire in the hope that civilians will be killed. Hamas then offers journalists, whose freedom is otherwise constrained to what the terrorists want them to see, “telegenic victims,” children whenever possible.

It seems no matter how much evidence Israel produces to show the risks Hamas is taking with the lives of the innocent, the media is interested only in the body count, and from Hamas’ cynical viewpoint, the higher the civilian death toll the better. One story even the media could not ignore was the discovery of 20 rockets hidden in a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which typically takes a see and hear no evil approach to its work in Gaza.496

This organization, which is heavily subsidized by American taxpayers, has a long history of acting as an advocate for the Palestinians rather than a neutral participant in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Like Inspector Renault in Casablanca saying he was shocked to find gambling in Rick’s place, which he knew was a casino, UNRWA officials express similar surprise when their complicity in terrorism is revealed. Pretending to have no idea where the rockets could have come from, the agency condemned the groups responsible.

The story does not end with the discovery of the rockets; though UNRWA had to remove them from the school once it became public knowledge that they had been found on UNRWA property. But rather than destroy the weapons cache, turn it over to Israeli forces or give them to a neutral institution, they informed “the relevant parties” instead. Thus, UNRWA did know where the rockets came from (as if there was any doubt) and returned the weapons to the original source, essentially abetting the war crimes committed by Hamas.497 This was followed by the discovery of more rockets in a second school.498

The UNRWA cases are proof of Israel’s claim that civilian institutions are being used to store weapons. Additional evidence is available to demonstrate that rockets are fired from positions near these institutions. The use of civilians and sites such as schools and hospitals to store and fire weapons, are war crimes and the Palestinian government, including the Palestinian Authority leadership that is ultimately responsible for the Gaza Strip, should be held accountable.

 

MYTH:  

Journalists are never deceived by Palestinian propaganda.

FACT

The normally skeptical press is remarkably docile and unquestioning when it comes to information coming from Hamas. As we’ve seen in past conflicts, journalists often check their professional ethics at the door to gain access to areas controlled by terrorists. Unlike journalists in Israel who are free to report whatever they want, the price of admission to Gaza is to go where Hamas wants them to go, see what the terrorists want them to see and report what they are told.

Hamas spokespeople are articulate and well-prepared to present their case to the media. They have also prepped the civilian population on how to respond to media inquiries. The interior ministry published guidelines instructing the civilian population in how to contribute to the Hamas propaganda campaign. For example:

Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank. Don't forget to always add 'innocent civilian' or 'innocent citizen' in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Begin [your reports of] news of resistance actions with the phrase 'In response to the cruel Israeli attack,' and conclude with the phrase, ‘This many people have been martyred since Israel launched its aggression against Gaza.’ Be sure to always perpetuate the principle of ‘the role of the occupation is attack, and we in Palestine are fulfilling [the role of] the reaction.’

Avoid publishing pictures of rockets fired into Israel from [Gaza] city centers. This [would] provide a pretext for attacking residential areas in the Gaza Strip. Do not publish or share photos or video clips showing rocket launching sites or the movement of resistance [forces] in Gaza.

When speaking to the West, you must use political, rational, and persuasive discourse, and avoid emotional discourse aimed at begging for sympathy. There are elements with a conscience in the world; you must maintain contact with them and activate them for the benefit of Palestine. Their role is to shame the occupation and expose its violations.

Avoid entering into a political argument with a Westerner aimed at convincing him that the Holocaust is a lie and deceit; instead, equate it with Israel's crimes against Palestinian civilians.

Do not publish photos of military commanders. Do not mention their names in public, and do not praise their achievements in conversations with foreign friends!499


Journalists are always looking for the powerful story and photograph. What is startling is the failure to find pictures of Hamas terrorists in the act of firing rockets from civilian areas or those who have been “martyred.” A similar pattern emerged during the last Lebanon War when Hezbollah tightly controlled what journalists could see, film and write. “Foreign correspondents were warned on entry to the tour [of a southern Beirut suburb],” according to a report by Marvin Kalb, “that they could not wander off on their own or ask questions of any residents. They could take pictures only of sites approved by their Hezbollah minders. Violations, they were told, would be treated harshly.” He added, “The rarest picture of all was that of a Hezbollah guerilla. It was as if the war on the Hezbollah side was being fought by ghosts.”500 The media is giving the impression Israel is now fighting ghosts in Gaza.

Journalists can be forgiven if they shoot pictures of children; they’re emotion-laden photos, which editors readily publish knowing they are contributing to Hamas propaganda. What is more disturbing is the journalists’ failure to investigate the claims by Hamas’ health minister and others with regard to casualties. We’ve learned from past conflicts the Palestinians fabricate Israeli “atrocities,” and, as the guidelines cited above indicate, they have been instructed by their leaders to do so.

Palestinian officials, all of whom were employed in Gaza by Hamas, have an incentive to skew casualty numbers to tarnish Israel’s image and give the appearance of victimization. Determining how many terrorists are killed is complicated because they are told to take off their uniforms and put on civilian clothing.

Thus, no one seems to ask the obvious question of how many of the dead reported by the Palestinian Health Ministry are members of Hamas. The first guideline makes clear that “anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian.” So the widely reported casualty totals coming from the Palestinians do not include any terrorists.

Journalists treat official Israeli sources with skepticism while unquestioningly repeat propaganda from Hamas. This was also true during Operation Cast Lead when Israel was also charged with using disproportionate force and targeting civilians; however, after the fighting ceased, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad admitted Hamas lost more than 600 men during the war; a figure consistent with the 709 calculated by the IDF. This was a majority of the casualties.501

After Cast Lead, the UN Human Rights Council issued the notoriously flawed and biased Goldstone Report. Judge Richard Goldstone subsequently denounced the report and its principal allegations. He said the report’s erroneous claims that Israel carried out deliberate attacks on civilians became a tool for Israel’s detractors to demonize the Jewish state and denigrate its right to self-defense.502 Goldstone said the truth was that “civilians were not intentionally targeted [by Israel] as a matter of policy” and that in the aftermath of having thousands of rockets and missiles fired at its cities, Israel had the “right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against such attacks.”503

The IDF has been reluctant to release any casualty figures but, when the smoke clears, it is likely the IDF’s information will be more accurate. As of July 22, 2014, the IDF has killed approximately 200 terrorists who are either missing from the Hamas statistics or deliberately falsified and referred to as civilians.

MYTH:  

UNRWA is a humanitarian organization that remains neutral in the conflict.

FACT

The United Nations Relief and Works Association (UNRWA) was established in 1949 by the United Nations to provide food, clothing, education, shelter, and work for the 600-800,000 Palestinians who became refugees from 1947-49 by fleeing their homes to avoid being caught in the crossfire of the war started when Arab forces began to attack the Jews and, later, when the surrounding Arab states invaded the nascent state of Israel.503a Most Palestinians fled for this reason; most wealthy Palestinians left even earlier in anticipation of the fighting. In a few instances Palestinians were expelled from their homes because they were in areas where they posed a threat to the Jews fighting for their lives against the invaders.

The Arabs lost the war and rather than being able to return triumphant to a Palestinian state, the Palestinians became refugees. Most still lived in parts of historic Palestine; nevertheless, they demanded the right to return to their old homes. This was not possible given their decision to flee and to side with the Arabs bent on destroying Israel.

The 150,000 Palestinians who did not flee became full-fledged citizens of Israel. Thousands more were allowed to return on a humanitarian bases, but most were considered enemies of the state and a possible third column that would threaten Israel from the inside and therefore remained homeless. With the exception of Jordan, none of the Arab states permitted the Palestinians to become citizens and most were confined to camps or specific areas where they were denied most of the rights their fellow Palestinians enjoyed in Israel.

Originally, the expectation was that UNRWA would provide short-term relief to these refugees until they could be resettled in the Arab states, or a peace agreement was reached that provided for the repatriation of some of the refugees to Israel. However, the refusal of the Arab states (with the exception of Jordan) to resettle the refugees created a problem that has now persisted for more than 60 years. During that time, the number of “refugees” served by the UNRWA has ballooned to more than 5 million. During that time UNRWA has become a $500 Million bureaucracy that has functioned as a welfare agency, which has kept the Palestinians as perpetual refugees and helped stoke resentment and the growth of terror movements in the camps under its control.

Following the Hamas takeover in Gaza, the terrorist organization has used UNRWA to pursue its violent campaign against Israel and the UN has adopted a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” approach to the misuse of its facilities. Israel’s Channel 2, for example, discovered an UNRWA run camp was teaching students that “Jews are the wolf” and they would one day conquer Israel504 through “education and jihad.”505 In August 2006, Justus Reid Weiner and Noam Weissman concluded:

UNRWA educational institutions are controlled by individuals committed to Hamas ideology and they are educating terrorists. Numerous terrorist operatives and Hamas political leaders have been educated in UNRWA schools.506

Despite denials from the UN, UNRWA facilities have been used as civilian shields by Hamas and as storehouses for weapons. For example, in 2007 Israel released footage of three terrorists firing mortars from an UNRWA school in Beit Hanoun. During Operation Cast Lead, Israel was accused of attacking a UN school, however, an investigation supported Israel’s contention that Hamas terrorists were firing from the vicinity.507 This tactic is being used again during Operation Protective Edge. In addition, three UN schools were found to have rockets stored in them, and, inexplicably, the administrators promptly returned the weapons to Hamas.508

One deadly incident occurred when Israeli soldiers discovered a tunnel leading into Israel inside a UNRWA clinic. The site was booby-trapped; the soldiers apparently set off an explosion and died when the building collapsed.509

UNRWA officials repeatedly suggest Israel is killing civilians in their facilities with malice and forethought. Israel insists that soldiers have only attacked these positions when they are fired upon. The UN typically disputes this; however, John Ging, Director of OCHA and the former UNRWA director in Gaza, admitted on July 31, 2014, that “armed groups are firing their rockets into Israel from the vicinity of UN facilities and residential areas.”510

One example of UNRWA’s complicity in Hamas’s terror operations was revealed in a report prepared by James Lindsay, a former UNRWA general-counsel, who concluded:

UNRWA has taken very few steps to detect and eliminate terrorists from the ranks of its staff or its beneficiaries, and no steps at all to prevent members of organizations such as Hamas from joining its staff. UNRWA has no preemployment security checks and does not monitor off-time behavior to ensure compliance with the organization's anti-terrorist rules. No justification exists for millions of dollars in humanitarian aid going to those who can afford to pay for UNRWA services.511

Many members of Congress and others believe UNRWA has outlived whatever usefulness it once had and would like to see it defunded so the care for any legitimate Palestinian refugees can be turned over to the UNHCR, the agency responsible for every other refugee population in the world. The unmasking of UNRWA in Gaza as a shield and armory for terrorists may hasten this long overdue transition.

MYTH:  

There are no terrorist attacks on Israel originating from the West Bank anymore.

FACT

While all eyes have been on Gaza, the world has ignored the West Bank, taking for granted that, unlike Gaza, Israel faces no terror threat from the east. Unfortunately, it is not true. Terror attacks and attempts continue to emanate from the West Bank despite the pledges dating to the Oslo agreement in 1993 that the PLO, and now the Palestinian Authority, would cease all terror.

The Shin Bet reported 187 serious terror attempts in 2013. They included: 52 kidnapping plots, 52 shooting plots, 67 IED plots, and 16 suicide plots. More alarming is that, contrary to conventional wisdom that Hamas is not active in the West Bank, almost half (84) of those attempts were planned by Hamas. Six Israelis were killed in 2013 -- three civilians and three members of the security forces.512Note that these figures do not include dozens of instances where Palestinians threw rocks at Israelis injuring both soldiers and civilians.

Similarly, in the first half of 2014, another 96 attempts to carry out terror attacks were discovered, roughly half attributable to Hamas. 512a

Israel has been pilloried for maintaining checkpoints in the West Bank, even after removing all but 12, but those remaining checkpoints have saved lives by catching many of these terrorists trying to infiltrate Israel. For example, on July 27, 2014, border guards thwarted a terror attack when they stopped a suspicious vehicle at a checkpoint near Beitar Illit. An explosive device was attached to the gas cylinders in the suspect's car. 513

These figures are just the latest indication that the Mahmoud Abbas has failed, even with U.S. training for his security forces, to stop the violence. Furthermore, the supposedly secular moderate Abbas has in recent years increasingly resorted to Islamic imagery and rhetoric to incite the masses. On June 4, 2014, for example, Abbas used a tactic that dates back to the Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920s, calling on Muslims around the world to defend the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. This “Al-Aqsa is in danger” lie has been used for decades to arouse the Muslim world against Israel and the fact that Abbas has resorted to this calumny is further evidence that he feels the need to placate Hamas and its followers.

Even more alarming was his use of a quotation from the Koran to justify war against Israel. On Fatah’s main Facebook page, a post said: “[PA] President [Mahmoud Abbas] concluded his brief speech with the first verse of the Quran that permits Muslims to wage war for Allah.” 514

This Islamization of the conflict with Israel, combined with the ongoing terror and incitement, raises new doubts about the willingness and ability of Abbas to negotiate peace. 515

MYTH:

Israel must end its illegal blockade of Gaza to end the war with Hamas.

FACT

If the current ceasefire holds, and Hamas does not violate it as they have previous breaks agreed to by Israel, the Palestinians hope to extract a number of concessions from Israel in exchange for holding their fire. Beside the absurdity of a terrorist entity dictating terms to the people it is terrorizing, Israel has other good reasons to refuse Palestinian demands.

As usual, the international chorus that believes the conflict will disappear if Israel is forced to capitulate to Palestinian ultimatums, is now calling for Israel to end its blockade of Gaza. Israel may adopt a less restrictive policy, but it is under no obligation to allow a free flow of goods.

Critics forget that Israel did not impose tighter restrictions on Gaza until June 2007, two years after withdrawing every soldier and citizen, when Hamas seized control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority. From 2005 to 2007, Israel endured nearly 2,000 rocket attacks, yet continued to allow necessary supplies into the Gaza Strip and kept commercial crossings open.

Hamas has declared war on Israel by its covenant's call for the destruction of Israel, acts of terrorism and rocket barrages. In response, Israel has isolated Hamas, a legal act in accordance with international law.

Detractors label Israel's actions "collective punishment"; however, this refers to the "imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another's guilt."  Israel has done no such thing. Israel has no obligation to maintain open borders with a hostile population. The suspension of trade relations or embargoes is a frequent tool of international diplomacy and has never been regarded as "collective punishment".

The complaints directed at Israel ignore the fact that Israel cannot blockade Gaza by itself. Egypt shares a six-mile border with Gaza and Egypt's leaders believe Hamas poses a threat to their nation. Consequently, Egypt has stepped up its efforts to enforce its own blockade by destroying smuggling tunnels and bolstering its military presence near the border. Unlike Israel, Egypt prevented the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gazans before and during the war.

Egypt has been very successful in skirting criticism. During ceasefire talks in Cairo, Egypt tried to limit the discussion to Israel's actions. Palestinians were told not to mention the Egyptian blockade and to focus the blame for the "seige" on Israel. 516

One difference between Israel's blockade and most others; Israel only seeks to deny Hamas weapons and supplies that can be used to threaten Israel (e.g., cement to build tunnels into Israel). Despite the incessant terror, Israel allows food, medicine and other basic goods to reach the people of Gaza. Israel also sends thousands of gallons of fuel into Gaza and provides Palestinians electricity from Israeli power sources.

Israel has exceeded the requirements of International law which obligates Israel to permit passage of food, clothing and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. Israel is not required to provide these supplies; it is obligated only to allow others to transfer provisions. Moreover, if Israel has reason to believe Hamas will intercept these goods and the enemy will benefit, even these provisions may be prohibited. 517

During Operation Cast Lead, Hamas set up a hospital for the exclusive use of its fighters, and supplied the facility by stealing medical supplies entering Gaza from aid organizations. 518

By contrast, thousands of Gazans have been admitted to Israel's world-class medical facilities. During Operation Protective Edge Israel set up a clinic outside Gaza for Palestinians needing treatment. Terrorists have tried to exploit Israel's good will by masquerading as patients and ambulance drivers. In 2005, Wafa Samir Ibrahim Bas was arrested attempting to smuggle an explosives belt through the Erez crossing. Bas had been admitted on humanitarian grounds to Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva several months earlier for treatment of massive burns she received in a cooking accident. After her arrest, she admitted that the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade had instructed her to use her personal medical authorization documents to enter into Israel to carry out a suicide attack. 519

In response to international pressure, Israel reversed its policy and agreed to allow cement and other construction materials into Gaza. When Israel evacuated Gaza, the expectation was that Palestinians would be taken from refugee camps and given permanent housing. Rather than build these much needed apartments, as well as schools and hospital, Palestinians have been kept in the camps by Hamas so it can use the building materials to construct weapons of terror and tunnels to infiltrate Israel.

"Peace activists" seeking to break the blockade have not spoken out against Hamas terror against Israel or the denial of human rights to Palestinians by Hamas officials ruling the Gaza Strip. They do not acknowledge that Hamas is not interested in humanitarian aid; the terrorists want to obtain more long-range rockets from Iran to enable them to pose an ongoing threat to more than half of Israel's population, including major cities such as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and Israel's international airport.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas voiced his support of the blockade to President Barack Obama when they met at the White House on June 9, 2010. Abbas advocated making changes to Israel's policy slowly, so that it could not be interpreted as a victory for Hamas. 520

The international community has complied with the blockade, insisting that Hamas renounce violence, recognize Israel, and respect previous peace deals. Now, the Israelis and others interested in peace are also demanding that Hamas be disarmed.

Still, many journalists and world leaders dismiss the cause-and-effect connection between Hamas-led violence and the plight of the Palestinians. Were Hamas to forswear violence, Israel would feel secure enough to end restrictions on Gaza.

MYTH:  

Israel should now accept the Arab Peace Initiative.

FACT

Even as the fighting in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge raged, Obama Administration officials and pundits began to talk about the day after and, for them, this means a return to pressuring Israel accept their formulate for peace negotiations. If anything, however, the conflagration has demonstrated the fallacy of past initiatives.

First, the reconciliation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas was, as most predicted, a disaster. Mahmoud Abbas tied his future, and that of the Palestinians, to a unified government. The marriage was never consummated, but it showed Israelis that Abbas doesn’t understand that hitching his wagon to the terrorists in Gaza only reinforced his image as weak and incapable of making peace with Israel. It also tacitly endorsed the Hamas goal of destroying Israel.

Second, the incessant rocket and mortar barrages from Gaza into the heart of Israel were a reminder of the failed disengagement. Israel withdrew every soldier and civilian to test the popular mantra that Israelis would enjoy peace if they gave up land. The land for peace formula was buried with the first rocket salvo.

Third, the ease with which Hamas can now threaten more than half the Israeli population reinforced the importance of holding territory. Israelis shudder at the thought of terrorists in the West Bank having similar weapons and living within a few feet of Jerusalem, 10 miles from Tel Aviv and a rocket launch from Ben-Gurion Airport. The revelation that Israeli security forces foiled a plot by a Hamas cell in the West Bank intensified Israeli fears that the West Bank could soon resemble the Hamastan of Gaza. 521 The fact that Abbas didn’t even know about the coup plotters in his backyard once again illustrated his cluelessness and the folly of those who have insisted that Hamas could not take over the West Bank if Israeli troops left.

The Arabists who believe they know what’s best for Israel remain convinced that if Israel would only capitulate, the wars in Syria and Iraq, the Iranian nuclear threat and the Sunni-Shiite contest for power will magically disappear. This absurd sentiment, which has been heard from officials in the U.S. Defense and State Departments, as well as the CIA, has led to the resurrection of the Arab Peace Initiative (API).522

To remind those who might have forgotten, this was originally the brainchild of the king of Saudi Arabia as a means of diverting attention from the Saudi role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and rebranding the king as a peacemaker. What was a problematic proposal to begin with was made worse in the course of discussions at an Arab League Summit, which resulted in a proposal that was even more objectionable to Israel.

Western diplomats who often see only what they want to see interpreted the API as a bold step forward by the Arab states, promising normalization of relations with Israel if it met all their demands. A closer reading of the proposal, however, made clear that the Arabs were not offering peace or even full normalization of relations with Israel. Moreover, the Israelis were given an ultimatum to accept the proposal as is or face the possibility of war.

Israel agreed to negotiate using the API as a base, but the Arabs did not. The fact that the Saudi King who was so gung-ho about the plan would neither travel to Israel for talks nor invite an Israeli delegation to Riyadh is evidence it was nothing but a smokescreen to cover the Saudi role as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. 523

Nothing has changed to make the API more palatable to Israel. It relies on the discredited land for peace formula, but, in this case, does not even offer peace in exchange for Israeli concessions. And the Saudis still have no interest in negotiating with Israel even though the two countries have found common cause in fighting Hamas, Hafez Assad in Syria and preempting the Iranian nuclear program.

In May 2014, Maj. Gen. (res) Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israeli Military Intelligence met with Prince Turki al-Faisal, son of the late King Faisal and director of Saudi intelligence for more than two decades suggested that the prince follow in the footsteps of Anwar Sadat and come to Jerusalem. He invited al-Faisal to pray at a mosque in Jerusalem and then address the Israeli people from the Knesset. Alternatively, Yadlin said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was prepared to go to Riyadh or Jeddah for negotiations. The general said a majority of Israelis would accept the API if al-Faisal spoke to them from Israel’s capital. 524

Al-Faisal, however, insisted that Israel first agree to the API before he would contemplate such a trip. This response was yet another reminder that, despite Arabist optimism, the Saudis, perhaps the most anti-Semitic country in the world, have no intention of negotiating peace with Israel.

This latest war in Gaza was yet another example of why Israelis yearn for peace. Anyone who believes that Israelis want to live in bomb shelters, flee to safety at the sound of a siren or send their youth to fight and die to keep them safe hasn’t spent any time in Israel. No one should doubt how urgently Israelis want peace, but the world should also recognize that Israelis are not so desperate that they will commit national suicide to placate those are tired of the conflict.

MYTH:

Israel was responsible for the 2014 war with Hamas.

FACT

It is easy to demonstrate that Israel was not responsible for the Gaza War by pointing out that it did not start until Hamas killed three Israeli teenagers and subsequently bombarded Israeli civilian areas with hundreds of rockets. Hamas was held responsible not only by Israel and the West, but also by the Palestinian Authority (PA), which blamed Hamas for starting and prolonging war.

In comments leaked to the press from a meeting between PA Presidend Mahmoud Abbas and Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani of Qatar, Abbas lambasted Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal for instigating the war. Having been told by Saudi King Abdullah that Mashaal is a liar, Abbas caught him in a lie when he asked Mashaal if Hamas was behind the murder of the Israeli teenagers and Mashaal said he would "neither deny nor confirm." Ultimately, Hamas claimed responsibility for the crime that instigated the war. 525

Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council, Ibrahim Khraishi, said that every missile Hamas launched against Israel "constitutes a crime against humanity, whether it hits or misses, because it is directed at civilian targets".  Khraishi also acknowledged that "many of our people in Gaza appeared on TV and said that the Israelis warned them to evacuate their homes before the bombardment. In such a case, if someone is killed, the law considers it a mistake rather than an intentional killing".  526

Abbas blamed the casualties and destruction in Gaza on Hamas and its refusal to accept a truce. By insisting on discussing demands first before ending the war, the violence was prolonged needlessly. Egypt proposed a truce on July 15, 2014, which was supported by the Arab League and agreed to by Israel. Hamas rejected the terms and continued targeting Israeli civilians with mortars and rockets. Over the course of the 50 days of fighting, several ceasefire agreements were reached, but each time Hamas broke them with a new barrage of rockets. On Tuesday August 25 however, Hamas accepted the same terms offered July 15; however, it was too late for many Israelis and Gazans who were killed or injured in the interim.

 

Abbas shed no tears for the Israelis killed and injured by the Hamas terror attacks, but was outraged by how his own men were treated. In a statement by Fatah, Hamas was condemned for attacking members of Fatah and placing some in prisons where their lives were endangered by Israeli air strikes. Hamas members also shot and beat members of Fatah and placed more than 300 under house arrest. Echoing what Israeli officials had asserted, Fatah accused Hamas of confiscating food and medicine and distributing it to Hamas fighters and selling it on the black market. 525

MYTH:

Iran is an ally in the fight against the Muslim extremist group ISIS.

FACT

Some news reports have said that Iran and the United States are secretly cooperating in the fight to destroy the Islamic State (ISIS)527.  If true, it would represent a weakening of the international campaign to isolate Iran because of its nuclear program and failure to adhere to UN resolutions. Worse, the focus on ISIS has led Western leaders to take their eyes off the most serious radical Islamic threat in the region and that is the Iranian theocracy.

ISIS is a nefarious collection of terrorists with the goal of taking over Iraq and Syria as part of a larger campaign to reestablish and expand the once great Muslim Empire. Because ISIS is waging a visible war to accomplish its goals, the world has turned its attention to stopping ISIS; however, the Iranian regime has a similar ideology and comparable goals.

Today, Iranian troops are fighting to keep the despotic Assad regime in power in Syria. Tehran continues to support its proxy terrorist force in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and the Iranians have also been arming Hamas.

The most serious issue, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, remains unresolved. As most analysts predicted, the negotiations with Iran during the first half of 2014 made virtually no progress. In an effort to further avoid the tough decision of taking active measures to destroy the Iranian facilities, the United States and other Western nations agreed to extend the deadline. This is a repetition of the pattern followed by Iran in years of negotiations with the Europeans when, as they admitted later, their goal was to string the Europeans along while continuing to work on the development of a bomb.

According to the latest report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran continues to stonewall inspectors, who still know little about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. In fact, one inspector has repeatedly been denied entry into Iran.  To read the full IAEA report on Iran for August click here

Iran has taken some steps, but they have implemented just three of five nuclear transparency steps that it pledged to take by August 25, 2014. This is after missing the July deadline for reaching a comprehensive deal.

The two areas where Iran has continued to withhold information are related to experiments on explosives that could be used for an atomic device, and studies related to calculating nuclear explosive yields. The IAEA report also found that Iran has continued to work on erasing any potential evidence that explosive tests were conducted at the Parchin military base.

President Obama and others have pledged that they would not allow the negotiations to drag on indefinitely, but Tehran probably does not take this very seriously. They already have succeeded in punching a large hole in the sanctions regime, continued their sponsorship of terror, and worked toward improving their ability to enrich uranium without any repercussions. Furthermore, they sense the West is weak and unwilling to take any military action against them. They watched President Obama draw a red line on Syria's use of chemical weapons and then ignore it when Syria crossed the line; they have heard him describe the threat posed by ISIS while refusing to commit any ground troops; and they have seen America withdraw from Iraq and plan to do the same from Afghanistan. Europeans have been even more reluctant to take military action after their publics revolted against those leaders who sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iranians may yet find they have miscalculated as the world powers escalate the attacks on ISIS, but the suggestion that those powers are so desperate for help in fighting ISIS that they have considered an alliance - even if only for convenience m- with Iran is troubling.

Some Western leaders hoped the election of the "moderate" Hassan Rouhani as president would lead to a quick end to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program. As an incentive, some sanctions were lifted and Iran has been able to take in billions of dollars. The sanctions, which were always too porous to be effective, now appear to be little more than a nuisance.

ISIS is a serious threat, especially to Western nations that are facing the prospect of their citizens going to fight for ISIS and then returning to their home countries more radicalized and trained to carry out terror attacks. Without understating that danger, the international community cannot afford to let up for one minute on the radical Muslims in Tehran whose success in building a nuclear weapon will exponentially increase the danger in the Middle East, Europe and the United States.

MYTH:

UN peacekeepers can be relied upon to keep the peace between Israel and its neighbors.

FACT

After the latest fighting in Gaza, there is some talk about using international troops to prevent a future flare-up. Similarly, peace negotiators have raised the idea of posting an international force in the West Bank, perhaps in the Jordan Valley, as a way of meeting Israel's security concerns. Naturally, given its history as peacekeepers, the United Nations is viewed as a possible source for such a force. History has taught Israelis, however, that UN forces are ineffective and cannot be relied upon to shield Israelis from those who wish to do them harm.

The first disastrous case of a UN peacekeeping force being imposed on Israel in the interest of maintaining peace occurred following the 1956 Suez War when President Dwight Eisenhower pressured Israel into withdrawing from the parts of the Sinai it captured from Egypt. A UN Emergency Force (UNEF) was then sent to ensure that neither side would threaten the other nor would Egypt be allowed to close the Straits of Tiran, the international waterway that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser blockaded, which served as one of the causes of the war.

The force was small and lightly equipped, with only 3,400 men, nearly half of whom were assigned to patrol 295 miles of desert. The force had no authority and was only permitted to use its weapons in self-defense. Most critically, the UNEF required Egypt's permission to deploy on its territory. Thus, in 1967, when Nasser ordered the UNEF out of the Sinai, the UN Secretary-General complied without seeking approval from the Security Council or Israel. Nasser subsequently mobilized his troops to invade Israel and, once again, prohibited Israeli ships from transiting the Straits of Tiran. The massive troop buildup in the Sinai combined with the blockade and weeks of genocidal threats ultimately led Israel to launch the surprise attack on Egypt and Syria that helped limit the war to only six days.

The ease with which UNEF had been withdrawn, placing Israel in jeopardy, led to their insistence that future peacekeepers in the Sinai be part of a multinational force led by the United States, without any ties to the UN. Congress subsequently voted to establish the Multinational Force and Observers to supervise the implementation of key security aspects of the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel. From Israel's standpoint, the U.S. role in the force was crucial and reassured them there would be no repeat of the UNEF disaster.

On the Golan Heights, however, a UN force was again created to serve as a buffer between Israel and Syria. The reluctance of Syria to challenge Israel after 1973 made the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) mission relatively easy. The moment it became difficult, however, in the wake of the Syrian civil war, the peacekeepers proved again inadequate to the task. A number of them, a contingent from Fiji, were taken hostage and, shortly after they were released, the entire 1,200-member force withdrew from Syria to essentially hide behind the Israeli troops who now faced the growing presence of radical Islamists on its border without a buffer force. This retreat increased the possibility that the Syrian war will spill over into Israel and/or the Islamists will establish a beachhead from which to threaten Israel in the future.

An ongoing UN catastrophe can be found in Lebanon. Following a PLO terror attack in March 1978, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon and captured almost the entire southern part of the country with the goal of establishing a cordon sanitaire that would keep the PLO far away from Israel's border. After the Lebanese Government protested to the Security Council, Israel was asked to withdraw, and another small "peacekeeping" force, the Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), was sent to stand between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Lebanon.

UNIFIL did nothing to prevent the PLO from building up what amounted to a state within a state and a terrorist infrastructure that continued to target Israelis at home and abroad. After further provocations from the PLO in June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon as UNIFIL stepped aside and remained behind the Israeli lines. Having failed to keep the peace, the “force” offered protection and humanitarian assistance to Lebanese civilians. When Israel withdrew, UNIFIL took up its position again as a useless deterrent to war.

Hezbollah replaced the PLO as Israel's nemesis with the backing of Iran and Syria. The group engaged in terror attacks against the IDF that killed both civilians and military personnel and, by the summer of 2006, Hezbollah had become a dangerous enemy committed to Israel's destruction. The group fortified positions, smuggled thousands or rockets from Iran through Syria and claimed a force of 15,000. Once again UNIFIL was nowhere to be found during these developments.

In July 2006, Hezbollah fired a barrage of katyusha rockets and mortars into northern Israel. Using this diversion, Hezbollah terrorists crossed the border and killed three Israeli soldiers on patrol, severely wounded another three and abducted two. Israel again sent in troops to end the terror threat. Meanwhile, Hezbollah attacked UNIFIL, used its bases as a shield, and passed on intelligence on IDF 528.

Israelis were forced to live in bomb shelters for weeks while Hezbollah rockets rained down on them prompting the IDF to intensify its operations. When civilian casualties in Lebanon began to grow, and thousands of Lebanese fled the country, Israel was pressured to end the fighting before completing the job of destroying Hezbollah.

The United States led the campaign to persuade Israel to withdraw by promising that the UN would send a "robust" peacekeeping force to prevent arms smuggling from Syria and Iran, keep Hezbollah far north of Israel's border and guarantee the peace. The UN also called on the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah, something it refused to do.

Israel's actions succeeded in deterring Hezbollah from further attacks, but this was no thanks to UNIFIL. Rather than "robust" it has just been a bust. Hezbollah has replenished its stocks and is believed to have 100,000 rockets or more. The group has continued to operate under the UN's nose, smuggling weapons and rebuilding the infrastructure in southern Lebanon in preparation for the next round of fighting.

The record is clear. If Israel reaches any new agreements with the Palestinians or its other enemies, the security of its citizens cannot, in any way, depend on the United Nations.

MYTH:

The Palestinian Authority believes in a secular Palestinian state.

FACT

Many people have forgotten, or simply chosen to ignore, that one of the reasons that President Clinton's peace summit with Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat failed was the latter's assertion that Jews had no historical connection to Jerusalem. Israel's top negotiator Shlomo Ben-Ami told Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: "You are barely 4 million Muslim Palestinians and pretend to represent one billion Muslims regarding the Temple Mount. Clinton's proposals are historic and you are about to miss another opportunity:" I added that Arafat placed the Muslim agenda before the national Palestinian agenda. "Your national agenda is held hostage in the hands of the Muslim agenda and you will pay a heavy price for this...."529

The following year Arafat criticized Hamas and Islamic Jihad for acting independently and ignoring his authority. Two days later, Arafat proclaimed:

"With God's help, next time we will meet in Jerusalem, because we are fighting to bring victory to our prophets, every baby, every kid, every man, every woman and every old person and all the young people, we will all sacrifice ourselves for our holy places and we will strengthen our hold of them and we are willing to give 70 of our martyrs for every one of theirs in this campaign, because this is our holy land. We will continue to fight for this blessed land and I call on you to stand strong."

Hamas, in particular, had forced Arafat and Fatah to eschew political rhetoric for Islamic language that played to the masses. When he agreed to the Oslo agreement with Israel, Arafat alienated the Islamists, who vehemently opposed any accommodation with Israel, which they insisted was a cancer that had to be excised from the region. The PLO responded to criticisms about its lack of commitment to Islam, and the growing popularity of Hamas, by adopting Islamic references and imagery in its rhetoric. For example, in a speech in Bethlehem, Yasser Arafat aroused his listeners by chanting "Struggle, struggle, struggle, struggle. Combat, combat, combat, combat. Jihad, Jihad, Jihad, Jihad." 530 Terrorists captured or killed by Israel became martyrs for Islam; calls to liberate al-Aqsa became more common; and the PLO's "military" arm was named the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, which engaged in terror attacks that were just as heinous as those conducted by Hamas.

Following Arafat's rejection of a Palestinian state at the summit with Clinton, an uprising was launched by Arafat and referred to as the al-Aqsa intifada. This and other references to the al-Aqsa mosque date back to the 1920s when the Mufti of Jerusalem incited the masses by accusing the Jews of plotting to destroy it. Since then, this libel has been a recurrent theme; whenever a Palestinian leader finds himself in trouble, he need only accuse the Jews of threatening the mosque and Muslims will riot against Jewish worshippers (as occurred during the middle of July 2014. Abbas hopes that publicizing a threat to the mosque the Muslim world will be enraged and mobilize a jihad against Israel).

Despite such claims over the last 100 years, and the fears of American Arabists who justify keeping the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv out of a misguided fear of a Muslim uproar, the Muslim world has done little more than issue condemnations and ask the U.N. to censure Israel's actions. While the al-Aqsa mosque is revered as the third holiest shrine in Islam, no current Muslim leader is prepared to go to war today over the dubious accusations of the Palestinian leaders.

Abbas has followed in his mentor's footsteps in adopting radical Islamic rhetoric and behavior. Examples abound, but here are just a few:

The PA continues to misinform its youth in schools and demonize Jews in textbooks and the media.

In a poetry segment on a Friday morning talk show on PA TV (which is controlled by Abbas), a poet recited a poem cursing the Jews as "the most evil among creations, "barbaric monkeys" and "wretched pigs." The poem has been featured several times on PA TV, sometimes recited by young school children.531

The PA Minister of Religious Affairs, Mahmoud Al-Habbash, said all of the Western Wall and Jerusalem belong to the Palestinians. He speciously claimed that "no person besides Muslims ever used it [the Western Wall] as a place of worship throughout all of the Jewish nation's history."532

Besides the statements, which some might dismiss as rhetoric, the Palestinian Authority has taken the more practical step of establishing Islam as the official religion of "Palestine," which contradicts the fantasies of liberal supporters of the Palestinians who believe their future state, unlike all the other Muslim states, will be a liberal democracy. To the contrary, one need only look at the authoritarian rule of the "moderate" Abbas for a foreshadowing of things to come. Abbas has repeatedly cancelled elections and stayed in office 5 years beyond the end of his term; Abbas does not allow freedom of speech, assembly or religion. Critics of the regime are jailed or, in some cases, executed. Women's rights are a slight improvement of those in Gaza, but honor killings and other abuses remain common. Similarly, gays are persecuted based on Koranic prohibitions forbidding homosexuality. Putting aside the threat of a radical Islamic state on Israel's border, the threat to the liberties of Palestinians are also at stake if the Palestinians are allowed to create another Sharia-based state.

If anyone doubts the conflict is not primarily religious, with Islamic intolerance the greatest obstacle to peace, simply listen to Abbas. In July 2014, Abbas explicitly said the war with Israel is a "war for Allah," a remark that set off renewed attacks by Palestinians against Jews in Jerusalem.533

MYTH:

The Palestinian's Peace Negotiator wants peace.

FACT

For many years, the chief peace negotiator for the Palestinian Authority has been Saeb Erekat, an urbane, articulate spokesperson for the Palestinian cause. Unfortunately, he is also a serial liar who has taken Joseph Goebbels concept of the "Big Lie" to a new low.

One of the most shocking things is not Erekat's lies, but the willingness of the media to continue to give him a forum to spread them. It is fair to ask why the media does not challenge his fabrications and, more to the point, why they continue to treat him as a credible spokesperson.

Joseph Goebbels said:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

When it comes to telling big lies, Erekat is the master of the whopper. Here are just a few examples:

In April 2002 Erekat told CNN that at least 500 people were massacred and 1,600 people, including women and children, were missing in Jenin after Israeli forces launched an operation to wipe out the terror network in the city. Erekat produced no evidence and the Palestinians' own review committee later reported a death toll of 56, of whom 34 were combatants. No women or children were reported missing. 534

In November 2007, just as peace talks were going to begin in Annapolis, Erekat attempted to delegitimize Israel by making the remarkable statement that "no state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity." 536  He apparently failed to read the draft constitution for "Palestine" or the PA's Basic Law, which declare Islam the state religion of Palestine. Islam is also the state religion more than 20 countries. Nations with predominantly Muslim populations are not the only ones to link their national and religious identity. At least 14 nations constitutionally recognize Christianity or Catholicism as their state religion. Bhutan and Cambodia are officially Buddhist nations. 535

In 2011, Erekat said Israel was illegally demolishing the Shepherd Hotel building in Jerusalem to "ethnically cleanse Jerusalem from its Palestinian inhabitants, culture and history."537 The building served as an Israeli district court after 1967 and then as a border police station before being privately purchased by an American businessman who kept it vacant for almost a decade. A planned apartment complex on the site was to have no effect on Arab residents or other buildings; moreover, the site was never considered a Palestinian cultural heritage spot.

Pinocchio would have been envious of Erekat's February 2014 invention of a connection between his family and the Canaanites to prove the Palestinians predated the Jews in the land of Israel. Palestinians periodically make this claim but no evidence links them to the ancient people who disappeared in the sands of time. In fact, Arabs have lived in the area for roughly 1,000 years, not more than 5,000 as he claims. Moreover, a large percentage of today's Palestinians, including Erekat, are descendants of tribes from other Arab lands. In Erekat's case, his family Facebook page said the family came from a tribe that lives in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They moved to Palestine in 1860. (video)

In September 2014, Erekat asserted that during Operation Protective Edge, launched to stop the thousands of rocket and missile attacks by Hamas terrorists, Israel killed 12,000 Palestinians, wounded another 12,000, and 96 percent of the casualties were civilians. Not even Israel's worst detractors cite numbers remotely related to Erekat's. The UN, for example, said the death toll was 2,100 and maintained that three-quarters were civilians. Israel, however, insists that roughly 1,000 of those killed were associated with Hamas or other terror groups. 538

Fittingly, Erekat has come up with his own version of the "big lie" and proved to be a master of the technique. "There's a saying," he said, "that if you don't stop a man who is lying after 24 hours, the lies turn into facts." 539

It is hard to see how Israel can be expected to reach a peace agreement with a Palestinian negotiator who repeatedly tells monumental lies about Israel. How can someone so unscrupulous be trusted? And how can journalists continue to listen to his lies and repeat them.

MYTH:

All nations have the same policy about avoiding civilian casualties in war.

FACT

Israel is pilloried each time non-combatants die inadvertently when measures are taken to defend its citizens. The world does not seem to care that the enemy Israel is fighting uses its own people as human shields, which makes it impossible to attack the terrorists targeting Israeli civilians without the possibility of injuring the innocent. The world also does not give Israel credit for taking unprecedented wartime steps to warn civilians. Meanwhile, the same countries that condemn Israel hypocritically use whatever measures are necessary to kill their enemies and rarely apologize for the collateral damage they cause.

Little regard was given for civilian casualties during World War II when Dresden was fire bombed or nuclear weapons were dropped on Japan. In fact, the strategy was, in part, to kill so many civilians that the Axis powers would capitulate. Imagine if Israel adopted a similar approach and deliberately carpet bombed Palestinian cities and caused tens of thousands of casualties. Such a policy might also cause the Palestinians to give up their terror campaigns and to oust the leaders who brought the rain of fire upon them. Israel, however, does not fight this way; the moral code of the IDF, which reflects that of Israeli society, does not allow for such a policy.

During the Bush administration, the United States adopted Colin Powell's doctrine, which holds that "America should enter fights with every bit of force available or not at all." When tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died in the Gulf Wars, you did not hear any handwringing among the coalition partners or condemnation from the United Nations.

The double standard was even clearer in 2002 when American officials condemned Israel because a number of civilians died when Israel assassinated a leader of Hamas. The same day the United States bombed a village in Afghanistan in an operation directed at a Taliban leader that instead killed 48 Afghan civilians at a wedding party. In both cases, flawed intelligence played a role.

In 2013, the Obama administration seemed to reject the Powell Doctrine when it adopted a policy that required "near certainty" that there will be no civilian casualties before an air attack would be permitted. This was after the disclosure that many civilians were killed in American drone strikes.

The Obama policy did not last a year before the reality of warfare intervened. On September 10, 2014, Obama announced a new policy that left no room for nuance: "Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL." 540

When the coalition bombing campaign against ISIL began in Iraq, no prior warnings, "knocks on the roof," or calls for civilians to evacuate the area were issued to minimize civilian casualties, as Israel had done during Operation Protective Edge. In fact, the White House acknowledged that the strict standards President Obama imposed do not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.

Following a report that women and children were among the casualties when a Tomahawk missile struck the village of Kafr Daryan in Syria's Idlib province, a National Security Council spokesperson said the "near certainty" standard was intended to apply "only when we take direct action 'outside areas of active hostilities.'" She said that description "simply does not fit what we are seeing on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now."

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican who was briefed on U.S. operations said he heard about civilian casualties, acknowledged that "nothing is perfect." Moreover, he said the death of non-combatants in U.S. strikes are "much less than the brutality of the Assad regime."541

By contrast, Israel has never abandoned the policy of doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, often putting its own soldiers in harm's way to do so, as was the case in 2002, when Israel suffered 23 casualties using ground troops to root out terrorists in Jenin when it could have simply flattened the area with bombs. On many occasions - some captured on video - Israeli pilots abort missions when civilians are in the area. Israel does not use its full might as the Powell Doctrine dictates; its use of force is judicious and precise. In wartime, mistakes are sometimes made because of faulty intelligence or inaccurate targeting, but Israel takes responsibility and investigates these incidents to prevent their recurrence.

Legal expert Alan Dershowitz argues that Israel should not be held to an unattainable standard; rather, new realistic and moral criteria need to be adopted for judging nations that are fighting the kind of terrorism represented by ISIS and Hamas. Dershowitz says they must apply "equally to the U.S., to Israel and to all nations committed both to the rule of law and to the obligation to protect citizens from terrorist attacks."542

MYTH:

Iran has moderated its hostility and should be an ally in the fight against ISIS.

FACT

The "sudden" discovery that ISIS is a threat to the region and beyond has led the United States and others to rush into alliances with countries that espouse policies that are not significantly different from ISIS. The regional fight with ISIS is not only about territory and power, it is also a continuation of the centuries old conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.

As a Sunni group, ISIS has naturally drawn the wrath of Shiites, particularly in Iraq and Iran (and by extension their Lebanese proxies, Hezbollah). Even Sunni nations are afraid of ISIS, however, because of its declared goal of establishing a caliphate (which they've already declared) with its leaders as rulers. Consequently, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States have joined the coalition to stop ISIS.

The irony is that Saudi Arabia is also a radical Islamic state that has been attempting to spread its influence around the world in a nonviolent jihad that involves the indoctrination of Muslims in the Wahhabi brand of Islam. Simultaneously, the Saudis work to undermine Western values, interests, and security.

We've also learned that Qatar has become one of the leading financiers for terrorists. As patrons of Hamas, for example, they are underwriting a terrorist organization that shares with ISIS the goal of spreading Islam around the globe until it becomes the dominant religion.

The most serious breach in the wall against Muslim extremism, however, is the ongoing discussions with Iran about its potential role in fighting ISIS. Iran does have an interest in defeating ISIS because it is threatening Shiite domination of Iraq and Iranian patronage of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that Iran's leaders are just as brutal and fanatical as ISIS, and have for decades sought to spread their revolution across the region as a prelude to what they hope will ultimately result in the global domination of Islam. Unlike ISIS, Iran already controls a large nation with a formidable army, and is, along with the Saudis (and now the Qataris), the leading sponsor of international terror. While ISIS is collecting conventional weapons as it overruns Iraqi military positions, Iran continues to seek a nuclear weapon.

The war against ISIS has distracted the United States and the West from the ongoing Iranian danger and played into Tehran's strategy of stringing out negotiations for as long as possible while continuing to develop a nuclear weapons capability. News reports have suggested that the Obama Administration, after already lifting the supposedly "crippling" sanctions, is now backing away from an insistence that all enrichment of uranium be halted and the centrifuges involved in the process destroyed. Caving in to Iranian demands to retain the ability to quickly assemble the components of a bomb would create a far greater threat to the world than ISIS poses. 543

And if anyone believes that Iran's positions have dramatically changed under the "moderate" president Hassan Rouhani, consider remarks made by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called on the Muslim world to unite and wage a war against "the enemies of Islam, chief among them Israel." He also predicted that "the Zionist regime and its supporters will one day go into extinction." Khamenei insisted that ISIS and al-Qaida are "creations of the West, particularly the Americans and their allies in the region..."544

Defeating ISIS is vital to preventing the spread of one radical Islamic party, but it will not eliminate the broader Islamist threat posed by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and some of the countries we have chosen as allies.

MYTH:

Palestinians Support the boycott and divestment movements against Israel.

FACT

In an effort to delegitimize, isolate and ultimately destroy Israel, organizations around the world have called on universities, governments, labor unions and co-ops to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel (termed the BDS movement). Supporters claim that international pressure through the BDS movement will help the Palestinian people achieve independence.385 However, BDS advocates do not support a Palestinian state coexisting beside Israel, do not help individual Palestinian businesses and do not represent the views of the Palestinian Authority or even most Palestinians living in the territories.

 Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, told South African journalists, "We do not ask anyone to boycott Israel itself... We have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel." 448

Palestinians actively engage in trade with the Israeli government. The Palestinian Authority shares a variety of cooperative agreements with Israel in nearly 40 spheres of activity, from joint security measures to environmental protection and conservation. In 2008, Israel's Histadrut labor union signed an agreement with the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions to advance common goals and build fraternity. In August 2012, then-PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz signed a series of bilateral trade agreements that took effect January 2013 and marked an important step in bolstering economic ties between Israel and the PA.386 Overall, Israeli-Palestinian trade (import/export of goods & services) totals nearly $4 billion annually.387

Palestinians also work with Israelis in business and industry. In September 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to increase the number of work permits - to 40,000 - for Palestinians in the territories who work for various companies inside Israel proper.388 What is especially ironic is that while the PA's leaders constantly complain about Israeli settlements, at least 30,000 Palestinians work in those settlements, helped construct them or supplied some of the building materials.389 A survey conducted by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics found that Palestinians working for Israeli businesses are paid more than twice the salary that their peers receive from Palestinian employers.

In an article in the Palestinian Authority mouthpiece, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Israel was praised for its treatment of Palestinian workers. "whenever Palestinian workers have the opportunity to work for Israeli employers," the article noted, "they are quick to quit their jobs with their Palestinian employers" because "the salaries of workers employed by Palestinians amount to less than half the salaries of those who work for Israeli employers" in the West Bank. Furthermore, the paper reported "the work conditions are very good, and include transportation, medical insurance and pensions. These things do not exist with Palestinian employers."545

An Arabic TV broadcast on Al-Hura also reported on the positive relations between Israeli employers and Palestinian workers. "There are 10 large industrial centers in Judea and Samaria, in which some 15,000 Palestinians work side by side with Israeli employees," according to Aryeh Savir of United With Israel. "At Barkan alone, 3,000 Palestinians are employed together with 3,000 Israeli employees. They work together, earning the same wages, enjoying the same social benefits, vacation days and pensions as prescribed by Israeli law. They go on trips together. Coexistence between the two peoples happens here, and all are awarded with a good and respectable livelihood." 545

Moreover, Palestinians invest in Israel. Statistical data from 2011 shows that private Palestinian investment in Israeli companies - notably hi-tech and industry - amounted to roughly $2.5 billion, more than double the Palestinian investment within the West Bank.390 For example, Hani Alami, a leader in the Palestinian telecommunications industry, bought 30 percent of the Israeli company Alvarion. Israeli Arab Hisham Adnan Raya, a construction magnate, was an angel investor in the Israeli web design company Webydo.391

Ironically, the founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, does not personally boycott Israel - he obtained a Master's Degree and, since 2009, has been pursuing a Doctorate at Israel's Tel Aviv University.392 He is just one of thousands of Palestinians who study at Israeli colleges and institutions.

While BDS advocates try to paint Israel as a demonic country practicing the type of discrimination associated with old South Africa, tens of thousands of Palestinians enjoy the benefits of working, studying and investing with Israelis. Their livelihoods and good relations with their Israeli neighbors are threatened by misguided European efforts to punish Israel for settlement construction and the broader BDS campaign, which begs the question: If Palestinians don't support BDS, who does the movement represent?

MYTH:

Israel denies medical treatment to its enemies.

FACT

Even as Israel is being pilloried by certain organizations for alleged human rights violations against its neighbors, Israel has welcomed the sick and injured from many of those same countries. Today, near the Syrian border, for example, Israel has been taking in people at a medical station set up to aid refugees of the Syrian Civil War. Though this is the type of humanitarian gesture that is routine for Israel, and could burnish its image, little has been said about the clinic to protect the Syrians who return home and are afraid to admit they were under the care of Israelis.

During Operation Cast Lead, Hamas set up a hospital for the exclusive use of its fighters, and supplied the facility by stealing medical supplies entering Gaza from aid organizations 546. By contrast, thousands of Gazans have been admitted to Israeli medical facilities.

Terrorists have tried to exploit Israel's good will by masquerading as patients and ambulance drivers. In 2005, for example, Wafa Samir Ibrahim Bas was arrested attempting to smuggle an explosives belt through the Erez crossing. Bas had been admitted on humanitarian grounds to Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva several months earlier for treatment of massive burns she received in a cooking accident. After her arrest, she admitted that the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade had instructed her to use her personal medical authorization documents to enter into Israel to carry out a suicide attack547

Despite the risks, Israel set up a medical facility just outside the Gaza Strip during Operation Protective Edge, and allowed many Palestinians to receive urgent care they could not have found in Gaza or other parts of the Arab world. This was just another way that Israel made every effort to protect the Palestinian civilian population without getting any international recognition for its efforts. Meanwhile, Hamas built its military command center underneath Shifa Hospital (ironically, built by Israel for the safety of the Gazan population) so it could be used as a shield against Israeli attacks.

During calmer periods, Israel allows thousands of Palestinians to come to Israel to take advantage of the world-class physicians there. In 2012, more than 200,000 patients, 21,270 of them children, were given permits to obtain medical care in Israel.548

Israel's health care is so good that even Israel's most uncompromising enemies set aside their animus for the sake of getting family members the help they need. Shockingly, leaders of Hamas, who spend their time devising terror attacks against Israel and are committed to its destruction, look to Israel when their families are sick. For example, in 2012, Ismail Haniyeh's brother-in-law was treated for a cardiac problem and, in 2014, his mother-in-law went to Jerusalem for treatment and one of his children was admitted to Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv. The previous year, one of Haniyeh's granddaughters was treated in Israel.549 The sister of another senior Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzouk, was also treated in Israel for cancer 550

More regular access to advanced medical care is only one of many benefits the Palestinians could derive from peace with Israel. If members of Hamas can set aside their enmity for the sake of family members, perhaps the Palestinian leadership will recognize that their people could all benefit from coexisting with Israel.

MYTH:

Muslims recognize the Temple Mount as sacrosanct to Muslims and Jews.

FACT

Denying the Jewish connection to Jerusalem typically takes three forms: It is said that Jews were present in the city for a short period and therefore they have no claim to sovereignty over the city; that the Temple of Solomon was actually an ancient Muslim building or did not exist at all; and that the Western Wall is sacred to Muslims and did not become a place of veneration for Jews until the nineteenth century. These are recent Palestinian propaganda points designed to erase the Jewish connection to the city, but the Supreme Muslim Council published a guide to the Temple Mount in 1924 that acknowledged it was the site of Solomon's Temple.

For now, Jerusalem remains a rallying point for Palestinians and other Muslims. The "al-Aqsa is in danger libel," as Nadav Shragai calls it,551 dates back at least to the 1920s, when the mufti of Jerusalem used the lie to incite the masses. Even more secular Palestinians use Islamic imagery to rally the masses. For example, Fatah's terror organization is called the Al-Aqsa Brigades and the second intifada, which was planned by the PLO, is referred to as the "Al-Aqsa Intifada."

Eighty years after Haj Amin el-Husseini challenged the Jews' right to live in their homeland and their connection to Jerusalem, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Akrama Sabri, made similar claims. He complained that Muslims hadn't sacrificed enough to liberate al-Aqsa. Like the former Mufti, Sabri is a rabid anti-Semite who said that he is "filled with wrath toward the Jews," who he believed were scheming to take over not only Palestine but the whole world, and that he "never wished a Jew peace."552

It is not surprising that Muslims outside Israel have also used al-Aqsa as a rallying point. The Muslim Brotherhood's Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for example, said "the danger to al-Aqsa is now greater than ever . . . and hence the Muslims of the world must arise and defend it because it is not the property of the Palestinians alone but of the whole Muslim nation."553

Israel has done extensive research along the length of the Western Wall and a short distance from the southern side of the Temple Mount. Whenever Israel engages in any excavations, however, Muslims protest. The most serious brouhaha arose in 1996 after Israel completed digging along the entire length of the Western Wall, revealing two-thousand year old stones where the street had once been. The entire project was completely outside the Temple Mount and nowhere near the mosques. Nevertheless, the Muslim authorities claimed the Jews were digging under the mount with the intention of destroying the mosques or at least undermining their foundations. While the work had been going on for some time, the spark that led to widespread rioting and international condemnation was Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to open an exit from what is now referred to as the Western Wall tunnel, at a point along the Via Dolorosa in the Muslim Quarter of the city.

The exit was opened in the middle of the night in the hope of minimizing the reaction, but Arafat and others criticized Israel and the Arab League repeated the libel by claiming "Israel's aim in opening this gate is to cause the collapse of the al-Aqsa Mosque, so that it can build the Third Temple in its stead."554 Palestinians rioted and attacks on soldiers and civilians resulted in the deaths of 15 Israeli soldiers and dozens of injuries. Forty Palestinians died in the melee and hundreds more were injured.

Muslims have not let up in perpetuating the "al-Aqsa libel" or in contending that every Israeli action in the area of the Temple Mount is an affront to Islam. In 2004, for example, the only access for non-Muslims to the Temple Mount, a ramp leading to the Mughrabi Gate, partially collapsed. Israel wanted to replace the old ramp with a sturdier permanent one. Once again, Palestinian and Muslim officials accused Israel of destroying a "historical pathway to the al-Aqsa Mosque" and new plots against the mosque itself even though the ramp was outside the mount. Israel brought in experts, including representatives of UNESCO to testify to the fact that a new ramp would not cause any damage to the Mount, nevertheless, the uproar led Israel to make a number of compromises regarding excavations in the area. The date for replacing the ramp was delayed and when the Arab Spring began, it was postponed indefinitely out of fear that it might provoke a reaction from Muslims in Egypt and Jordan and further destabilize the two countries with whom Israel shared a peace treaty. Ultimately, the old ramp was renovated and fortified, but the plan for replacing it was delayed indefinitely.

In 2013, Palestinians complained about Israeli excavations that posed no danger to the Temple Mount but were labelled as an attempt "to Judaize Jerusalem and [cause] the collapse of al-Aqsa Mosque to build the so-called second temple on ruins of it."555 Tensions escalated when Palestinians began to protest and, in some cases, attack Jews visiting the Temple Mount with stones, bottles, and other projectiles. They claimed Jews desecrate Islam's holy place and plan to build the third temple on the site.
On February 25, 2014, the PA Minister of Religious Affairs, Mahmoud Al-Habbash, told a television interviewer that Israel plans to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.556 The repetition of the libel rarely has anything to do with the behavior of Jews; it inevitably is used for a political purpose, such as rallying the masses, provoking violence, or diverting attention from some unpopular actions taken by Palestinian leaders.

Jews, like other non-Muslims, have been visiting the Temple Mount since 1967. The Israeli government limits visits by non-Jews to specific times and also insists that visitors show sensitivity to Muslims by dressing modestly and refraining from bringing any Jewish sacred objects or conducting any public prayers. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that Jews may pray at the Temple Mount, but police were given the discretion to prevent any provocative activities. Most Orthodox Jews do not go to the area because their rabbinical authorities have said they should not step foot in an area where the Ark of the Covenant may have been kept (no one knows for sure where the inner sanctum of the Temple was located on the Temple Mount) and only the high priest was is permitted to enter. Israeli politicians have on occasion been barred from going to the area when security officials anticipate the visits might cause disturbances. Extremist Jewish groups suspected of plotting against Muslim shrines are either prohibited from the Temple Mount altogether or escorted by police. When plots against the mosque have been uncovered, the schemers have been arrested.
Occasionally, for security reasons, Israel bars or limits Muslim visitors to the Temple Mount. The rest of the time the area is accessible to Muslims, even those who come from countries that are technically at war with Israel, such as Anwar Sadat, who prayed at al-Aqsa mosque on his visit to Jerusalem. On major Muslim holidays, especially Ramadan, tens of thousands of Muslims pray on the Temple Mount.

In September 2013, Jordan condemned Israel for building a platform for women and other non-Orthodox worshippers who wanted a place to pray according to their own customs. Ultra-Orthodox Jews control the Western Wall plaza and impose restrictions on worshippers there. They insist, for example, that men and women pray on separate sides of a barrier and bar women from singing or wearing prayer shawls or yarmulkes. Jordan claimed the platform was built in the courtyard of the al-Aqsa Mosque complex and represented a "flagrant" attack on historical Islamic sites and should be removed. In fact, the platform was built in an archaeological park south of the Temple Mount and is nowhere near the mosque or any other Islamic sites or places of prayer.557
Meanwhile, the Temple Mount and the mosque are used for propaganda and to raise funds. For example, inside al-Aqsa, glass display cases exhibit tear gas shells used by the Israeli police to quell riots during the first intifada. An Arab security guard said they were used "to make visitors sympathize and give donations." Despite large amounts of contributions, the area is not well maintained, raising questions about where the money from individuals and Muslim countries actually goes. Other members of the security staff pointed out scaffoldings that are not really used for maintenance, but are instead shown to donors to suggest that money is needed for repairs. "Look at the donation boxes here; they collect an average of one million shekels ($284,000) per month. We have no idea where that money goes. The poor and the needy never see any of it."558

Salah leads the northern branch of the Islamic Movement, a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist organization that has called for violence against Jews at the Temple Mount and warned Palestinian leaders in the West Bank not to make any concessions to Israel. He is a provocateur who served a prison sentence for funding Hamas and meeting with an Iranian intelligence agent. He was also held for five months after assaulting an Israeli police officer and inciting violence. He was convicted of incitement again in November 2013 because of a statement he made calling for all Arabs to use violence in support of the Palestinians and to "initiate an Islamic intifada from sea to sea, in support of the holy Jerusalem and the blessed al-Aqsa mosque." Protesters listening to his speech subsequently attacked police and chanted, "With blood we will redeem you, al-Aqsa." His conviction was, more specifically, for his use of the ancient blood libel: he referred to children in Europe, "whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the holy bread."559
As the mufti attempted nearly a century earlier, Palestinian Islamic extremists, as well as "secular moderates" such as Mahmoud Abbas continue to stoke the religious war between Muslims and Jews. They hope to incite a new Palestinian uprising and, ideally, to inspire Arab and Islamic armies to go to war to prevent the Jews from destroying the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque.

MYTH:

European recognition of 'Palestine' will advance the peace process.

FACT

The Palestinians have tried to win statehood by doing everything but making concessions in face-to-face negotiations with Israelis that would give the Palestinians independence and grant peace and security to Israel.

From 1948 until the 1967 War, the Palestinians hoped that the Arab states would drive the Jews into the sea. They seriously miscalculated, however, and the outcomes of both wars left them in worse shape than if they had accepted the UN partition decision. The Palestinians' delusions were fed by the statements of Arab leaders that created the misperception (which persists to this day) that the Arab states care about their fate. In fact, the Palestinians have always been despised by most of their fellow Arabs and viewed as pawns in the larger geopolitical struggle involving Arabs, Muslims, Jews, Israelis, Christians and the West.

Thus, when the Arab states invaded Israel in 1948, they did so for purely selfish purposes; that is, the desire to carve up Palestine among themselves. Israel managed to prevent the invaders from completely overrunning their new state; however, the Gaza Strip was seized by Egypt and Judea and Samaria by Jordan. The fact that neither country was prepared to permit the creation of a Palestinian state on their watch is further evidence of their disinterest in Palestinian independence. During the 19 years of Jordan's occupation, the Palestinians made no demands for statehood and King Hussein showed no interest in conceding the territory he conquered, including East Jerusalem, to the Palestinians. Moreover, when the PLO challenged Jordanian rule in 1970, King Hussein's forces killed approximately 5,000 Palestinians and expelled Yasser Arafat and his minions.

Recognizing that their Arab brethren would not, and could not, dislodge Israel from the region, the Palestinians undertook a more intensive campaign of terror, targeting Jews in Israel and abroad in a futile effort to "liberate Palestine."  Even after a worldwide terror campaign, two uprisings and a series of engagements with Israeli forces, such as 2014's Operation Protective Edge, Palestinian terrorists have been equally unable to displace Israel.

The Palestinians have now embarked on a new strategy, one less dependent on the support of their Arab brethren and more focused on the frustration, impatience, guilt and anger of the international community toward Israeli policies. The Palestinians first went to the UN General Assembly, where they enjoy a guaranteed majority that would adopt a resolution that the earth is flat if it was introduced by the Palestinian delegation. In 2013, the General Assembly agreed to recognize "Palestine," which opened the door to greater participation in the UN as well as access to a host of UN agencies.

General Assembly resolutions are nonbinding, and its actions have changed nothing on the ground, consequently, the Palestinians are now threatening to seek Security Council recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 "borders" with East Jerusalem as the capital. They believe they have the votes to win so long as the United States does not exercise its veto. President Obama has said that he would veto such a resolution; however, he now holds tremendous leverage over the Israelis. If Israel does not cooperate with the United States, Obama can decide not to use a veto, which would allow the expected Council majority to recognize "Palestine."  Once this binding resolution is adopted, the Palestinians will ask for sanctions to coerce Israeli compliance. Ultimately, they hope that draconian UN measures will force Israel to capitulate to Palestinian demands and, ideally, destroy the Jewish state.

The Palestinians also hope European recognition will pressure Obama to do the same. Already, Sweden has recognized "Palestine" while London's Parliament voted to encourage the British government to do the same. Ireland and Spain are also considering recognition and France has scheduled a vote on recognition for November 28, 2014. These unilateral decisions to recognize "Palestine" are not only ill-advised but dangerous. 560

First, political recognition will raise Palestinian expectations, which will go unfulfilled, because declarations by the United Nations or individual countries will change nothing on the ground since Israel will not change its posture regarding land, sovereignty and security. This will only exacerbate existing Palestinian frustrations that have often led to violence.

Second, unilateral steps by the international community reinforce the Palestinian belief that Israel can be coerced to capitulate to their demands by outside forces. This relieves the Palestinians of the need to negotiate directly with Israel and to make the concessions that will be required to turn declarations of statehood into full-fledged independence.

Over the last seven years the Palestinian expectation that President Obama would "deliver" Israel has had just these effects. The Palestinians have eschewed direct talks, rejected compromises and resorted to terrorism; yet, they are no closer to statehood. International recognition of "Palestine" is another recipe for failure and violence.

MYTH:

Following Operation Protective Edge Hamas abandoned its goal of destroying Israel.

FACT

Though Hamas took a severe beating during Operation Protective Edge, losing more than 500 fighters, thousands of rockets and a number of key leaders, the group remains unflinching in its determination to destroy Israel. Rather than focus on helping the people of Gaza rebuild, Hamas immediately began preparing to fight again.

On December 14, 2014, Hamas celebrated its 27th anniversary with a parade of 2,000 of its armed fighters and trucks carrying long range rockets and launchers as well as a drone with Hamas markings. Khalil Al Hayya, a senior Hamas leader, told the assembled crowd, "This illusion called Israel will be removed."561

Iran, which shares the same goal, has been helping Hamas to rebuild its arsenal. Speaking at the parade, Abu Ubaida, the spokesman for the group's armed wing, the Qassem Brigades, praised Iran for supplying Hamas with money and weapons. Some of these weapons may be rockets that Hamas has been firing from Gaza into the sea, presumably to test their accuracy and range in preparation for future attacks on Israel. 562

As most analysts predicted, the "reconciliation" of Palestinian factions has failed to materialize and their rivalry has intensified. Israel and the international community had hoped the Palestinian Authority would take over control of Gaza following Hamas' defeat; however, Hamas continues to prevent that from happening. In fact, the internecine fighting has continued, with Hamas and Fatah arresting and killing each other's members. This was exemplified by Israel's discovery of a plot by Hamas members in the West Bank to stage a coup against the government of Mahmoud Abbas. The presence of Israeli security forces in the West Bank probably saved not only his government but his life. 563

It is not only Israel and Fatah that are concerned with Hamas; Egypt also views the organization as a threat. Egyptian troops have been attacked in the Sinai by Hamas terrorists and the group has used tunnels for years to smuggle weapons and other goods from Egypt into Gaza. Consequently, Egypt has been destroying tunnels and building an underground metal wall to prevent future infiltrations.564  With Israel’s permission, Egypt has also deployed more troops to the Sinai to fight Hamas and other Islamist militants. 565

MYTH:

The Palestinian application to join the International Criminal Court is a response to Israel's failure to negotiate peace.

FACT

The records of Israel and the Palestinian Authority toward negotiations are well known. Israel has consistently called for direct negotiations while PA president Mahmoud Abbas has refused to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (except for a brief encounter in 2009 when no talks were held) since he was elected in 2005.566

The election of Barack Obama stimulated new hope that the United States might finally force Israel to capitulate to their demands. The Palestinians were quickly disappointed, however, when it became clear that Obama was unable or unwilling to do so.

This lack of U.S. support prompted the Palestinians to forego even the pretense of interest in negotiations and to mount an international campaign to gain recognition for "Palestine" in hopes that the UN would impose a settlement on Israel based on Palestinian demands. Thanks to the automatic majority that supports every Palestinian initiative in the General Assembly, Palestine was recognized as a non-member observer state in 2012.

The Palestinian strategy ran into an American road block when President Obama vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to declare Israeli settlements illegal. The Palestinians then sought Security Council support for their demands for a state based on the 1967 borders (actually the 1948 armistice line) with Jerusalem as their capital and a number of other provisions opposed by Israel or requiring a negotiated solution. After Obama threatened to veto this measure, the Palestinians hoped to win a moral victory by securing the 9 votes needed to pass a resolution (barring a veto). They failed to do this, however, allowing the United States to vote against the resolution without casting a veto.567

Following this defeat, Abbas hoped to save face with his constituents by seeking to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) with the intention of asking the court to charge Israeli soldiers and politicians with war crimes. The ICC, which is an independent body unaffiliated with the UN, rejected an earlier effort by the PA to accept the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that it did not qualify as a state. Now, hoping to use UN recognition of its status, the PA is again seeking to become a member of the court.

Despite the Orwellian vote of the General Assembly, "Palestine" is not a state and should therefore again be rejected for membership in the ICC. It would be especially Orwellian for the ICC to accept a member whose leaders and associated militias have been actively engaged in war crimes.

Still, the record of international institutions standing up to the bullying of the Arab/Islamic bloc is not encouraging. In the event that the ICC does accept Palestine, however, Abbas may find himself wishing he'd engaged in negotiations.

First, nothing the ICC can do will bring the Palestinians one iota closer to statehood. At worst, the ICC could charge and potentially convict some Israelis of war crimes. The standard for such prosecutions, however, is high and, as became clear by the court's recent failure to convict Kenyan strongman Uhuru Kenyatta, it is unlikely that the court would have better luck finding fault with the democratically elected leaders of Israel or the IDF, about which Richard Kemp has said, "No army in the world acts with as much discretion and great care as the IDF in order to minimize damage." Israel can also be counted on to fight any prosecution vigorously and, like the United States, refuse to recognize the court's jurisdiction over its citizens.568

Second, Abbas has infuriated the United States, including many of his allies in the White House and State Department, by his disregard for President Obama's warnings and overall contempt toward U.S. policymakers. That attitude will come back to haunt him if the ICC accepts "Palestine's" membership because that will trigger U.S. legislation calling for the complete cutoff of economic aid to the PA, money Abbas desperately needs to keep his kleptocracy afloat.

Third, once coming under ICC jurisdiction, it will be possible for Israel to bring charges against the terrorists in "Palestine," for whom the evidence of war crimes is overwhelming. Rather than standing at the head of an independent state, Abbas may find himself in the dock facing imprisonment as a war criminal for his responsibility in inciting violence and for the rocket and terror attacks committed by members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah.

Finally, Alan Baker notes, "the Palestinians have knowingly and deliberately bypassed their contractual obligations pursuant to the Oslo Accords in an attempt to prejudge the main negotiating issues outside the negotiation." Israel has given no indication it is going to act, but the Palestinians' breach of the Oslo agreements would be justification for Israel "to declare that the Oslo Accords are no longer valid and to act unilaterally in order to protect its essential legal and security interests."569

MYTH:

The International Criminal Court will inevitably indict Israelis for war crimes in Gaza.

FACT

The Palestinians have applied for membership to the International Criminal Court with the intent of asking the ICC to charge Israeli soldiers and officials with war crimes. Since "Palestine" is not a state by any common definition of the term, it will be up to the ICC to decide if the fictional state of Palestine satisfies its criteria for membership, an outcome that is by no means assured.

Bringing charges before the court is also a difficult and time consuming process with no guarantee of success. In 12 years, the court has investigated 36 cases, some taking 10 years or more, and convicted only two war criminals.

Israel has more going for it than just the ineffectiveness of the ICC; it also has justice on its side. First, any accusations of misbehavior by Israeli troops are investigated by Israeli authorities, as is the case in other democracies. The cases brought before the ICC typically involve countries that do not have independent judiciaries or are otherwise unable to adjudicate their own cases.

Furthermore, Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza has been praised for the lengths the IDF went to avoid civilian casualties. Former undersecretary of defense Michele Flournoy, for example, thanked outgoing IDF chief of general staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz for guiding Israel through the Gaza war with "a compassionate hand."570

Col. Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, has spoken out repeatedly about the extraordinary conduct of the IDF. After Operation Protective Edge, he stated, "No army in the world acts with as much discretion and great care as the IDF in order to minimize damage. The US and the UK are careful, but not as much as Israel."571

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also commended the IDF: "I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties." He added that "the IDF is not interested in creating civilian casualties," and revealed that an American delegation visited Israel to learn from the IDF's experience in Gaza, including "the measures they took to prevent civilian casualties."572

The facts will not stop the Palestinians or their supporters from attempting to use the court to tarnish Israel's image and to make life more difficult for any accused Israelis. Nevertheless, even if the Palestinians overcome the various hurdles involving membership and the court's investigative process, it is unlikely any Israelis will be convicted of war crimes.

MYTH:

Muslims are encouraged to visit Israel and meet Israelis.

FACT

Most of the Muslim world has enforced a boycott against interacting with Jews dating back to before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. After the signing of peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, Israelis hoped that people from those two countries would become regular visitors; however, that never happened, in large part because of pressure from Muslims to avoid any contact with "Zionists." The few individuals who have defied the pressure have often found themselves ostracized when they returned home.

Even American Muslims are castigated for having the audacity to meet Israelis and see for themselves what life is like in Israel. The Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLI) was launched in 2013 under the initiative of Imam Abdullah Antepli of Duke University and Yossi Klein Halevi of the Hartman Institute of Jerusalem. The program invites North American Muslims to "explore how Jews understand Judaism, Israel, and Jewish peoplehood." The participants are also encouraged to "experience how Palestinian [Arabs], both inside and outside Israel, identify themselves."

The initiative has provoked criticism by promotors of the campaign to boycott Israel and others who claim the participants were being given an "Israeli propaganda tour." In addition to criticism, the Muslims who have the audacity to think for themselves and seek out their own answers to questions about the situation in Israel may now also become victims of a boycott. Reportedly, at least 43 pro-Palestinian or Muslim-American community organizations, and 200 independent activists, have signed a letter promising not to invite participants to speak, and calling for a "complete boycott" of the group.  Antepli explained the trip was meant to educate the participants. "My religion says even if knowledge is all the way in China, go and learn it." He added that he believed understanding religious Zionism was important if Muslims wanted to reach out to American Jews. 573

The taboo against meeting Israelis is so strictly enforced that a Muslim does not have to go to Israel to be attacked by their brethren; merely meeting or being photographed with an Israeli can be enough to trigger outrage and threats. Take the recent case of the seemingly innocuous selfie taken at the Miss Universe pageant in Miami by Israeli Doron Matalon. Miss Israel took a photo of herself with the representatives of Japan, Slovakia and Lebanon and posted it on Instagram. The image of the smiling Lebanese beauty, Saly Greige, beside an Israeli prompted an investigation by the Lebanese government that came with a warning of possible punishment for the crime of having contact with someone from the enemy state of Israel 574.   In response to calls for her withdrawal from the pageant, Greige claimed that Matalon jumped into the photo she was taking with the other beauty queens. Greige added that she had avoided being in any photo or communication with Miss Israel and cropped Matalon out of the picture when she posted it on her Instagram account.

MYTH:

A Palestinian state will not be part of the Islamic State's caliphate.

FACT

For years, supporters of a Palestinian state have falsely portrayed a future entity as secular and democratic. The autocratic rule of Yasser Arafat and now Mahmoud Abbas (whose term as president was due to expire six years ago, but has been prolonged by refusing to hold elections), combined with the suppression of the rights associated with democratic nations (freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press, women's rights, gay rights) is evidence a future Palestinian state is unlikely to be democratic. Similarly, the fact that no Arab state is secular is good reason to believe a Palestinian state will be Islamic. As radical Islamists gain more influence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it is increasingly possible that "Palestine" might be incorporated into the caliphate proclaimed by the Islamic State (a.k.a., ISIS, ISIL).

According to the draft constitution for a Palestinian state, the official religion will be Islam so there was never any possibility the state would be secular. The influence of the radical Muslims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, moreover, has raised the specter of an Iranian-style repressive Islamic state emerging. In fact, this already exists, minus sovereignty, in the Gaza Strip where Hamas rules with an Islamic fist according to its interpretation of Sharia law. Furthermore, the group's objective is to work with other Muslims to restore the Islamic empire and to expand it to encompass the entire world. 575

Hamas and Islamic Jihad have also been working to establish a foothold in the West Bank to overthrow Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, just as they did in Gaza, so it too is a part of their future Islamic state. They oppose Abbas' application for statehood to the United Nations, reject any negotiations with Israel and remain committed to Israel's destruction. The threat to Abbas is ongoing and he was likely saved from a coup and execution at the end of 2014 when Israeli intelligence foiled a Hamas plot. In truth, Abbas probably owes his life and the limited power he does have to Israel’s success in containing the growth of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the West Bank.

Now Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Islamic Jihad may face a far more dangerous threat arising from the infiltration and growth in popularity of ISIS. In November 2014, Israeli security forces nabbed a number of Palestinians in Hebron who created a terrorist cell affiliated with ISIS and were planning terrorist attacks. One suspect confessed that he planned to create the cell and to build explosives that could be thrown at IDF troops. Another suspect revealed that two members of the cell planned to murder a solider and use his weapon and uniform to carry out an attack. 576

We are now learning that Hamas and the Palestinian authority have known for some time that ISIS is infiltrating their strongholds in hopes of building enough support to take over both the West Bank and Gaza. This danger, combined with the bad publicity associated with revealing the ISIS presence, has led both groups to try to censor any news about the group, such as a protest by 2,000 supporters of ISIS who marched in Gaza City carrying Islamic State flags, denouncing the publication of cartoons of Muhammad in the Charlie Hebdo magazine and threatening to slaughter French nationals. Hamas tried to impose a news blackout, but photos of the demonstration were leaked to social media.

While Hamas may share the ideology of ISIS, it fears competition that may draw away its supporters with even more fiery rhetoric about the war on the infidels and the establishment of a caliphate rather than a Palestinian state. Hamas also worries that if the ISIS threat becomes known, Western countries and Arab states fighting ISIS will refuse to provide funds for reconstruction.

Abbas has multiple fears. First, he is afraid that knowledge of an ISIS presence will reduce support at the UN for the recognition of a Palestinian state. Second, by the same logic as Gaza, he could lose Western and Arab assistance if it becomes clear that aid may end up in the hands of ISIS. Third, the ISIS threat reduces the Israeli incentive for negotiations given that most Israelis were already skeptical of Abbas ability to deliver on any agreement and that any territorial concessions on the West Bank could lead to the creation of an extension of Gaza's Hamastan. Now Israelis have to take into account the even more frightening scenario of radical Islamists attacking the Golan Heights and ISIS seizing control of the West Bank, Gaza and possibly even Jordan.

Paradoxically, Abbas also has less incentive to negotiate with Israel because he knows that if "not for the IDF and various branches of the Israeli security establishment, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Islamic State would have toppled the Palestinian Authority and beheaded Abbas and his officials a long time ago." 577

Despite the new reality, will Israel continue to be pressured to capitulate to Palestinian officials' demands that endanger the state, even as those officials continue incite terror and reject negotiations or compromise? Will the West turn a blind eye to the growth of ISIS in the West Bank and Gaza the way it did the growth of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon?

The international community must decide whether to keep its head in the sand and continue the politically correct, but specious mantra that there is no radical Islam, and that Muslim terrorists have no connection to their faith. The recent policies of the major Western leaders have not been encouraging. Rather than pushing futile negotiations, or recognition of the non-existent state of Palestine, it is vital that these leaders make fighting against radical Islam and stopping Iran's nuclear program their top priorities.

MYTH:

Palestinians all support asking the UN to recognize “Palestine”.

FACT

Mahmoud Abbas is generally recognized as the leader of the Palestinians, and his views are assumed to reflect those of the people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as those living outside the territories; however, this is not true. Paradoxically, he has more support from the international community than he does from his own constituents.

Abbas has no mandate to speak for the Palestinians. Although he holds the title of president of the Palestinian Authority, he has not won an election since 2005 and has canceled all subsequent plebiscites because of the fear he would lose. Thus, he has essentially declared himself a dictator like Moammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad (although they at least held sham elections every few years).

It comes as no great surprise that Hamas pilloried Abbas for engaging in a diplomatic initiative that theoretically replaced the goal of liberating all of Palestine by force. What was more shocking, however, and further evidence of the true state of Abbas' power (as well as reinforcing the Israeli belief that he couldn't negotiate a peace agreement even if he wanted to), was the opposition from factions within the PLO, including his own Fatah party. Illustrating Abbas's autocratic rule, Jamal 0Muheissen, a member of Fatah's Central Committee, complained that he and his colleagues learned about the proposed Security Council resolution from the internet; it was never approved by Fatah.

Despite the fact that the proposed resolution conceded nothing to Israel, and was a purposeful strategy to avoid negotiating with Israel, critics accused him of treason, turning his back on his people and making dangerous concessions to Israel. Five Palestinian groups, two of which are members along with Fatah of the PLO, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Popular Front-General Command (PFLP-GC) and Al-Sai'qa, joined Hamas and Islamic Jihad in calling on Abbas to withdraw the resolution, eschew negotiations and "pursue resistance in all its forms."

Reiterating the longstanding position of Hamas, its leader Mahmoud Zahar said, "This Palestinian resolution is catastrophic and has no future on the land of Palestine. The future belongs to the resistance. We will continue to work to liberate all the land and achieve the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Hamas will not accept anything less than all the lands that were occupied in 1948." 578

Members of the Security Council would be wise to pay less attention to the impotent and unpopular Abbas and more to his opponents' intent on sabotaging any diplomatic undertaking that does not lead to the destruction of Israel.

MYTH:

The Palestinian public opposes terrorism and supports negotiations with Israel.

FACT

Palestinian public opinion is difficult to gauge since the Palestinian Authority has not held elections in 10 years to offer the people a chance to express their views through the support of particular candidates. Moreover, polls taken in the territories, as in totalitarian societies, do not necessarily reflect the true opinion of people who know that criticizing or opposing their leaders can result in their arrest (or worse). Given those caveats, pollsters do offer insight into the attitudes of Palestinians and many of them are problematic.

A poll released in November 2014 by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO), for example, found that a majority of Palestinians opposed resuming peace talks with Israel. That same poll found that a narrow majority (54-46 percent) support a two-state solution. A Washington Institute poll in June 2014, however, found that only 27 percent of Palestinians supported a two-state solution as a five-year political goal, while 60 percent said “the goal should be to return Historic Palestine to our hands, from the river to the sea.”579 580

Another poll, by the Jerusalem Media & Communications Centre (JMCC) in November 2013, found that nearly half the respondents opposed the Oslo peace agreement and fewer than one-third of Palestinians believed “peaceful negotiations” were the best way to establish a Palestinian state. In fact, they were nearly evenly split between that answer, “armed resistance” and “non-violent resistance.” 581

Polls have also indicated that Palestinians continue to support terrorism. In a December 2014 PCPO survey, for example, 58 percent of Palestinians agreed that firing missiles at Israel is a good idea. Perhaps more alarming are the results of a Pew survey of Muslims from September 2013, which found that 62 percent of Palestinian Muslims said that suicide bombing attacks are often or sometimes justified to defend Islam from its enemies. Note, too, that the results were nearly equal in Hamas-ruled Gaza (64 percent) and the Fatah-governed West Bank (60 percent). By comparison, the country with the second highest level of support for suicide bombings was Lebanon (39 percent).582

MYTH:

Reported negotiations with Iran will make the Middle East safer.

FACT

Since the discovery of Iran's secret program to develop nuclear weapons, the hope has been that either sanctions would compel Iran to abandon the project or that a negotiated agreement would prevent, or at least delay, the acquisition of a bomb for several years. Military action has been raised as an option of last resort, but the preference of all parties, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, has been to find a peaceful solution.588

European governments tried unsuccessfully for several years to negotiate a deal with Iran. When the talks finally ended, the chief Iranian negotiator - now Iran's President Hassan Rouhani - said that the Iranians had purposely dragged out the talks while continuing their program and never intended to reach an agreement. 583Some observers, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), worry that Iran is engaged in a similar tactic now since it has made few concessions in talks with the United States and succeeded in moving the deadline for an agreement. Meanwhile, the IAEA has continued to report the number of Iranian centrifuges has grown, complained that Iran is not cooperating with its investigation and that the nuclear program has not halted.584

The IAEA reported February 19, 2015, as the the Obama Administration was claiming progress in negotiations, that Iran was stalling their inquiry, and deliberately complicating efforts to reach a deal with the P5+1.  According to the report, “Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify” the scope of Iranian explosive tests and other allegations. 587

The negotiations themselves are also problematic. Perhaps the most serious concern is that the deal reportedly being discussed would allow Iran to keep much of its nuclear infrastructure, creating the possibility that it would take mere months to ramp up the program to produce weapons.585

Another concern is that the Obama Administration appears desperate to reach a deal, despite the president's assertions that no deal is better than a bad deal. The growth of ISIS has convinced the administration that it needs Iranian cooperation to defeat the radical Sunni Muslim group. It may be true that Iran could help in the fight against ISIS, but it is not interested in doing so to help the West or to eradicate radical Islamists; Iran is fighting because it sees ISIS as a rival for influence and a threat to its position in Iraq and, especially, Syria. Iran is no less brutal or radical, and has similar interests in gaining hegemony in the region and beyond. Already, Iran has gained influence in Yemen to go along with its virtual control of Lebanon and puppet mastery of Syria, as well as serving as the armorer for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.

Not surprisingly, America's Sunni allies are apoplectic at the prospect of an agreement with Iran that leaves its nuclear infrastructure in place, and the notion that Iran can play a stabilizing role in the region. To the contrary, Iran is viewed as a threat to the Gulf States, which is why the Saudis advocated military action against Tehran during the Bush Administration.

Arab leaders have also made no secret of their anger over Obama's failure to take forceful action in Syria, which could have ousted President Bashar Assad and eliminated Iran's most important ally. Paradoxically, Obama's failure to act contributed to the growth of ISIS and the newfound willingness to allow Assad to stay in power and seek Iran's help in battling ISIS.

Israel has made no secret of its displeasure over the Obama Administration's handling of Iran because of the perception in Jerusalem that Obama is so anxious for a deal that he will make concessions that endanger Israel. This fear has prompted the controversial decision of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress to directly relate Israel's concerns about the direction negotiations are heading.

Many members of Congress also fear that the president may agree to a bad deal and have been agitating for stronger sanctions to put more pressure on Iran. As it is, Iran has found ways around previously imposed sanctions and does not believe they need to make concessions, especially given what they see as Obama's desire to reach an agreement that would make sanctions even less effective. As it is, just for negotiating, Obama agreed to ease some sanctions, with Iran scheduled to receive up to $11.9 billion through the end of negotiations, and he has threatened to veto any legislation for stronger measures for fear that the Iranians will walk away from the talks.586

Yet another deadline is approaching on March 24, and much of the world is concerned that the Iranians will succeed in prolonging the talks further, or convince Obama to accept a deal that will allow Iran to attain a nuclear capability sooner rather than later. This result would give Iran unprecedented power, allow it to threaten Israel and its Arab neighbors, potentially force Israel into a military response, conceivably arm terrorists with nuclear weapons and set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

MYTH:

Israel opened dams to flood Gaza.

FACT

While it may come as no shock that Hamas officials will spin the news to slander Israel, the media is expected to check their facts before printing libelous propaganda as legitimate news. Following a major winter storm last week in Israel, a swath of the Gaza Strip flooded due to heavy precipitation. A Hamas official was quick to blame Israel, saying, “The occupation forces opened the Wadi Salqa dams to sink dozens of Palestinian homes in the central region of the Gaza Strip.”589  Other officials from Hamas were quick to confirm that Israel had opened dams in the Gaza region to purposely flood the Gazan countryside.

Predictably, many media outlets jumped on the opportunity to publish an article bashing Israel for increasing the suffering of the people of Gaza. Al Jazeera, Agence-France Press, the Daily Mail, and others published articles decrying Israel's actions, with the AFP article quoting Gaza's Ministry of the Interior, who said, “By [Israel] opening the channels they flooded many homes... We had to evacuate as quickly as possible.”590

None of these news organizations had done their due diligence however. Not only are there no such dams around Gaza, operated by Israel or otherwise, but this lie has been used by Hamas during previous winters.  In 2013, Hamas trotted out the same fabrication, accusing the Israeli government of opening dams just east of the Gaza Strip since, “For Gaza to drown is an old Zionist dream.”591  Of course, then as now the claims were false and, in fact, Israel aided the recovery efforts in Gaza by donating high power pumps to help clear floodwater from the region.

While publicly Hamas officials choose to blame Israel for Gaza's myriad issues, anonymously, an official in Gaza revealed that “It is easy to say it is dams, easier than saying that the problem is infrastructure - not having infrastructure, having bad infrastructure.”590  Time and again, Hamas has chosen to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid it receives into weapons, tunnels and rockets, rather than helping to uplift the people of Gaza with improved roads, drainage ditches and sewers that would ameliorate the annual flooding in Gaza brought on by inclement weather.

Although the various news sites have commendably gone through the motions of issuing corrections and retractions, their inability to practice basic fact-checking to establish the veracity of the Hamas statements shows a significant lack of journalistic integrity and an overzealous craving to find “news” that casts Israel in a negative light. This oversight is especially egregious given that the lie has been repeated in years past. Perhaps in the future, the international media will think twice before taking the word of Hamas's propaganda officials as factual news.

MYTH:

Israel systematically violated the laws of war during Operation Protective Edge.

FACT

Even as Hamas rockets were being fired indiscriminately into Israel in July-August 2014, the media and human rights organizations pilloried Israel with allegations of human rights violations and war crimes. The UN Human Rights Council launched an investigation, due to be released soon, that is expected to repeat the mistakes and false allegations of the notorious Goldstone Report published after Israel's previous operation in Gaza in 2009. In response to the misinformation, lies and propaganda disseminated during and after Operation Protective Edge, a group of senior American military officers were commissioned to prepare an assessment of the war and to specifically examine whether the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) was violated. 592

The report characterizes Hamas as a “hybrid” organization; that is “a non-state force equipped with advanced weapons systems normally associated with nation-state conventional militaries.”5921  Hamas combined four elements:

  1. Acting with reckless disregard for civilian safety, if not deliberately putting them in harm's way;
  2. Distorting internationally-recognized legal standards to exploit legal protections afforded civilians and the casualties caused by this exploitation;
  3. Portraying its opponent, through an information operations campaign, as legally culpable for what were lawful, defensive responses to aggression; and
  4. Securing advantageous pressure from the international community on its opponent to terminate legitimate defensive military action. 5922

Hamas, the report notes, redefined “battlefield losses as strategic victories.” The terrorists were not interested in winning the battle in Gaza, but in the court of international public opinion by “portraying the IDF's military operations as indiscriminate and disproportional.” 5923 Thus, “Hamas's strategy for victory depended on incurring civilian casualties among its own people.”592 4

“Hamas habitually violated LOAC” by indiscriminately firing rockets at civilian population centers rather than military targets, and by deliberately placing rocket launchers and other military assets in or near UN facilities, schools, hospitals, mosques and other civilian areas. “By firing from specially protected sites, Hamas effectively stripped them of their protected status, rendering them lawful military objectives for Israeli attack.”5925

Palestinian civilians were often forced to gather near launch sites and prevented from leaving areas targeted by the IDF, even after being warned to evacuate. Hamas successfully exploited the widespread ignorance regarding the “balance between military necessity and humanitarian protection... to present a false narrative that combat operations which produce civilian casualties are inherently unlawful.”5926

The report clarifies what the LOAC requires armies to do to protect civilians. The standard is that there can be no deliberate attacks on civilians or on lawful targets if “the attacking commander reasonably anticipates that the harm to civilians and damage to civilian property will be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage to be gained by the attack.” Furthermore, the “LOAC does not render unlawful any attack that risks or even results in incidental injury and collateral damage; its principles are applied with a standard of the best available information at the time of a commander's decision, not information that subsequently becomes available after an engagement.5927. The emphasized portion is important because it makes clear that human rights watchdogs have no way of knowing what information commanders have when they make their decisions and cannot base their conclusions on information discovered after the fact.

Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of the LOAC is the principle of proportionality. Human rights organizations, the media and officials of many governments repeatedly accused Israel of using “disproportionate force” because the number of Palestinian casualties greatly exceeded those of the Israelis as if the Israelis were obligated to allow themselves to be killed just so the casualty ratio would look more balanced. Harm to civilians and their property is permitted if “it is not the result of deliberate attack, but is instead an incidental or collateral consequence of an attack on a proximate lawful military objective, so long as the attack was not anticipated to be excessive in relation to the expected advantage.” 5928

Hamas was particularly skillful in its use of the media and manipulation of journalists. Messages were tailored to particular audiences so that Arabic reports glorified the resistance and the number of rockets fired at Israel while the Western media was fed information about Israeli aggression and the killing of civilians. Reporters in Gaza were prevented from seeing things that Hamas did not want them to, which explains why dispatches failed to document the “military firing positions, weapons, ammunition and military facilities among Gazan civilians.” 5929

The report specifically criticized the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, the UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for their condemnations of Israel, which “were premised on premature, effects-based assessments of military operations, or on the same flawed understandings of the law that Hamas was promoting, while refusing to apply that same law to its own actions.” The result was to misrepresent “Israeli attempts to minimize civilian deaths and the legality of their targeting Hamas and other factions engaged in military operations.” 59210

Contrary to what the critics of Israeli actions said, the task force concluded that “Israeli military operations in Gaza met or exceeded the requirements of the Law of Armed Conflict as part of an extensive effort to avoid civilian casualties”(emphasis added). The task force members agreed with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey's statement that “Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties.” 59211

The investigators were especially impressed by the fact that the IDF was willing to warn civilians of impending attacks even though it eliminated the element of surprise. They also acknowledged that a number of lawful missions were canceled because of the presence of civilians. In one case, the IDF gave up the opportunity to strike the senior leaders of Hamas because they were hiding in the Shifa Hospital.592 12

The report also contradicted the propaganda narrative that Israel created a humanitarian catastrophe. According to the task force, “The IDF made an extensive effort to alleviate Gazan civilian suffering by pushing food and medicine into - and conducting medical evacuations out of - Gaza...  This humanitarian support for Gazans' basic needs may have inadvertently reduced pressure on Hamas to end the conflict, but demonstrates Israel's intent was likely not to cause undue suffering among Gaza’s population.” 59213

The report acknowledges the IDF is not perfect and that mistakes were made, but they gave credit to the military for making a commitment to investigate any credible accusations of unlawful activity. Furthermore, the report concluded that, “Contrary to accusations of widespread unlawful military conduct, we observed that Israel systemically applied established rules of conduct that adhered to or exceeded the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) in a virtually unprecedented effort to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, even when doing so would have been lawfully permitted, and to satisfy the concerns of critics.”592 14

Based on past experience, the likelihood of the HRC report reaching similar conclusions is remote; nevertheless, we now have a thorough investigation by experts on the LOAC to counterbalance any contrived effort to misrepresent Israel's actions during the war.

MYTH:

Israeli Arabs have been denied political representation in the Knesset.

FACT

From the establishment of the state, Israel has adhered to democratic principles and allowed all of its citizens to vote in national elections. As in other areas of Israeli law, Israeli Arabs have the same rights to form parties, run for office and vote for the party of their choice. From the first Israeli Knesset in 1949, Israeli Arabs have been represented within the parliamentary system. In fact, three Arabs were members of that first Knesset, including Tawfik Toubi, the second longest serving Knesset member (41 years, 5 months and 9 days) after Shimon Peres. Altogether, at least 70 Israeli Arabs have won seats in Israel's parliament. 593

It appears from the initial returns from the 2015 Israeli election, that Arabs will have the largest representation ever in the 20th Knesset - 13 seats compared with 12 in the previous government. This election also marked the first time the disparate and often contentious Arab political parties have created a joint list. The members continue to have serious disagreements, but realized that given the change in the election law that required parties to reach a higher threshold of votes to win a seat, they might be shut out of the Knesset running as four different parties. Instead, the unified Arab list has won 13 seats and is the third largest party after Likud and the Zionist Union.

In addition to the members of the Joint List, four Arab parliamentarians are expected to represent Zionist parties, double the number from the previous Knesset.594

So, not only do Israeli Arabs participate fully within the Israeli democratic system, the results of the 2015 election give them the potential to wield more political influence than ever before.

MYTH:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the creation of a Palestinian state.

FACT

A furor erupted after Netanyahu said that he opposed the creation of a Palestinian state because it would lead to radical Islamist attacks against Israel in the waning hours of the 2015 election in what most people interpreted as a last minute pitch for votes from his more right-wing constituents595. President Obama had what the Wall Street Journal has described as a "tantrum" over the apparent reversal of his position supporting a two-state solution596

.

Following his electoral victory, Netanyahu tried to reassure the president, Israelis and the international community that he was still committed to the two-state solution, but, he continued to be excoriated by Obama and members of his administration. Leaks to the press have suggested the president is contemplating a number of punitive measures, including refusing to meet with Netanyahu, voting for resolutions hostile to Israel's interests at the UN, and reassessing the U.S.-Israel relationship.

This "crisis" in the relationship needs to be put into political and historical context.

First, the reaction of the president to a clear electioneering maneuver is extreme. It is common for U.S. candidates to say things to appeal to their base, or a particular constituency, and to moderate or reverse their positions later in the campaign or after being elected. A good example is candidate Barack Obama’s appearance before the pro-Israel crowd at the AIPAC Policy Conference in 2008 when he received a thunderous ovation for saying that he believed Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Within 24 hours, however, Obama backtracked on his position and said the final status of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated.

It is also striking that Obama said he had to take Netanyahu "at his word" regarding the statement during the campaign, but not his explanation afterward, which the president could have heard in a direct call to the prime minister before blasting him in the press. Critics of the president also wondered aloud why Obama does not seem to take Iranian leaders at their word. For example, just as Secretary of State Kerry was claiming to make progress on a nuclear deal with Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei was calling for "Death to America." 597

The campaign statements were politics, the treatment of the embassy was policy and Obama knows the difference. The overreaction to Netanyahu's remark about the two-state solution, as well as his ill-advised call for his constituents to vote because of the large Arab turnout, had less to do with what he said than the fact that he was frustrated by Netanyahu's victory. Obama's antipathy toward Netanyahu is so great that he did exactly what he angrily accused Netanyahu of doing in the 2012 U.S. election, namely, interfering in the election to defeat him.

What is more important than campaign politics, however, is policy and Netanyahu has been treated unfairly from the time he was elected in 2009 when he was labeled anti-peace, right-wing, and hard line. Few critics seem to remember that he is the only prime minister to agree to significant territorial concessions in the West Bank, agreeing to withdraw from 13 percent of the territories in 1997. From that concession, as well as Ariel Sharon's decision to disengage from Gaza, Netanyahu learned that Israeli compromises were not reciprocated. Worse, instead of trading land for peace, Israel was rewarded with more terror. Experience, therefore, has shaped his skepticism, nay realism, regarding the peace process.

This is one element of the historical context ignored by Netanyahu's critics and peace processors who spuriously believe that an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank will end the conflict with the Palestinians and bring peace and stability to the region. They also overlook the record of the Obama peace initiatives in the Middle East. At the beginning of Obama's term, he assured the prime minister that if Israel froze settlement construction for 10 months, the Palestinians would negotiate a peace agreement and the other Arab states would take confidence building measures to show Israelis they were also interested in peace.

The president failed to deliver on either commitment. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas spurned negotiations, even after the settlement freeze, and has refused to meet with Netanyahu for all but a few hours of Obama's eight years in office. Similarly, the Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, declined to make any positive gestures toward Israel.

Flash forward to 2014 when Kerry began a months-long effort to bring the parties together and create a framework for talks that might lead to a resolution of all the outstanding issues. That also failed, but not because of Netanyahu. As former Middle East envoy Martin Indyk told CNN, Abbas was presented with Kerry's proposal and promised to respond but never did. 598

Another forgotten historical fact is that while Yitzhak Rabin has been rightly lionized, he did not support a two-state solution. In his final speech to the Knesset before his assassination, he explicitly said that he supported the establishment of "an entity which is less than a state." 599

By contrast, Netanyahu reversed his longstanding opposition to a Palestinian state and defied many in his own party and government by declaring in 2009 get that he supported a two-state solution "if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state."600 His position today has not substantively changed. As he told Israeli news site NRG, what has changed are the conditions that affect Israel's security. 601 For example, Abbas still refuses to talk to Netanyahu or to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. The Palestinians have also been circumventing negotiations by going to the UN in hopes of winning recognition for their state and convincing the Security Council to impose a solution on Israel in violation of Security Council Resolution 242. Abbas has also repeatedly threatened to ask the International Criminal Court to charge Israelis with war crimes. Each of these ploys reduces Israeli confidence in the possibility of achieving real peace with the Palestinians.

Security conditions have also dramatically changed around Israel's borders, and must be taken into account to ensure that concessions do not endanger the nation. Israeli strategists see that Hezbollah has more than 100,000 rockets targeting Israel in the North and that Hamas is rearming in the south. They see that Abbas is still unwilling and unable to make any commitments; he remains so unpopular he refuses to hold long overdue elections, he has no authority in the Gaza Strip and he may be unable to prevent Hamas or other radical Muslims from seizing control of the West Bank. Israel also has to worry about the stability of Jordan given the flood of Syrian refugees and efforts by Islamists to destabilize the monarchy. Furthermore, the Syrian civil war could spill over into Israel at any time and radical Muslims may take over Syria and pose a threat on a border that has remained quiet since 1973. Finally, Israel must consider whether it can move toward peace with the Palestinians when the number one danger to the state, the Iranian nuclear program, has not been resolved.

 

One of the most important elements required for a two-state solution is also missing, and that is Israeli confidence that America will have their back if they take the risks necessary for peace. Even before the latest spat, polls showed that Israelis lack confidence in the administration, and Obama's enmity toward Netanyahu only exacerbates the situation. The path to a two-state solution contains many obstacles, but Netanyahu’s exaggerated campaign rhetoric is not the roadblock to progress.

 

 

MYTH:

Palestinian reconciliation makes the Palestinian Authority a partner for peace.

FACT

Over the last several years the Palestinians have repeatedly announced that Hamas and Fatah have reconciled and that a unified Palestinian government could move forward with peace negotiations. This was a spurious notion from the beginning because Hamas refused to meet the minimum requirements for being a party to talks with Israel, namely, agreeing to cease terror, recognize Israel's right to exist and honor past agreements.

Israel, meanwhile, refused to negotiate with the Palestinians so long as Hamas was part of the government. As it turned out, Israel did not have to worry because the differences in ideology and religious fervor are so extreme that reconciliation has never lasted. The reconciliation announced in 2014 was no different.

Following Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014, Western countries offering aid to reconstruct Gaza pressured Hamas to allow the Palestinian Authority to retake control of Gaza; however, Hamas has not relinquished power and has no intention of doing so. If anything, Hamas expects to expand its reach to take control of the West Bank from Fatah.

The relationship between the Palestinian factions was never good, and both have routinely arrested, tortured and murdered their rivals. The hostility has reached a new high with the declarations by PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his senior advisor, Mahmoud Habbash, that Arab states should attack Gaza and destroy Hamas. "Protecting legitimacy in an Arab country is a duty of all Arab leaders," said Habbash. "They must take the initiative to strike with an iron fist against those who come out against legitimacy, regardless of the time and place, starting from Palestine. What happened in the Gaza Strip was a [Hamas] coup. There should be no dialogue with those behind the coup and they must be hit with an iron fist." 602

It is not surprising that Abbas would call on the Arab states for help, given his antipathy and impotence to challenge Hamas, and the Arabs' willingness to fight radical Islamists in Yemen, Syria and Iraq.

Though Abbas would never admit it, he owes his life and continued leadership to Israel, which weakened Hamas in Gaza, foiled at least one Hamas assassination plot and prevented Hamas from taking over the West Bank. Nevertheless, Abbas is now threatening to ask the International Criminal Court to charge Israel with the commission of war crimes during the war in Gaza. The timing is especially ironic given that Abbas now wants the Arab world to declare war on Gaza and, if any Arab states agreed, human rights would be the least of their concerns.

Journalist Khaled Abu Toameh noted the hypocrisy of Abbas and his cronies. "If the Palestinian Authority openly favors military action against Hamas," he asked, "why was it opposed to Israel's use of force to destroy the Islamist movement's rocket launchers and ammunition?" Abu Toameh concludes, "Obviously, the PA believes it is acceptable for an army or armies to attack the Gaza Strip, on condition that it is not the Israel Defense Forces trying to stop Hamas's rocket attacks."602

Abbas' incendiary remarks have provoked widespread anger among Palestinians, but silence from the West. The question that should be asked of Abbas, Abu Toameh suggests, is whether he will file "war crimes" charges against his Arab brethren if they do as he asks and attack the Gaza Strip.

MYTH:

The Pope considers Mahmoud Abbas an “angel of peace.”

FACT

A furor erupted after a number of news agencies reported that during an audience with Mahmoud Abbas, Pope Francis referred to him as “an angel of peace.” As a man whose life is devoted to forgiveness, it was not entirely shocking that the Pope would make such a statement. Nevertheless, people familiar with Abbas's history as a Holocaust denier, PLO leader during the height of the organization's terrorist activities, and a continuing inciter and glorifier of violence were taken aback. The fact that Abbas has shown no inclination to make peace, or even to negotiate, for the last six years, has ruthlessly suppressed his opponents, and abused his own people by his dictatorial rule has made him a more appropriate candidate for the angel of death.

As it turned out, the journalists reporting the story got it wrong. The major news agencies, the Associated Press, Reuters and AFP reported that the Pope gave Abbas a bronze medallion, similar to one given to heads of state, representing an “angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.” The journalists wrote that the Pope also said, “It is appropriate because you are an angel of peace.”

The Italian newspaper La Stampa, reported, however, that what the Pope actually said was, “May the angel of peace destroy the evil spirit of war. I thought of you: may you be an angel of peace.”603

This is a case study in the distortions often created by news services, which report inaccurate, biased or distorted information that is picked up and repeated without question by the major media (in this instance the New York Times, BBC, Fox, NBC and others repeated the erroneous version of the Pope's statements) and is the lifeblood of smaller media outlets that rely on these agencies for most of their foreign affairs news.

MYTH:

Abbas is finally prepared to negotiate with Israel.

FACT

One of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first acts as prime minister was to say that he is interested in negotiations with the Palestinians and specifically wants to define the boundaries of the main settlement blocs where construction would be allowed.604 Remember that as far back as the 2000 Barak-Arafat negotiations, the Palestinians had expressed a willingness to allow Israel to annex the large settlement blocs as part of a land swap.

It took little time for the Palestinians to respond, as they have to every Israeli call for negotiations, with a resounding rejection. Of course this was no surprise given that this has been their answer to all calls for talks since Mahmoud Abbas met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Even former U.S. envoy Martin Indyk, who has been a frequent critic of Netanyahu, acknowledged that Abbas has no interest in negotiations. Indyk said that Abbas understandably feels a lack of legitimacy since he has refused to hold an election for the last 10 years and fears making the compromises needed to reach an agreement, “so he is paralyzed by that.”605

While Abbas continues to be hailed by Western leaders as a “moderate” and “partner for peace,” his PLO militias remain opposed to any concessions with Israel and do not recognize Israel’s right to exist. These groups engage in ongoing terror operations either with the approval of Abbas or, at least, without any condemnation by him. The “armed wing” of Fatah, the largest faction of the PLO, is the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which, along with other splinter groups, has not given up the “armed struggle” to liberate Palestine. 606

Furthermore, Abbas continues to engage in initiatives that are anti-peace. He is seeking an investigation by the International Criminal Court into his bogus allegations of Israeli war crimes in Gaza and the legality of Israeli settlements. He has become so petty in his contempt for Israel and the notion of peace that he is now asking the international soccer federation FIFA to suspend Israel, an action which the head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, says would “badly damage the whole organization.” 607 608

Meanwhile, while Abbas carries out his anti-peace campaign, Israel has called for negotiations to resume and has taken measures to improve the living conditions of Palestinians. For example, the number of Palestinians working for Israelis on either side of the Green Line doubled in the last four years. Palestinians now make up 2.2 percent of all workers in Israel and that number is expected to grow. At the height of the second intifada, only a handful of Palestinians were allowed to work in Israel. Today, 92,000 Palestinians work for Israelis and earn an average of NIS 198 per day (approximately $50) compared to NIS 91 per day ($23) in the territories. 609

Israel is also acting to ameliorate the acute shortage of water in the Gaza Strip caused by the Palestinians' failure to build and maintain waste treatment plants. As a result of their mismanagement of water the main aquifer is too polluted to use for potable water. Israel has already been providing the Palestinians with more water than required by the Oslo agreements, but announced in March 2015 the intention to double the amount of water it supplies to the Gaza Strip. 610 It is doing so, despite the fact that rather than use international aid for waste treatment and water supplies, Hamas has been siphoning all available funds to rebuild its terror tunnels and rocket arsenal.611

Once again, anyone interested in the facts can see which party is taking measures to advance peace and which are doing everything possible to obstruct it.

MYTH:

Jerusalem is not Israel's capital.

FACT

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by an American citizen to have his birthplace listed in his passport as Jerusalem, Israel. In doing so the court did not make a judgement as to whether Jerusalem is indeed the capital, but more narrowly determined that the Executive Branch has the sole power to recognize foreign nations. Although the court may have been correct in interpreting the law, it ignored the historical and practical reality that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. As the plaintiff's attorneys said after the decision was announced, the court perpetuated “the absurd position that no country is sovereign over Jerusalem, and that no part of the city, including the western portion of Jerusalem,...is in Israel.”612

Of the 195 nations with which America has diplomatic relations, Israel is the only one whose capital is not recognized by the U.S. government. The U.S. embassy, like most others, is in Tel Aviv, 40 miles from Jerusalem. The United States does maintain a consulate in East Jerusalem, however, that deals with Palestinians in the territories and works independently of the embassy, reporting directly to Washington. Today, then, we have the anomaly that American diplomats refuse to meet with Israelis in their capital because Jerusalem's status is negotiable, but make their contacts with Palestinians in the city.

It is bad enough that the United States refuses to recognize Israel's capital, but the State Department has actively discouraged other nations from doing so as well. Going back to at least 1962, the department has felt a “moral obligation” to inform governments contemplating the establishment of a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem the United States' position on non-recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Some of the governments contacted by diplomats include Japan, Guatemala, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Ethiopia.

The State Department's justification according to the 1962 memo is: “The status of Jerusalem is a matter of United Nations concern and no member of the United Nations should take any action to prejudice the United Nations interest in this question. Our objective has been to keep the Jerusalem question an open one and to prevent its being settled solely through the processes of attrition and fait accompli to the exclusion of international interest and an eventual final expression thereof presumably through the United Nations.”

This is not the reason for the U.S. position. The explanation is found in the historic hostility of State Department Arabists to the creation of Israel and the persistent fear that recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital would anger the Arab/Muslim world and threaten American interests (e.g., the reliable supply of oil, regional stability and the provocation of attacks against the United States).

Recognizing the absurdity of the State Department's position that Israel essentially has no capital, Congress passed a resolution in 1990 declaring that “Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel” and “must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.” Presidents Bush and Clinton rejected the Congressional action prompting Congress to adopt The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. This landmark bill declared that, as a statement of official U.S. policy, Jerusalem should be recognized as the undivided, eternal capital of Israel and required that the U.S. embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 1999. The law also included a waiver, however, that allowed the president to ignore the legislation if he deemed doing so to be in the best interest of the United States.

In every presidential election since that time, most candidates have declared their intention to move the embassy; however, after being elected every president from Clinton to Obama has used the waiver to subvert the will of Congress.

In 2002, Congress passed an act that allowed Americans born in Jerusalem the option of listing their birthplaces as “Jerusalem, Israel” on their passport and birth certificate. President George W. Bush signed the law, but refused to enforce the provision. This prompted a lawsuit by the parents of Menachem Zivotofsky, an American citizen born in Jerusalem, who wanted their son's birthplace to be recorded as “Jerusalem, Israel” on his U.S. passport. The Obama Administration opposed the suit, which was decided in the administration's favor by the Supreme Court in June 2015.

While critics of congressional efforts to force the administration to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital insist that such a move would harm the peace process, supporters of the legislation argue the opposite is true. By making clear that the United States believes Jerusalem should remain unified under Israeli sovereignty, unrealistic Palestinian expectations regarding dividing the city can be moderated and thereby enhance the prospects for a final agreement.

MYTH:

The IDF commits attrocities because former soldiers from 'Breaking the Silence' say so.

FACT

Breaking the Silence (BtS) is an organization composed of former soldiers founded in 2004 that publishes anonymous testimonies by soldiers alleging abuses committed by the IDF. The organization “has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classed as a 'human rights organization,'” Amos Harel wrote in Haaretz. “Any organization whose website includes the claim by members to expose the 'corruption which permeates the military system' is not a neutral observer.”613 The agenda is to convince its audience that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank.

What is striking is that the group's audience is not Israelis, but foreigners. Members of the group travel around Europe and the United States (they often appear on college campuses) where they make no effort to put Israeli actions in context, but instead seem determined to smear and embarrass their country in the hope that this will stimulate international pressure on Israel to withdraw from the territories. In June 2015, for example, the cultural center in Zurich hosted a BtS photo exhibition along with “testimonies.”

Equally striking is that the organization’s funding comes from outside Israel. BtS has a budget of approximately one million dollars and has received support from the European Union, Misereor (Germany), Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), Norway, AECID (Spain), Dan Church Aid (Denmark), ICCO (Netherlands), CCFD (France), Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK), SIVMO (Netherlands), Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Open Society Institute, the New Israel Fund and others. The photo exhibit cited above, for example, is sponsored by the Swiss Foreign Ministry, the Municipality of Zurich, and several church groups that are known for their anti-Israel views. The agenda of some of these funders became apparent following the IDF’s 2009 operation in Gaza when NGO Monitor revealed that several BtS donors conditioned their contributions on the group’s ability to gather a minimum number of incriminating “testimonies” against the IDF. 614

Journalist Matti Friedman finds the foreign funding extraordinary and asks, “Do Norwegian taxpayers fund an organization that encourages, say, British soldiers to reveal British army wrongdoing to the international press? Does Switzerland try to get Hamas soldiers to open up about things they’ve done?” 615

In 2015, the BtS tour focuses on allegations of misdeeds committed during the 2014 war in Gaza. Friedman called the report “propaganda” and said it “was not intended to explain, but to shock.” He noted that the authors say they interviewed “over 60” soldiers, but provide no dates or names. The IDF is willing to investigate the allegations, but cannot without more information so it is impossible to verify or refute them.

“The editors seem to want readers to believe there were “no rules” in Gaza, and that the IDF acted without taking civilian life into consideration. In fact the interviews themselves show the army taking numerous steps to avoid harm to civilians. The soldiers regularly mention warning leaflets, “roof-knocking” rockets, phone calls, warning shells, warning shots, lists of protected sites like UN facilities, and drones vetting targets for civilians before an airstrike. All of the action we encounter in the report is happening in areas where the army had already warned Gazan civilians (and, of course, Hamas guerrillas) that soldiers were about to arrive. ”

In May 2015, the High Level International Military Group, made up of 11 former chiefs of staff, generals, senior officers, political leaders and officials from the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Holland, Spain, Italy, Australia and Colombia visited Israel for a fact-finding mission on the 2014 Gaza conflict. The group was led by a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee and a former Foreign Minister of Italy. The group agreed with the conclusion of the Pentagon's fact-finding mission to Israel that “Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties.” The Military Group concluded that “Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard... .A measure of the seriousness with which Israel took its moral duties and its responsibilities under the laws of armed conflict is that in some cases Israel's scrupulous adherence to the laws of war cost Israeli soldiers' and civilians' lives.”616

To be fair, Ben-Dror Yemini notes, “The IDF is not perfect, and not all IDF soldiers are angels,” but “there are anomalies - in every army in the world and on every battlefield.” What makes the BtS reports deceptive is that “these deviations from the norm are put on display, without any background context, without proof, without a comparative picture, without presenting the fact that a Hamas-issued document ordered the organization's fighters to take cover among the civilian population, hide in population centers.” 617

Moreover, IDF Maj. Gen. (res.) Eitan Dangot, noted that “when the truth is finally revealed - and in many cases the truthful version turns out to be completely different than what was initially published,” the damage to Israel’s image has already been done. 618

MYTH:

Israel was guilty of war crimes in the 2014 Gaza war.

FACT

On June 22, 2015, the United Nations Human Rights Council released the findings of the commission it appointed to investigate the 2014 Gaza conflict, suggesting that both Israel and Hamas may have committed war crimes. Given the HRC's historical bias against Israel, it was not surprising that the investigators equated the firefighters of the IDF with the Hamas arsonists.

The HRC has a history of slandering Israel’s human rights record while ignoring the world’s worst violators of human rights. The council has condemned Israel in 45 individual resolutions, nearly as many as those directed at the rest of the countries of the world combined. The “investigation” was designed to come to the predetermined conclusion that Israel was guilty of abuses. This was evident when the council appointed as head of this supposedly impartial commission William Schabas, who previously worked for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Schabas was forced to resign after his background was disclosed, but the objective of proving Israeli crimes remained unchanged.

The truly independent High Level International Military Group, comprised of 11 of the world's top generals and former diplomats, came to an entirely different conclusion than the HRC. The group, led by former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, General Klaus Naumann, found that “Israeli forces acted proportionately as required by the laws of armed conflict and often went beyond the required legal principles of proportionality, necessity and discrimination.” In some cases, their report said, “Israel’s scrupulous adherence to the laws of war cost Israeli soldiers’ and civilians’ lives.”

The generals did not dispute that the Palestinians suffered a high number of civilian casualties, and acknowledged that some were “caused by error and misjudgment;” however, they concluded “the majority of deaths were the tragic inevitability of defending against an enemy that deliberately carries out attacks from within the civilian population.” 619 620

One member of the military group, Colonel Richard Kemp of Great Britain, submitted his own report to the HRC. He reiterated that “the IDF took exceptional measures to adhere to the Laws of Armed Conflict and to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.” He also criticized those who suggested that Israel make greater efforts to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza because none of them had any idea how to do this. “I conclude that this was because Israel was taking all feasible steps,” stated Kemp. He also noted that Israel was investigating specific incidents where it is alleged that soldiers acted improperly. “I am not aware of any nation that has conducted more comprehensive or resolute investigations into its own military activities than Israel during and following the 2014 Gaza conflict,” Kemp testified.

By contrast, Kemp said, Hamas flouted the Laws of Armed Conflict by “deliberately targeting the Israeli civilian population, using their own civilian population as human shields and seeking to entice the IDF to take military action that would kill large numbers of Gaza civilians for their own propaganda purposes. There was and is of course no accountability or investigation of any allegations against Hamas and other extremist groups in Gaza.” 621

In addition to these investigations, two American legal experts also examined Israel’s conduct. Michael Schmitt and John Merriam lecture on the law of armed conflict at the US Naval War College, and Schmitt also advises on the topic at NATO, Harvard and Exeter. They concluded that Israel’s “approach to targeting is consistent with the law and, in many cases, worthy of emulation.” 619

General Charles Wald, USAF (ret.), former Deputy Commander of United States European Command (EUCOM), also participated in an investigation of Israel’s conduct of the war. He asserted the HRC report was unbalanced and failed to accurately assess human rights violations perpetrated by Hamas. As a result, Weld said “the international community should not accept this inaccurate and biased report and should instead rely on the balanced and accurate reports that are authored by actual experts on how to conduct combat operations in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.” 622

The Israeli Defense Forces have time and again showed unprecedented restraint when operating in densely populated combat zones full of civilians. An Israeli brigade commander went as far as to say that, “If anything, I think we were too humane. There were instances where the extensive caution caused harm to soldiers.” 623

These views were also supported by a fact-finding mission carried out by representatives of the Pentagon. According to the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, “Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties.” He was so impressed with Israel’s conduct of the war that he sent a team to Israel to study Israel’s strategies, including lessons about how to limit civilian casualties.624 625

The HRC has consistently engaged in Israel bashing while shielding terrorists and their sponsoring countries. By equating Israel’s democratic government defending its citizens with a terrorist organization whose goal is to destroy Israel, the HRC reveals its moral bankruptcy. Misleading reports such as the ones issued after the last two wars in Gaza will not curb human rights abuses since Hamas has no intention of changing its tactics of indiscriminately bombarding civilian areas in Israel and using its own people as human shields. Israel, despite its adherence to the laws of war, will nevertheless continue to be pilloried by the international community and the media, and will be forced to endanger its own soldiers out of fear of international scrutiny, scurrilous charges of abuse and investigations meant to prove Israel’s predetermined guilt.

MYTH:

The Iran deal reported in the media is the best the West can get.

FACT

The effort to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons has been at the top of the international agenda for the last several years. Most people agree that the best way to do this is to reach an accord where the Iranians agree to abandon this goal. Unfortunately, the terms of the agreement currently under discussion appear from media reports to be inadequate and dangerous.

Negotiations began with the United States intent on imposing very stringent terms on Iran, which President Obama said would provide a “comprehensive solution that cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb and verifiably ensures the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program going forward.” Since that time, however, the administration has been retreating from many of the positions it originally held.

The Administration started out by saying the “nuclear negotiations are focused exclusively on the nuclear issue and do not include discussions of regional issues” and that sanctions would continue to be enforced on “Iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program.” On June 7, 2015, however, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the administration was considering suspending all sanctions on Iran. 626

A central demand at the outset of talks was that Iran disclose its past nuclear activities and any military aspects of its research. On June 24, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry said he was no longer concerned about Iran fulfilling UN resolutions related to their past endeavors. In a statement some analysts and members of Congress found incredulous, Kerry said, “We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in.”627

Negotiators originally insisted that Iran dismantle its Fordo nuclear facility. Now Fordo will be allowed to remain open and Iran will not be required to destroy the centrifuges installed there, opening the possibility for them to be used to enrich uranium for a bomb.

With regard to enrichment, the Security Council had demanded, and the administration affirmed, that Iran must suspend all uranium enrichment. Current negotiations would allow Iran to continue enrichment.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said in 2004 that Iran was trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons.629 Consequently, the expectation was that an agreement would place restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program. Most recently, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said the administration is only concerned about missiles “capable of carrying nuclear warheads.”

The integrity of the entire agreement depends on verification that Iran is adhering to its terms. President Obama has said that Iran would be subject to intrusive inspections; however, France is said to be the country that is insisting that all of Iran’s nuclear installations, including military sites, be inspected. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, however, has ruled out inspections of any military sites.630 Moreover, by definition, no one knows about any secret installations Iran has or will build. Therefore, even if Iran agreed to inspections of its known sites, it could still pursue its nuclear weapons research undetected.

The United States had insisted that Iran show evidence of compliance with the agreement before sanctions are lifted; however, Obama agreed to release $11.9 billion of Iranian assets during the negotiations and Kerry indicated sanctions may be eased before Iran provides information on its secret nuclear program. Khamenei insists that all sanctions be lifted immediately after the agreement is signed.631

The framework agreement Iran agreed to called for a freeze on the production of nuclear fuel; however, consistent with its history of cheating, “international inspectors found that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations.” The administration dismissed the report, with State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisting the Iranians have “always been in compliance.” 632

The administration also took issue with another reported concession, ignoring Iranian violations of international sanctions. The UN Panel of Experts on Iran suggested, however, that information about Iran’s defiance were being withheld for political reasons, namely, to avoid spoiling the current talks.632

One of the principal accomplishments of the Iran deal is to increase Iran’s “breakout time” - the amount of time it would take Iran to produce enough bomb-grade material for a nuclear weapon - from two to three months to at least one year. Alan J. Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas at Austin, however, believes the administration’s calculations are wrong. He says the current breakout time is closer to two months and the proposed deal would only stretch this period by one month.633

The administration said it would close off all avenues for Iran to build a bomb, however, the terms of the agreement would leave Iran on the threshold of having a nuclear capability. According to Kuperman, Iran could dramatically increase its enrichment capacity after 10 years, shrinking the breakout time to days rather than months. Iran, he says, could then “produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb before we even knew it was trying - thus eliminating any hope of our taking preventive action.” 633

Iran will not hesitate to walk away from the talks if the West doesn’t concede to its demands. “Do not think that Iran needs a deal,” said Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian parliament. “We welcome an agreement, but I do not [want] you to think that if you exert more pressure, Iran will tolerate it. Do not make Iran withdraw from the talks, and do not make it follow its nuclear path more speedily.” 634

Proponents of a deal argue this is why the U.S. must accept whatever Iran offers. Iranians can take this hard line because they sense the Obama administration’s desperation and do not believe he will walk away, strengthen sanctions or use military force to stop their nuclear program.

The administration’s concessions are dangerous. They would, for example, leave Iran on the threshold of building a nuclear weapon, make it easy for Iran to cheat on the agreement, allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium and to develop ballistic missiles. The lack of faith the Arab states have in a deal with Iran will encourage nuclear proliferation in the region. Furthermore, ending sanctions will result in a windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars that Iran can use to fund further nuclear weapons research, global terrorism and its hegemonic interests in the region.

The conclusion of Stephen Hayes and many others is that “the impending deal is an embarrassment: the world’s greatest power prostrate before the world’s most patiently expansionist, terror-sponsoring, anti-American theocracy.”626

MYTH:

Israel is exaggerating the threat of a radical Islamic takeover of the West Bank to avoid territorial compromise.

FACT

Long before ISIS emerged as a regional threat, Israel had warned that the radical Islamists of Hamas would not be satisfied with ruling the Gaza Strip. They have had their eye on the West Bank as well, and Israelis have good reason to worry that a future Palestinian state could turn into the same type of terrorist base as the Gaza Strip, and put the entire country within range of deadly rockets that could paralyze the country and provoke a war that would probably put an end to the idea of a Palestinian state permanently.

Israelis are not alone in their concern about a Hamas presence in the West Bank. The fear of a political takeover by Hamas through elections (as the Muslim Brotherhood did in Egypt) is the principal reason Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to stage new ones for nearly a decade. It has also doomed the repeated attempts at “reconciliation” between the PA and Hamas, as Abbas is not willing to share power and risk losing all of his. Realizing a peaceful takeover is unlikely for the time being, Hamas has become increasingly active in plotting a coup against Abbas from within the West Bank.

Abbas claims that Hamas tried to assassinate him in 2006. He said they tried again in 2007 when he planned to visit Gaza. “Four large explosive devices were uncovered by Abbas' security officers on the road leading from the Erez crossing to Gaza, as the Palestinian president left Ramallah and was about to travel on that route... The assassination attempt took place while the Palestinian president was on his way to meet Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to discuss the establishment of a national unity government...” 635

The threat of a Hamas takeover became so serious that the PA asked Israel for help. On June 11, 2007, the head of the Shin Bet, Yuval Diskin, told U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones that the PA had “ask[ed] us to attack Hamas...[and] to train [Fatah] forces in Egypt and Yemen... This is a new development. We have never seen this before. They are desperate.” 636

The very next day, Hamas staged a coup in the Gaza Strip and, facing virtually no resistance, seized power in a few days and has held it ever since. It’s no accident that Abbas has never visited the Gaza Strip as president of the PA.

Even while Hamas was preparing to fight Israel from Gaza, the group continued to plan the takeover of the PA. In the summer of 2014, for example, the Shin Bet became aware of a plot organized by Hamas operatives based in Turkey to conduct terrorist attacks in Israel and then overthrow Abbas. The Israelis made a number of arrests and warned Abbas of the scheme. In a meeting with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad, Abbas said:

The Israeli intelligence chief [Yoram Cohen, head of Shin Bet, the Israel Security Agency] came to me two weeks ago in Ramallah... He told me I want to keep you appraised of several dangerous issues that threaten your existence and the existence of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, including the fact, as he told me, that they [the Israelis] had arrested 93 Hamas members who were preparing for a coup against the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, sponsored by Saleh al-Aruri from Turkey... He said we have names and details about weapons and tunnels they prepared for the coup against you. 637

Abbas added that his security forces had seized weapons and explosives that “were not meant for Israel, but for us.”

Abbas has been warily watching for any signs that Hamas is expanding its influence in the PA. In April 2015, for example, the Hamas-affiliated student list defeated the Fatah-affiliated list in student elections at Birzeit University, the largest university in the disputed territories. The Palestinian news agency Ma’an observed that “in the absence of regular national elections, university elections are seen as important indicators of public opinion by political commentators in Palestine, and Birzeit is considered to be the most important campus in the yearly political contests.” 638 Reacting like the dictator that he is, Abbas sent his security forces to arrest members of Hamas in several universities.

The danger escalated over the following weeks. Tipped off by Israeli security forces, which have been conducting their own counterterror operations to root out Hamas cells, the PA began largescale arrests of Hamas activists in the West Bank on July 2, 2015. Hamas claimed that more than 120 of its members were rounded up in less than 48 hours. 639

In the rush to push Israel into risky territorial concessions, peace processors from the United States, France and elsewhere have refused to take the threat of a Hamas takeover seriously. They should take their cue from the man who worries about it every day -- Mahmoud Abbas.

MYTH:

The United States, the West and America’s regional allies were the big winners in the Iran deal.

FACT

The Iran deal is subject to a great deal of debate as proponents and opponents dissect the agreement and argue over the merits of the deal. Below is a chart assessing who came out ahead based on the terms of the agreement and America’s overall foreign policy goals in the Middle East. Click here to view a chart detailing the big winners and losers of the Iran deal.

MYTH:

The Palestinians’ top priority is peace with Israel.

FACT

According to a poll conducted in the disputed territories in June 2015642, majorities in both the West Bank and Gaza have not abandoned their dream of liberating “all of historic Palestine.” Fifty-eight percent of West Bankers and 65 percent of Gazans say that even if a “two-state solution” is negotiated, “the struggle is not over and resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated.”

This result comes as no surprise to Israelis who have long maintained that the Palestinians have not reconciled themselves to coexisting with Israel, even if they were to have an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinian opinion further reinforces the Israeli fear that no territorial compromise will satisfy them. For the Palestinians, establishing a state in the territories is just the first stage in their campaign to liberate Palestine. Israeli concessions will only fuel their belief that time is on their side and that continued “resistance,” combined with international pressure, will be Israel’s undoing.

Meanwhile, establishing a Palestinian state was not the first or second highest priority for respondents. Making enough money to live comfortably and having a good life were far more important. For example, 44 percent of West Bankers said making money was their top priority and only 14 percent said it was statehood.

Palestinians have no real freedom of expression, so survey results are always suspect, and results are often contradictory. For example, the poll did find majorities in favor of economic cooperation and a Hamas ceasefire with Israel, and nearly half the respondents accepted the principle of “a state for the Jewish people” and shattered one sacred cow by agreeing that Palestinian refugees should not return to what is now Israel.

The Palestinian people also clearly reject the boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) campaign supposedly being waged on their behalf. Most would like Israeli companies to offer more jobs and want the Israeli government to allow more Palestinians to work inside Israel.

In yet another contradiction, however, the survey found that 56 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank support “armed struggle and car attacks against the occupation” and 84 percent of Gazans agree. Given this ongoing support for terrorism, it should not be surprising that Israelis are wary of making any concessions that might help the Palestinians complete the first stage of their objective of liberating Palestine.

MYTH:

Israel praises terrorists who attack Palestinians.

FACT

On July 31, 2015, arsonists set fire to two Palestinian homes in the West Bank village of Duma. An 18-month old boy died in the blaze at the Dawabsheh home, and his father succumbed to his injuries a few days later. The boy’s mother and sister are in critical condition. Though nothing has been proven yet, Jewish extremists from the West Bank are suspected of the crime.

Murderous attacks by Jews against Arabs are extremely rare and, when they occur, they are immediately denounced by Israel’s leaders and the public. “This is an act of terrorism in every respect,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, pledging that Israel would “take firm action” against the perpetrators. His denunciation was echoed by Israel's President, Reuven Rivlin, and members of the opposition parties. The horrific attack was likewise condemned by Jews around the world.

Netanyahu and Rivlin also paid separate visits to the infant's four-year-old brother Ahmed Sa'ed, who is being treated along with his mother in Tel HaShomer hospital. Netanyahu pledged that he and his parents would receive the best treatment to save their lives. 643

In addition to words, Israel reacted with deeds, as the Israeli cabinet approved applying administrative detention measures, previously used against Palestinian suspects, to Israeli citizens suspected of participating in terror attacks against Palestinians. The public also reacted to the shocking attack by holding rallies attended by thousands of Israelis protesting hate crimes. 644

Contrast the reaction of Israelis to the horrific attack in Duma with the behavior of Palestinians following terrorist attacks against Israelis. Rather than protests, the Palestinian public holds parades and celebrations. Rather than denounce the killers, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and other Palestinian leaders laud them as “martyrs.” The PA also rewards the families of deceased terrorists, and those with relatives in jail, with generous payments, even at a time when the PA is in financial shambles and cannot pay many of its bills or employees. The main financiers of the PA, donor nations such as the United States, who believe they are improving the welfare of the Palestinian people and promoting peace, are actually subsidizing support for terrorists.

In addition to money, terrorists also receive a variety of honors, especially those who killed the most Israelis. For example, the perpetrator of the Passover Seder massacre that killed 30 Jews had a soccer tournament named for him. The bus hijacker responsible for the most deadly terror attack in Israel’s history, the 1978 slaughter of 37 civilians, 12 of them children, “has had summer camps, schools, graduation ceremonies and sporting events named for her, as well as many TV documentaries honoring her. A monument in Nablus was erected to honor the commander of the local Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. He was responsible for several terror attacks, including a double suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on January 5, 2003, which left 23 people dead and dozens injured. Streets, neighborhoods, and squares are also named after Palestinian terrorists. In school, Palestinian children are taught to aspire to death as a martyr. 645

So long as Palestinians praise murderers and preach hatred, they will find no common ground with Israelis who celebrate life and condemn intolerance. As Golda Meir said: “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.” 646

MYTH:

The Israeli government wants to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque.

FACT

In August 1929, rumors spread of Jews killing Arabs and of a Jewish plot to seize control of Muslim holy places on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. With a rallying cry to defend the al-Aqsa Mosque, Arab mobs looted Jewish shops and attacked Jewish men, women, and children throughout the country. By the end of the rioting, 135 Jews (including eight Americans) were killed and more than 300 wounded.

This was the first time during the British Mandate that religion played a direct role in stoking the conflict in Palestine. It would not be the last, however, as Muslim leaders have found it advantageous to periodically make similar accusations to arouse the local population and the Muslim faithful worldwide.

In recent years, the calls to liberate al-Aqsa from the Jews have become more common. On September 29, 2000, the Voice of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority's official radio station, called on “all Palestinians to come and defend the al-Aqsa mosque.” The PA closed its schools and bused Palestinian students to the Temple Mount to participate in premeditated riots that escalated into the Palestinian War - popularly known as the al-Aqsa Intifada.

It is not surprising that Muslims outside Israel have also used al-Aqsa as a rallying point. The Muslim Brotherhood's Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for example, said “the danger to al-Aqsa is now greater than ever...and hence the Muslims of the world must arise and defend it because it is not the property of the Palestinians alone but of the whole Muslim nation.”647

A cartoon posted by Fatah shows an Israeli attempting to destroy the Temple Mount

One of the most frequent uses of the “al-Aqsa libel” occurs when Israel engages in any archaeological activity in Jerusalem. Dating back more than 3,000 years, the city has a rich past that was unexplored for centuries. In fact, prior to 1967, few excavations were done in the city. After the Muslim Wakf was given responsibility for the Temple Mount, this policy was continued. The authorities are concerned about damage to the Muslim sites, but given the care taken by archaeologists to protect the area, the more likely objection is the fear that researchers will make discoveries that support existing evidence of the longstanding Jewish association with Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, which would contradict Muslim propaganda claims denying such a connection.

Due to Muslim objections to archaeological research, we know relatively little about the history of the Temple Mount. Worse, actions by the Wakf have contributed to the destruction of evidence from the past, and, ironically, have created the greatest threat to the stability of the Temple Mount. This was especially true when, in the mid-1990s, the Israeli Islamic Movement began the process of converting an area in the southeastern corner of the mount known as Solomon's Stables (so named because the Crusaders had used the area as stables and believed it was located near Solomon's Temple) into a mosque.

Often the Palestinians will regurgitate the libel even when Israel is engaged in activities outside the Temple Mount and nowhere near the mosques. For example, an Islamic group protested Jewish activities in the nearby village of Silwan because it is “the gateway to al-Aqsa Mosque.” The group also believed that the Jews planned to destroy the mosque and rebuild the Temple.648

In 2010, Israel restored the Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, which had been destroyed in 1948 by the Jordanians. Despite its remote location from the Temple Mount, accusations that the reconstruction was part of a plot against al-Aqsa provoked two days of rioting.

The greatest international uproar occurred in 1996 when Israel completed digging a tunnel along the entire length of the Western Wall, revealing two-thousand year old stones where the street had once been. The entire project was completely outside the Temple Mount and nowhere near the mosques. Nevertheless, the Muslim authorities claimed the Jews were digging under the mount with the intention of destroying the mosques or at least undermining their foundations. While the work had been going on for some time, the spark that led to widespread rioting and international condemnation was Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to open an exit from what is now referred to as the Western Wall tunnel, at a point along the Via Dolorosa in the Muslim Quarter of the city. Prior to opening the exit, visitors to the tunnel had to walk from the end back the way they came and, in narrow spaces, barely could fit past people coming from the other direction. The new exit made it possible to avoid backtracking so thousands more visitors could enjoy the site.

Once again the facts were irrelevant to those looking for a reason to criticize Israel and demonstrate sympathy for the Arabs and Muslims. The Arab League falsely claimed “Israel's aim in opening this gate is to cause the collapse of the al-Aqsa Mosque, so that it can build the Third Temple in its stead.”649 Palestinians rioted and attacked on soldiers and civilians resulted in the deaths of 15 Israeli soldiers and dozens of injuries.

A cartoon showing a Muslim woman sweeping the Jewish presence off the al-Aqsa Mosque and Temple Mount

Jews, like other non-Muslims, have been visiting the Temple Mount since 1967, but the Israeli government limits visits by non-Jews to specific times and insists that visitors show sensitivity to Muslims by dressing modestly and refraining from bringing any Jewish sacred objects with them. The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that Jews may pray at the Temple Mount, but police were given the discretion to prevent any provocative activities. Extremist Jewish groups suspected of plotting against Muslim shrines are either prohibited from the Temple Mount altogether or escorted by police. When plots against the mosque have been uncovered, the schemers have been arrested.

Ignoring Jews' right to visit their holiest place, Palestinians routinely turn to violence under the pretense of defending the mosque. In 2013, tensions escalated when Palestinians began to protest and, in some cases, attack Jews visiting the Temple Mount with stones, bottles, and other projectiles, falsely accusing the pilgrims of desecrating Islam's holy place and planning to build the third temple on the site.

The repetition of the libel rarely has anything to do with the behavior of Jews; it inevitably is used for a political purpose, such as rallying the masses, provoking violence, or diverting attention from some unpopular action taken by Palestinian leaders, such as returning to peace talks before Israel satisfies their preconditions.

Protests based on the libel are not restricted to Jerusalem. For the past 18 years, Israeli Muslims have held an annual “Al-Aqsa is in Danger” festival. Thousands of people attended the 2013 rally in Umm al-Fahm, where they heard a vitriolic speech by Sheikh Raed Salah, the former mayor of the Israeli Arab town. “Anyone who gives away one stone from al-Aqsa, or one meter of east Jerusalem, or whoever gives up the right of return or the right to free prisoners,” Salah thundered, “is a traitor.”650

With attention focused on Iran, and conflagrations throughout the Middle East, the Palestinians are apparently feeling neglected, which is often a good time to trot out the “al-Aqsa libel.” Predictably, PA Minister of Religious Affairs, Sheikh Yusuf Ida'is, said on official PA TV on July 8, 2015, “the Israeli establishment insists on carrying out its evil plan to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and establish the alleged Temple.”

The libel has increasingly been used by “secular” Palestinians to demonstrate their Muslim bona fides in an effort to offset the religious appeal of Hamas. More ominously, this is just one indication of the Islamization of the conflict.

MYTH:

There are no terrorist attacks on Israel originating from the West Bank anymore.

FACT

Thankfully, no successful suicide bombings have been carried out by Palestinian terrorists in several years. This has not been for lack of trying, however, according to a report by the Shin Bet. Israel’s internal security service prevented 17 suicide attacks in just the first seven months of 2015.651

This is just a fraction of the number of terrorist attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Altogether, 804 attacks occurred from January-July 2015, including shootings, bombings, stabbings, kidnappings and suicide attacks. 652 This figure does not include an unspecified number of terrorist attempts stopped by Palestinian Authority security forces.

This is a continuation of a dangerous trend. In 2014, 1,793 terrorist attacks were executed in Judea and Samaria, a 41 percent increase from 2013.653 The vast majority of attacks (84 percent) involved firebomb throwing, but the number of incidents involving firearms (shootings, IED explosions, and grenades, including the throwing of improvised pipe bombs and grenades) also increased from the previous year. 654

Israel thwarted 214 planned attacks in 2014, compared to 187 in 2013, and 111 so far in 2015. The 2014 plots included: 108 shootings; 51 IED detonations; 34 kidnappings; and 21 suicide bombings. 654

The “good news” is that the security fence and few remaining checkpoints continue to be effective in preventing terrorists from infiltrating Israel; virtually all the failed attacks were in the disputed territories. The number of Israeli casualties in the West Bank in 2013, 2014 and to date in 2015, totaled three, five and two, respectively.

The bad news is that Hamas is the main threat and has developed a military infrastructure in the West Bank with the help and direction of Hamas operatives in the Gaza Strip and abroad. Members of Hamas were responsible for 55 percent of the attacks documented by the Shin Bet through July 2015. The group was also responsible for 2014’s most heinous attack, the kidnapping and murder of three teenage yeshiva students in Gush Etzion.

Israelis are increasingly concerned that Hamas may take over the West Bank, which would put Israel’s capital, airport, and demographic and industrial heartland within easy range of Hamas rockets. Such a development would likely end all hope for a territorial compromise and the establishment of a Palestinian state for the foreseeable future.

The media's continuing mischaracterization of Palestinian dictator Mahmoud Abbas as a “moderate,” combined with the diplomatic world’s unfounded belief that he is a partner for peace, have deflected attention from the unceasing terrorism emanating from the territory he ostensibly controls. The world has also ignored the repeated violations of Palestinian commitments to end terror dating to the Oslo agreement in 1993.

No one should be naive enough to believe that Israel can or will compromise its security by making risky territorial concessions so long as terror continues, the Palestinian public supports violence and the possibility of a Hamas takeover of the West Bank exists.

MYTH:

Summer is a time for Palestinian children to enjoy camp like Israelis and Americans.

FACT

What did you during your summer vacation? Most students are used to hearing that question when they return to school. The answer for many Israeli and American children is that they spent a fun time playing sports, doing arts and crafts and experiencing the outdoors. The answer for many children in the Gaza Strip, however, is very different. Camps run by Hamas are not meant for enjoyment but indoctrination and military training.

The Telegraph newspaper published a series of photos from one of the summer camps showing young boys holding rifles, jumping through burning rings, crawling through obstacle courses, and dismantling weapons blind-folded. 655

Another camp, run by the Izzidin Kassam Brigade, offered two weeks of basic combat training to 25,000 Palestinians aged 15-60. “The goal of these military training camps,” according to the Brigade, “is to train the vanguard for liberation - spiritually, intellectually and physically - to be ready and able to play its role in liberation.” 656 The participants were given instruction in firing sniper rifles, using the portraits of Israeli leaders for targets. They also simulated infiltrating Israel through terror tunnels. 657

At the graduation ceremony at one camp, senior Hamas officials attended and watched the graduates parade alongside home-made terrorist rockets. During their summer of fun they were “trained in military techniques and in firing live ammunition.” The message they are sent home with is to “confront any possible Israeli attack.” 658

This is typical of summer camp in Gaza under Hamas. What was new in 2015 was the first all-female camp “to prepare academically exceptional girls aged 12-18 for the liberation battle of Palestine.” Roughly 1,000 girls attended and received instruction from women associated with Hamas on how to resist the “occupation.” Apparently they are unaware that Israel withdrew from Gaza 10 years ago and it is no longer occupied, so there is nothing for them to resist except perhaps the tyranny of Hamas rule.

One 16-year-old woman told Al-Monitor that the camp “revived our hopes to create a female army to liberate Al-Aqsa from the occupation. We learn about weapons and how to handle them, and we are ready to through intensive military training for this purpose.” 659

Human rights activists have denounced the camps for violating children’s rights and indoctrinating the children into a militarized society that is dominated by Hamas and run according to its radical interpretation of Islam. 657

MYTH:

Israel remains the only Middle East country with a separation fence.

FACT

Israel is the only country in the world that has been condemned for building a security fence while countries around the world, including several in the Middle East, construct new fences to protect themselves from illegal immigrants and their enemies.

Israel reluctantly began building a security fence only after more than 1,000 Israelis were killed in terrorist attacks. Since that time, the number of attacks and fatalities inside Israel that originate in the West Bank has been reduced to nearly zero. Israel is now building a fence along its border with Jordan because of fears about the instability of the kingdom. 660

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia built a 60-mile barrier along an undefined border zone with Yemen to halt arms smuggling of weaponry and a 500-mile fence along its border with Iraq. Turkey built a barricade in the southern province of Alexandretta, which was formerly in Syria, and is an area that Syria claims as its own.

In 2015, Turkey announced plans to further fortify its border with Syria after a suicide bombing. Tunisia also began to construct a fence to guard its border with Libya after an attack on a Tunisian beach hotel killed 38 foreign tourists. The Saudis are also erecting new barriers in response to the escalation of the civil war in Yemen. Even ISIS has built barriers to defend its territory in Iraq and to keep people from escaping. 661

Three decades before any of these fortifications were built, Morocco built the oldest and longest security barrier to separate areas controlled by Morocco and the Polisario. In 2014, Morocco began construction of a new divider along its border with Algeria.

Only Israel’s security fence has been the subject of UN condemnation and a ruling by the International Court of Justice, one more example of the double-standard applied to Israel.

MYTH:

Muslims revere the Al-Aqsa Mosque and treat it with the respect it deserves.

FACT

In recent weeks, the Palestinian Authority has resurrected what journalist Nadav Shragai calls the “Al-Aqsa Mosque is in danger libel,” accusing Israel of desecrating the mosque and planning to destroy it and replace it with the Third Temple. 662 This is pure rubbish. Israel has treated the entire Temple Mount with great reverence and granted the Muslims privileges denied to Jews, whose connection to the site predates that of the Muslims by centuries. Jews are only allowed on the Temple Mount during certain times to avoid any conflicts with Muslim prayers; they have been prohibited from bringing Jewish ritual items, including prayer books and prayer shawls, and they are banned from praying on the site. All of these restrictions on Jewish religious rights are imposed out of sensitivity for Muslims and respect for Islam.

Protection of the mosque as well as all Muslim holy places in Israel is enshrined in Israeli law. Furthermore, despite the long Jewish association with the Temple Mount as the holiest place in Judaism, Israel has allowed Muslim authorities, the Waqf, to control the Muslim holy places.

Sadly, many Muslims, with the approval, and sometimes incitement, of the Waqf and Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority, have desecrated their own holy places by using them as armories and instigating riots against non-Muslim visitors and the police trying to protect them. “We contaminate our mosques with our own hands and feet, and then blame Jews for desecrating Islamic holy sites,” according to Middle East scholar Bassam Tawil. “If anyone is desecrating Islamic holy sites, it is those who bring explosives, stones and firebombs into Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Jews who visit the Temple Mount do not bring with them stones, bombs or clubs. It is young Muslim men who are desecrating our holy sites with their ‘filthy feet’" (a reference to Abbas’s slur against Jews visiting the Temple Mount).663


Palestinian Arab young men with masks, inside Al-Aqsa Mosque (some wearing shoes), stockpile rocks to use for throwing at Jews who visit the Temple Mount, (September 27, 2015). Photos courtesy of the Gatestone Institute

Why have clashes intensified in recent weeks? It is not because of any actions by Israel or non-Muslim visitors; the explanation is that riots are a proven method of provoking an Israeli reaction with the intent of tarring Israel's reputation. Tawil explains:

Our leaders, who are fully responsible for sending these teenagers to throw stones and firebombs at Jews, are sitting in their luxurious offices and villas in Ramallah and rubbing their hands with deep satisfaction. Abbas and several Palestinian leaders in the West Bank would like to see our youths rioting on the streets of Jerusalem and in the Temple Mount's Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, so that they can hold Israel responsible for cracking down on "innocent" Palestinians. Their main goal is to embarrass Israel and depict it as a state that takes tough measures against Palestinian teenagers, whose only fault is participation in "popular resistance."

Provoking violence and making specious claims about a threat to the Al-Aqsa Mosque also galvanize the Muslim world against Israel and attract attention to Palestinian political demands.

The timing should come as no surprise as the Palestinian issue has been placed on the back-burner as far more urgent problems have arisen in the region since the Arab Spring turned into the Islamic Winter. Iran’s nuclear program, the advances of ISIS, the Syrian refugee crisis, the Yemeni civil war, the unrest in Iraq and Libya have all superseded the formerly all-encompassing Palestinian issue.

The tragedy for Islam is that the international community and Muslim leaders do not condemn and prevent the defilement of their holy places by Palestinians who are more interested in using Al-Aqsa as a military fort than a place of prayer.

MYTH:

Iran’s missile research does not violate UN sanctions or the nuclear agreement.

FACT

While the focus of the last several years has been on Iran’s nuclear program, the danger of a conventional Iranian attack with advanced missiles has steadily grown. The National Council of the Resistance of Iran, an Iranian opposition group, said that North Korea helped Iran build dozens of underground tunnels and facilities for the construction of nuclear-capable missiles beginning in 1989.664

Iran has repeatedly violated, and said it would ignore, UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010), which forbids Iran from engaging in “any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology” [emphasis added].

British Foreign Minister William Hague told Parliament in June 2011 that Iran had conducted three secret tests of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1929.665

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Iran's ballistic missiles challenge U.S. military capabilities and U.S. influence in the Middle East.” U.S. intelligence indicates that “Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, and is expanding the scale, reach, and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload.” The Pentagon also believes that Iran's missiles threaten “U.S. forces, allies, and partners in regions where the United States deploys forces and maintains security relationships”.666

Even without nuclear weapons, CRS noted Iran poses a serious threat to its Arab neighbors because they do not have missile defenses or the ability to deter an Iranian attack. This could allow Iran to “blackmail such states into meeting demands, for example, to raise oil prices, cut oil production or even withhold cooperation with the U.S. on which their very survival depends.”

The CRS study concluded that “Iran has not shown that it is deterred or dissuaded by U.S. conventional military superiority, or by U.S. and international sanctions, or by the deployment of U.S. BMD [ballistic missile defense] capabilities.”

In May 2013 Iranian officials unveiled a domestically developed transporter-erecter-launcher (TEL) system for their Shahab-3 missiles, making their missile arsenal more mobile and easily disguised. The development of a multiple reentry vehicle (MRV) attachment for the Shahab-3 missiles and newer longer range Qiam missiles was unveiled in February 2014. The MRV attachments allow the missiles to carry multiple warheads and strike many different targets at once, in contrast to a single warhead carried on a single missile hitting a single target. Also unveiled in 2014 was the Iranian Kadr F missile, capable of striking targets up to 1,950 kilometers away.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies reported finding evidence the Iranian military had begun to put GPS guidance systems on their Zelal-2 warhead, with a range of only 210 kilometers. The report claims that Iran could easily do the same with longer range missiles, making them much more accurate and significantly increasing the likelihood that Iran could carry out devastating missile attacks. Israel missile defense expert Uzi Rubin stated that this threat must not be underestimated; GPS guided missiles “can degrade the [Israeli military’s] ground capabilities... can paralyze Israel’s war economy, and inflict massive casualties”.667

"The range of our missiles covers all of Israel today. That means the fall of the Zionist regime, which will certainly come soon."
- General Mohammad Ali Jafari
668


In the midst of the nuclear negotiations, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced the test firing of a new missile, “Great Prophet 9,” in the Strait of Hormuz on February 26, 2015, as part of a large-scale naval and air defense drill. The drill also included an attack on a simulated American aircraft carrier. The Naval Chief of the Revolutionary Guard, Adm. Ali Fadavi, stated after the drill that “the new weapon will have a very decisive role in adding our naval power in confronting threats, particularly by the Great Satan, the United States”.669

Meanwhile, North Korea reportedly supplied Iran with several shipments of missile components during the nuclear negotiations, violating UN sanctions against both countries. 670

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached between Iran and the P5+1 did not specify any limits on the Iranian ballistic missile program, except that the Iranians cannot develop any ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for the duration of the agreement. Iranian officials insisted the deal did not apply to their missile program because their ballistic missiles were not designed to transport nuclear warheads. U.S. officials, however, have repeatedly said that Iranian missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.671

Announcing that “we will have a new ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our enemies,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani unveiled a new missile, known as the Fateh 313 on August 22, 2015. The missile has a range of 310 miles and is one of the most accurate in the Iranian arsenal. Rouhani defiantly added, “We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that.”672

The same month, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan stated that Iranian scientists were “producing all ballistic missile ranges,” for the Iranian aerospace industry. He went on to assert that Iran is, “considering the design, research, and production of [missiles] that are highly destructive, highly accurate, radar evasive, and tactical.”673

In defiance of a United Nations ban on testing missiles that could possibly deliver a nuclear warhead, Iran tested a new missile known as the Emad in early October 2015. The Emad is a precision-guided long-range missile, and is the first guided weapon in Iran's arsenal capable of striking Israel. It is estimated that the missile has a range of more than 1,000 miles and Israeli military analyst Uzi Rubin noted that “the Emad represents a major leap in terms of accuracy.”674

While agreeing that the missile test violated the UN ban, the White House insisted, “This is altogether separate from the nuclear agreement that Iran reached with the rest of the world. Iran’s defiance of the world in this regard, however, does not bode well for its adherence to the nuclear deal.675

MYTH:

The Western Wall is a part of the al-Aqsa Mosque.

FACT

In the latest propaganda campaign at the United Nations, the Palestinians, backed by six Arab states, succeeded in erasing the historical connection between Jews and their holy sites by convincing the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to list the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem as Muslim sites. The resolution - which passed 26-6 with 25 abstentions - also condemned Israel for archaeological excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The Arabs also wanted to designate the Western Wall as part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but they were forced to back down after a storm of international protest and the opposition of UNESCO’s Director-General. The final draft also softened some of the anti-Israel rhetoric and omitted a reference to Jerusalem as the “occupied capital of Palestine.” 678

The Cave of the Patriarchs (Machpelah) is the world's most ancient Jewish site, and the second holiest place for the Jewish people after the Temple Mount. Jews believe the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Jewish people - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah - are buried in the Cave of the Patriarchs. The one missing matriarch, also revered by the Jews, is buried in Rachel’s Tomb. The Jewish connection to these holy places is questioned only by ignorant journalists and Arab propagandists, not by serious historians.

Though they failed to convince UNESCO to accept the contention that the Western Wall is part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinians have been trying for years to deny the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. Their efforts to rewrite history were aided by a New York Times story that said there is no definitive answer to the question of whether the Temple Mount “was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples.” In fact, however, no controversy exists on this question. Historians agree that the two temples did stand on what is now called the Temple Mount -- or Haram al-Sharif in Arabic. After a firestorm of protests, the Times corrected the story, but left in the observation that Palestinians think otherwise.676

The history of these sites is well-known: For centuries, the outer retaining wall for the site of the Temple has been referred to as the Western Wall/Wailing Wall. The Temple stood on that site until the year 70 CE, more than 600 years before the construction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Muslim authorities have acknowledged the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. For example, the Muslim authority in Jerusalem during the British Mandate was the Supreme Muslim Council, which published a tourist guide that said the Temple Mount site “is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.”677

More authoritatively, the Koran - the holy book of Islam - describes Solomon’s construction of the First Temple (34:13) and recounts the destruction of the First and Second Temples (17:7).

The automatic pro-Arab majority assured passage the Palestinians would succeed in rewriting world history. The only countries who voted against were the United States, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Estonia. The United States already withdrew funding to UNESCO because of its politicization, but if the Europeans were to do so as well, perhaps the historical record can be restored and UNESCO will cease to be a tool of the Arabs’ campaign to delegitimize Israel and return to its mission to build a lasting peace “on the basis of humanity’s moral and intellectual solidarity.”

MYTH:

Israel boycotts Palestinian academics.

FACT

The hypocritical and anti-Semitic campaign by thousands of professors seeking to impose an academic boycott on Israel continues in the United States and other parts of the world. These professors insist that they have “academic freedom” to engage in anti-Israel propaganda inside and outside their classrooms, but that anyone who dares to criticize them is guilty of trying to take away their freedom and are engaged in McCarthyism. 

Out of all the countries in the world, including autocracies with the most heinous human rights records, the only country singled out for special mistreatment by these academics is the democratic nation of Israel. These same people, who profess their concern for the plight of the Palestinian people, were silent when Kuwait expelled 300,000 of them in 1991, indifferent to the massacres of Palestinians by Muslims and Christians in Lebanon, and now unmoved as tens of thousands of Palestinians in Syria are displaced or murdered. 

Ironically, many of the Israelis who are most sympathetic to the views of academics abroad who support the Palestinians are Israeli professors who would be boycotted. Like Palestinian terrorists, the boycotters do not make distinctions between “good” Israelis and “bad” ones; their strategy is just as indiscriminate as the targets of Hamas rockets. 

Meanwhile, the Palestinians, supposedly the beneficiaries of these actions, are the ones who actually suffer. The faculty who sign onto boycott petitions have nothing to do with Israeli universities anyway, so they sacrifice nothing and have no impact on Israeli policy. Worse, under the pressure of these outsiders, Palestinian academics who have had productive ties with their Israeli colleagues have been forced to sever them and declare fealty to the anti-Semitic boycott movement.

Israeli academics, by contrast, have never boycotted their Palestinian counterparts, not even during the worst periods of terrorism. “To the contrary,” observes Martin Kramer, President of Shalem College, “if you’re organizing a conference in Israel, it’s almost obligatory to have a Palestinian professor on the podium. Free exchange is what academic freedom means, and Israeli universities have done an admirable job of upholding it in trying times.” The academic boycott against Israel, by contrast, “is itself a gross violation of academic freedom, because it explicitly imposes a political litmus test on Israelis scholars. It’s radical-style McCarthyism.”679

Actually, Kramer understates the offensiveness of the boycott because it calls for a boycott of universities regardless of whether individual Israeli professors pass the litmus test of calling for the delegitimization of their own country. And many Israeli professors are willing to join this campaign even as they continue to take their salaries from the very government they condemn.

MYTH:

Prime Minister Netanyahu has backtracked on Prime Minister Rabin’s positions regarding peace with the Palestinians.

FACT

On November 4, 2015, Israelis and all those who long for peace will mourn the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The role Rabin played in the defense of his country as a soldier, diplomat and politician should never be forgotten. In 1993, he took the courageous step of recognizing the PLO and negotiating a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat that for a brief period offered hope for an end to the conflict. Alas, by reneging on the commitment to end terror and, instead, intensifying the murderous attacks on Israeli civilians, the Palestinians squandered perhaps their best chance for achieving their stated goal of independence.

In fact, before his death, Rabin indicated he had lost faith in the peace process and was considering putting an end to Israeli concessions. According to his daughter Dalia, “Many people who were close to father told me that on the eve of the murder he considered stopping the Oslo process because of the terror that was running rampant in the streets and that Arafat wasn't delivering the goods. Father, after all, wasn’t a blind man running forward without thought... After all he was someone for whom the security of the state was sacrosanct.”680

Rabin was not naive and did not let his desire for peace blind him to the risks. Rabin’s clear-eyed realism has been forgotten, however, by many people who have mythologized Rabin’s role in the Oslo process, presenting him as so determined that it was only his death that prevented the implementation of a two-state solution to the conflict. By contrast, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is internationally vilified as someone who is uncompromising and uninterested in peace. Ironically, a closer examination of the views of the two leaders reveals that their views were remarkably similar, with one notable exception, unlike Rabin, Netanyahu has accepted the eventual creation of a Palestinian state.

The best evidence of Rabin’s thinking at the time of his death was his final speech to the Knesset on October 5, 1995, just a month before he was murdered. Compare Rabin’s views with those of Netanyahu:

On a Palestinian State
Rabin: We view the permanent solution in the framework of [the] State of Israel, which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”
Netanyahu: “We want a peace that would end the conflict once and for all ... I don't support a one-state solution, I don't believe that's a solution at all, I support the vision of two states for two peoples.” 681

The 1967 Lines
Rabin: “The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.
Netanyahu: “For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities -- the first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible.” 682

Control of the Jordan Valley
Rabin:The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
Netanyahu: “Our strength is the guarantee for our existence and peace. We do not want an Iranian offshoot in Judea and Samaria. This requires a security border in the Jordan Valley, as Rabin said in his last speech.”683

Settlements
Rabin: “I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.
Netanyahu: “I have no intention of evacuating any settlement or uprooting any Israelis.” 684

Jerusalem
Rabin: “United Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev - as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.
Netanyahu: “We will keep Jerusalem united under Israeli authority.”685

Rabin took the peace process as far as he could under the circumstances he faced. Had he lived, he may have seen the process through to a successful conclusion, but his daughter’s remarks suggest that he did not believe peace could be achieved because of the unceasing Palestinian terrorism.

Netanyahu now faces more grave dangers and yet has been willing go even farther than Rabin in accepting Palestinian independence. That is a significant concession that the Palestinians have ignored. Worse, as they did during the Oslo period, they seem determined to prove through acts of violence that they are not interested in ending the conflict.

MYTH:

Israel is framing Palestinians for murder to justify shooting them and then leaving the wounded to die.

FACT

Since October 1, 2015, 12 Israelis have been killed and 158 have been injured in terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinians who have rammed cars into pedestrians, and stoned, shot and stabbed Israeli soldiers, policeman and civilians. Among the casualties a 19-year old border policeman, a 19-year old Israeli soldier, a 22-year old Rabbi, and a 76-year old Israeli-American citizen who had moved to Israel from the United States over 30 years prior.

The carnage would be much worse if not for the quick action of Israeli civilians and security forces who have subdued most of the attackers. Some of the terrorists have been shot and wounded and others killed. Out of 77 total attacks between October 1 and November 9, 2015, only two attackers were not apprehended or killed on the scene.

What has been the reaction of the Palestinians to this outbreak of violence?

Hamas and many others have cheered on the terrorists and called for an uprising. The Palestinian Authority has lauded the terrorists as heroes. 686 A Palestinian football tournament, for example, was named after a murderer who stabbed two Israelis to death. 687 Official radio, television, cartoons, social media, religious leaders and teachers glorify the killers and encourage Palestinians to carry out more attacks. The PA newspaper ran a story reporting how popular songs have become that encourage violence against Israelis. 687

Palestinians have also claimed that Israel is cold-bloodedly killing Palestinians and then planting knives next to the bodies to justify their actions. A cartoon tweeted from the Fatah Twitter account on November 1, 2015, for example, showed six Palestinians lying dead in pools of blood and an Israeli soldier walking by with a basket full of knives, planting a knife by each dead body. The caption states in Arabic and English: “Shoot... add a knife... take a photo.” 686

Perhaps the Palestinians have watched too many American police shows on television, but in the real world there are numerous videos that capture Palestinians in the act of attacking Jews. The following video shows a 22-year old Palestinian woman, Hilwa Salim Darwish, stabbing an Israeli border policeman. She was shot following the attack, and was treated at an Israeli hospital.

 

One of the vilest charges made by the Palestinians during the upsurge of violence is that Israelis do not provide medical treatment to terrorists who are wounded during or after their attempts to kill Jews. To the contrary, Jewish and Arab doctors and nurses ensure that terrorists brought to Israeli hospitals receive the same world-class medical care as their victims.

Palestinians have also accused Israelis of leaving wounded Palestinians on the street to die, but the truth is that terrorists’ past behavior has forced Israeli medical personnel to delay treatment until they are assured by the security forces that the wounded are not wearing suicide vests. Sadly, terrorists have targeted medical personnel and those injured today are suffering the consequences. 688

Despite the heinous crimes against their fellow citizens, Israelis do what they can to save lives. One of the most remarkable stories involved Maya Stolero. When she heard reports over the radio that someone had been stabbed outside her office at the Israeli police headquarters in Jerusalem, she rushed out to help, a routine response by Israelis with medical training. When Stolero arrived, she found a 15-year-old Palestinian woman with gunshot wounds lying on the sidewalk. She had been shot after attempting to stab an Israeli border policeman. What made this case special is that Stolero’s father was the first Israeli killed when the stabbing and stonings started 30 days earlier when his car was pelted with rocks (which apologists suggest are harmless), causing him to swerve into an electrical pole. Despite her heartache, Stolero did not hesitate to take action to help save the Palestinian teen’s life.689

MYTH:

The terrorist atrocities in Paris are completely different from the violence by Palestinians against Israelis.

FACT

As on 9/11, the media had no reservations about labeling the perpetrators of the Paris atrocities as terrorists. By contrast, the same media outlets contort themselves to justify their refusal to classify the killers of Jews as terrorists. In fact, when “the Agence France Presse published a chronological list of worldwide terror attacks since 9/11, including of course the Madrid and London bombings, Mumbai, Kenya and many others. Only one country was completely missing from that list: Israel.” 690

Why is a suicide bomber outside a Paris stadium different from a Palestinian suicide bomber in Jerusalem?

There is no difference, but Jewish lives are treated as though they have less value than other humans. Furthermore, unlike the French victims, Jews are treated as though they deserve to be targets. Margot Wallstrom, Sweden’s minister of foreign affairs, went further and intimated that the Jews were to blame for the murders in Paris. She acknowledged that people were becoming radicalized and then said, “And once again we return to situations like that in the Middle East, especially (concerning) Palestinians who think: There is no future for us, we must accept a desperate situation or resort to violence.”691

The director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold, called in the Swedish Ambassador to make clear that “any connection between Islamic State terror and the Palestinian issue is baseless” and that the Swedish Foreign Minister’s comments “may be interpreted as a justification of Palestinian terror.”

ISIS attackers do share one thing in common with many of the Palestinian terrorists and that is Islamic fanaticism. ISIS is cut from the same cloth as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These groups all believe in a holy war against infidels (Muslims who disagree with them included), believe that non-Muslims should not rule on “Islamic land” or over Muslims. They all seek a world governed by their version of Islam.

Ignorant foreign leaders like the Swede, propagandists and the media refuse to acknowledge the religious basis for terror, preferring to explain it away as expressions of frustration or political disillusionment. Remember, the current violence against Israelis was incited by Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian leaders and clerics who claimed the Jews were threatening the Al-Aqsa Mosque and called on the people defend Islam's third holiest shrine. The usual excuse, settlements, had nothing to do with Palestinians desecrating their own mosque to stockpile weapons to attack non-Muslims who did nothing more than visit the Temple Mount.

Radical Islam, as practiced by ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is the enemy of the West, and Muslims who eschew violence and the extremists’ dream of world conquest in the name of Allah.

MYTH:

Mahmoud Abbas never turned down a peace offer from Israel.

FACT

Throughout Myths & Facts we have documented the long sad history of how the Palestinians have repeatedly missed opportunities for independence because their leaders have either been short-sighted, politically weak or simply disinterested in any agreement that would not lead to the destruction of Israel. These chances began as early as the 1937 Peel Plan and include the 1939 British White Paper, the 1947 partition resolution, the 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, the Camp David Accords autonomy offer, the Oslo agreements, the 2000 Clinton parameters and, most recently, the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations.

It is easy to demonstrate how the Palestinians squandered each opportunity for statehood, but much harder to find evidence of a Palestinian leader willing to take responsibility for the failure to win independence for his people. Yasser Arafat, responsible for most of the Palestinians’ misfortune went to his grave convinced he would one day liberate Palestine from the Jews without reaching any peace agreement.

His successor, Mahmoud Abbas, has been no more flexible or successful. For the first time, however, Abbas publicly acknowledged that he had turned down a peace offer in 2008. The agreement, offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, would have created a Palestinian stater in all of the Gaza Strip and about 94 percent of the West Bank with a land swap that would have given the Palestinians nearly 6 percent in additional territory from pre-1967 Israel. Olmert was also prepared to withdraw Israelis from the Jordan Valley, create a safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank, establish a committee to oversee the Holy Basin in Jerusalem, and to accept 5,000 Palestinian refugees, 1,000 per year for five years.

The two men met 36 times. After Olmert presented Abbas with the map showing the proposed borders of Israel and Palestine, Abbas admitted, “I rejected it out of hand.”692

Since then Abbas has not even pretended to want peace. On the contrary, he has refused to negotiate with Netanyahu for the last seven years despite the prodding of Obama and Kerry. In the last several months, he has actively fomented war by inciting Palestinians to violence through his specious claims that Jews are threatening the al-Aqsa Mosque and glorification of terrorists who murder Israelis. The man some call Israel’s peace partner, has yet to condemn any of the 22 murders during the last two months and calls the violence a “peaceful uprising.”693

MYTH:

Palestinian workers suffer under Israeli rule.

FACT

Israel’s detractors attempt to portray the lives of Palestinians under Israeli rule as hell on earth to win international sympathy and justify their one-sided demands for Israel’s virtual surrender, but the reality is shockingly different. Most people would probably be even more astonished to learn that those terrible Israeli settlements, which Palestinian and international leaders blame for the absence of peace, as well as the unrelated turmoil in the region, employ thousands of Palestinians.

A 2014 survey funded by the European Union for the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics found that more than 100,000 Palestinians were working in Israel, 20,200 of whom were employed by settlements. Palestinians also work side by side Israelis in 14 industrial parks with 788 factories in the West Bank. 694

These Palestinian workers also are paid more than double the wage of Palestinians working in the areas of the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian Authority and three times the amount paid workers earn in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

The report found that Palestinian workers suffered so much under Israeli employers that “whenever Palestinian workers have the opportunity to work for Israeli employers, they are quick to quit their jobs with their Palestinian employers... [Because] the work conditions are very good, and include transportation, medical insurance and pensions. These things do not exist with Palestinian employers.”695

Is it any wonder that Palestinians living in the territories oppose the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment and sanctions movement?

People who visit the West Bank discover it is nothing like what they expected. Marwan Asmar, a Jordan-based journalist, for example, returned to Howara after 30 years and found a “total transformation” from a “sleepy village” to a city with “a buzz of activity at the shops, restaurants and cafes” and new construction of buildings, villas, mosques and a swimming pool. “This was certainly not the picture I had in mind,” he wrote. “This was not the picture the media presents - of Palestinians surviving on daily wages of $2 as pointed out by the World Bank, of high unemployment and pockets of poverty. The people I spoke to here said many worked as laborers in Israel and were paid high daily wages. This is how they could build their houses, they told me.”696

According to the 2015 Happy Planet Index, a survey conducted by the New Economics Forum to measure happiness around the world, the Palestinian Authority was the third happiest Arab country and the 30th happiest in the world, ranking higher than countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia and Canada.697

Does this mean that Palestinians would not prefer independence? No, most would still prefer to live in a state of their own, but two things are clear from the data: 1) life in the West Bank is very different from the way it is portrayed in the media and by Palestinian propagandists, and 2) the conditions in the West Bank do not explain the unceasing violence of Palestinian terrorists.

MYTH:

Palestinians would never do anything to help Israeli settlements

FACT

Palestinian propaganda has become cliche: settlements are an obstacle to peace, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is like the way blacks were once treated in South Africa, Israelis have ghettoized Palestinians behind the security fence and Israeli businesses in the West Bank should be boycotted. We’ve debunked these myths elsewhere in Myths and Facts, but there is one statistic that provides a powerful rebuttal to the promulgators of this nonsense: 25,000. That is the approximate number of Palestinians who “hold permits that allow them to work inside the settlements, where they build homes for the settlers or work in Israeli-owned businesses.” 698

Take a moment to digest this information. Thousands of Palestinians are helping to build the very structures that their government, as well as foreign governments, want torn down. They work in the businesses that the boycott, sanctions and divestment movement (BDS) want the world to punish. People who are allegedly so persecuted they live in a constant state of fear, anger and humiliation work side by side with Israelis, earning more money and enjoying superior benefits to what they would receive from Palestinian employers. According to the Palestinian Authority's official newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, (September 21, 2014):699

  • “The only cases in which a Palestinian worker does not receive the salary his Israeli [employer] determined for him are those cases in which the middleman is Palestinian.”
  • “Whenever Palestinian workers have the opportunity to work for Israeli employers, they are quick to quit their jobs with their Palestinian employers - for reasons having to do with salaries and other rights.”
  • “The salaries of workers employed by Palestinians amount to less than half the salaries of those who work for Israeli employers in the areas of the Israel-occupied West Bank...”700
  • “The [Israeli] work conditions are very good, and include transportation, medical insurance and pensions. These things do not exist with Palestinian employers.”

These facts do not indicate that peace is imminent, that all Palestinians are supporters of settlements or that Israel will not face difficult and risky sacrifices in the future. The truth does, however, mean the propaganda is just that and should be dismissed as such.

On the positive side, these 25,000 Palestinians demonstrate that Jews and Arabs can work together - something we’ve long known from their relations inside the Green Line - even in the West Bank. These Palestinians are providing for their families as honest, hard-working laborers.

Palestinians should ask themselves: Who is better off, the family of the terrorist who is dead or in jail, or the family whose breadwinner works in an Israeli settlement. Why doesn’t the Palestinian Authority hold up these people as examples to their people? Why aren’t there songs written about them and TV shows broadcast highlighting their work ethic? Why aren’t schools teaching about these common working people? If this were happening, Israelis would have reason to believe that peace is possible.

Alas, these are not the values Palestinian leaders are interested in promoting. Instead, they engage in non-stop incitement to encourage terror attacks against Jews, they honor the murderers as martyrs and use their scarce resources to pay terrorists and their families instead of improving the welfare of the public. Palestinian dictator Mahmoud Abbas and his Kleptocracy have only brought their people misery. Rather than support families, their incitement has helped destroy them.

Sadly, it takes only one individual inspired by Abbas, radical Islam or any number of excuses to ruin the lives of other Palestinians by engaging in terrorism. On January 17, 2016, a Palestinian intruder murdered Dafna Meir, 39, at the entrance to her home in Otniel, south of Hebron. Three of her six children were home at the time, but were not injured. As a result, of this attack, and another that wounded a pregnant woman, the IDF said it would temporarily ban Palestinian laborers from working in settlements on the West Bank. 701

If the United States and Europeans devoted a fraction of the time they spend castigating Israel over settlements on pressuring Abbas to prevent terror, and promoting the economic interaction of Jews and Palestinians rather than boycotts, the international community might finally make a positive contribution toward putting an end to the conflict.

MYTH:

Israel discriminates against it's Arab citizens

FACT

Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote. Arabs in 2016 held 16 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Israeli Arabs have also held various government posts, including one who served as Israel’s ambassador to Finland and the deputy mayor of Tel Aviv. Oscar Abu Razaq was appointed Director General of the Ministry of Interior, the first Arab citizen to become chief executive of a key government ministry. Ariel Sharon’s original cabinet included the first Arab minister, Salah Tarif, a Druze who served as a minister without portfolio. An Arab is also a Supreme Court justice. In October 2005, an Arab professor was named Vice President of Haifa University.

Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel. More than 300,000 Arab children attend Israeli schools. At the time of Israel’s founding, there was one Arab high school in the country. Today, there are hundreds of Arab schools. 702

The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army. This is to spare Arab citizens the need to take up arms against their brethren. Nevertheless, Bedouins have served in paratroop units and other Arabs have volunteered for military duty. Compulsory military service is applied to the Druze and Circassian communities at their own request.

Although Israeli Arabs have occasionally been involved in terrorist activities, they have generally behaved as loyal citizens. During the 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars, none engaged in any acts of sabotage or disloyalty. Sometimes, in fact, Arabs volunteered to take over civilian functions for reservists. During the Palestinian War that began in September 2000, Israeli Arabs engaged in widespread protests for the first time.

Some economic and social gaps between Israeli Jews and Arabs result from the latter not serving in the military. Veterans qualify for many benefits not available to non-veterans. Moreover, the army aids in the socialization process. On the other hand, Arabs do have an advantage in obtaining some jobs during the years Israelis are in the military. In addition, industries like construction and trucking have come to be dominated by Israeli Arabs.

Recognizing that Arab communities were not receiving adequate funding, the Israeli government approved in December 2015 a historic five-year economic package of roughly $6.6 billion to move toward closing the gaps and promoting equality. In addition, 20 different budget areas, including infrastructure, employment, transportation, and education will be allocated based on the Arab proportion of the population (approximately 20 percent). Joint Arab List Party leader Ayman Odeh said the plan “could be a first step to reduce economic and social disparities of the country’s Arab population.703 Investing in the Arab sector is expected to boost Israel’s economy, give Israeli Arabs a greater sense of equality, demonstrate that Israel can be both a Jewish and democratic state, and show Arabs in the region that making peace with Israel can be beneficial.704

The United States has been independent for 235 years and still has not integrated all of its diverse communities. Even today, nearly half a century after civil rights legislation was adopted, discrimination has not been eradicated. It should not be surprising that Israel has not solved all of its social problems in only 68 years.

MYTH:

Labeling products manufactured in West Bank settlements promotes peace

FACT

The European Union has called for member states to require goods originating from the West Bank to be labeled separately from products from the rest of Israel.705 Following this move, the Obama Administration also announced plans to enforce regulations requiring goods entering the United States from the West Bank to be labeled as such.706 The EU and Obama mistakenly believe that this will pressure Israel to evacuate the West Bank and capitulate to Palestinian demands. This cynical campaign is blatantly hypocritical and anti-Semitic and will in no way advance the cause of peace.

As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, “Labeling goods made by Israeli businesses in disputed territories, but not goods made in other disputed territories like Kashmir, for example, is an example of blatant anti-Semitism.”707 As is so often the case, it is only Israeli Jews who must be given special treatment while other peoples involved in conflicts are ignored. “What, you say, but there are no Jews occupying those other places? We only condemn the Jews? Well, of course. Because only the Jews are especially worthy of EU condemnation. Next, a yellow star. Now that would be bold,” wrote Pletka.708 Though European leaders claim to oppose the efforts of the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement to boycott and isolate Israel, the labeling campaign supports it.

The labeling idea is also counterproductive because it only hardens the views of Israelis that they are under siege and that criticism of their policies are one sided. The principal obstacle to peace today as well as yesterday is the refusal of the Palestinians to accept a Jewish state and yet no pressure is being exerted on them to change their irredentist position. Proponents of labeling also fail to recognize that Israel can and will make concessions only when Israelis feel their views are understood, feel strong and have the backing of the United States.

The labeling idea will also have little impact on Israeli trade. A small percentage of Israeli exports are from West Bank companies. In addition, not all EU states are going to adopt this anti-Semitic requirement. Furthermore, Israeli trade with the EU has been expanding even as BDS sympathizers call for boycotting Israel.

Members of Congress responded to the EU decision in December 2015 out of concern that the labeling rule would could “promote a de-facto boycott of Israel.” Resolutions were introduced in the House and Senate to condemn the EU’s action and 36 senators signed a letter to the EU’s top diplomat, “urging the European body to reconsider the discriminatory policy.”709

When members learned the Obama administration plans to enforce similar anti-Semitic labeling rules, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced a bill in the Senate and said the administration’s “directive plays right into the hands of those who are driving insidious efforts to boycott Israeli goods.”710

MYTH:

The Palestinian Authority prevents and condemns terrorism

FACT

Many people have forgotten, but one of the principal reasons that Israel decided to recognize the PLO and engage in peace talks was because Yasser Arafat renounced the use of terrorism and other acts of violence. Sadly, peace has not been achieved primarily because terrorism has never ceased. Instead, during negotiations subsequent to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians repeated their promise to end terror in an effort to extract additional concessions from Israel. This pattern has continued to the present day when Palestinians make new demands on Israel while, simultaneously, encouraging violence against Israelis.

Mahmoud Abbas refers to the latest wave of terrorism as a “peaceful, popular uprising,” which prompted columnist Bassam Tawil to ask, “What is peaceful and popular about stabbing an 80-year-old lady named Ruti Malka in Rishon Lezion, and a 70-year-old Jewish woman [in] Jerusalem.” Referring to the attackers who were killed during or after their assaults, Tawil says, Abbas wants to “deceive the world into believing that Israel’s mighty security forces killed these poor innocent terrorists who were merely part of a peaceful protest against those awful Israeli ‘occupiers.’” Tawil adds that Abbas “knows very well that the terrorists are ‘lone wolves’ whom he himself has whipped up to murder Jews for no other reason that that they are Jews.” 711

While commentators suggest that terrorists using knives, guns and cars to kill Jews do so out of frustration; the truth is they are given financial incentives. The Palestinian Authority, which complains incessantly about the economic conditions in the West Bank, manages to pay $3-7 million as salaries and financial rewards to terrorists and their families. According to a 2004 regulation, “prisoners serving up to five years in Israeli prisons receive 1,300 shekels per month; wives of married inmates receive another 300 shekels, and an additional 50 shekels a month is sent for each child in the family. After five years, the payments increase to 2,000 shekels. Inmates in prison longer than 25 years are paid 4,000 shekels.” Many of these payments are made to mass murderers.712

In 2014 alone, the PA allocated $46 million for released prisoners in addition to payments made to terrorists still in jail and the families of “martyrs.” Abbas and other senior officials, investigative journalist Edwin Black discovered, “scrutinize the details of each case, the specific carnage caused, and the personal details of each terrorist act before approving salaries and awarding honorary ranks in either the PA government or the military.” Since the PA’s budget relies on foreign donations, these payments to terrorists are essentially subsidized by western nations, including the United States, despite laws on the books in many of these countries prohibiting support for terrorists. 713

The PA also finds non-monetary ways to encourage and reward terrorism. On Fatah’s Facebook page, for example, a picture of a burning house was accompanied by the threat that “the sons of Fatah will turn your settlements into balls of fire and increase your horror.” Another post said Jews should “prepare all the bags you can for your body parts.”714

As for rewards, soccer teams, sports tournaments and schools are named after terrorists. For example, a Palestinian table tennis tournament for women was named after a terrorist who hijacked a bus that led to the death of 37 Israelis, and a soccer tournament was named after a suicide bomber who killed 31 people at a Passover Seder.715 In addition, Abbas awarded the “Military Star of Honor” to a terrorist who placed a bomb in in a movie theater in 1967 that was discovered before it detonated. The bomber subsequently spent 10 years in prison.716 On another occasion Abbas issued a posthumous “medal of sacrifice” to the mother of three Palestinian murderers, including one who died during a 2002 suicide attack that killed five Israelis.717 On February 3, 2016, Abbas hosted the families of 11 terrorists who carried out attacks against Israelis in the previous four months. Abbas told them, “Your sons are martyrs.” The meeting occurred shortly after three Palestinians killed 19-year-old Israeli Border Police officer Hadar Cohen and injured a second young female officer in Jerusalem.718 Some people wonder why Israelis say they have no partner for peace, or why they are unwilling to simply pick up and leave the West Bank. Now you have an answer.

MYTH:

The Palestinians are now ready for peace talks

FACT

The United States as well as the Europeans have fed the media a steady diet of criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for allegedly failing to take steps to advance the peace process. The American and Israeli Jewish left has been equally critical and reinforces the narrative suggesting Israel is not interested in peace.

This narrative has only one flaw - it’s untrue. Netanyahu has repeatedly called for negotiations to discuss a peace agreement that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel. By contrast, the Palestinians have obstinately refused to enter talks and yet they have been given an international free pass and continue to be portrayed as the aggrieved party.

While a variety of measures have been suggested and implemented to coerce Israel to unilaterally make concessions to the Palestinians, no pressure whatsoever has been directed at the Palestinians. This inequity has persisted for years, and continues today, even as the Palestinian leadership incites violence, Palestinian terrorists attack Israelis on an almost daily basis, Hamas amasses new missiles and builds tunnels to infiltrate Israel and both Hamas and Fatah work to further shift the conflict from a political one over land to a religious one over the right of Jews to self-determination in the Islamic heartland.

One thing that you can say about Palestinian leaders is that they have become more honest. It used to be that they would say what Westerners wanted to hear in English and what their constituents wanted to hear in Arabic. Now, however, you have Hamas leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh bluntly saying, “The gun is our only response to [the] Zionist regime. In time we have come to understand that we can obtain our goals only through fighting and armed resistance and no compromise should be made with the enemy.”719

Even the West wrote Hamas off as a peace partner, but there is a continuing inexplicable effort to hold up Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party as moderates interested in peace despite more than a decade of evidence to the contrary. Even as the French government worked on a proposal for an international conference to bring the parties together, Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said, “We will never go back and sit again in a direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.”720

The Palestinians have for the last two years, at least, abandoned all pretext of negotiating a peace agreement and directed all their efforts to delegitimizing Israel through the boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) campaign, and by lobbying the international community to recognize “Palestine,” and force Israel to capitulate to their demands.

For those who hope to see an end to the conflict, the Palestinians seem committed to a formula for failure: No talks. No peace. No state.

The Palestinian people appear content with this self-defeating policy, and many are resorting to violence, which, historically, has only made their situation worse. In fact, 43 percent of Palestinians believe the terror attacks will lead Israel to tighten its control on the Palestinian territories; nevertheless, rather than calling for an end to violence, more than two-thirds of Palestinians oppose security coordination with the IDF and nearly 7 in 10 want the attacks on Jews to continue.721

MYTH:

The media is accurately portraying the current wave of violence against Israelis

FACT

Since October 1, 2015, Palestinian terrorists have been involved in 187 stabbings, 75 shootings, and 39 vehicular attacks that have killed 31 Israelis, including one American citizen, and wounded 357.722 In the course of defending themselves, Israeli victims and security officials have killed approximately 172 Palestinians.723

Much of the world’s media has inversed the violence with provocative headlines and stories highlighting the deaths of the Palestinian terrorists and minimizing the fate of their victims. For example:

  • “Four Palestinians killed in anti-Israeli knife attacks,” was the headline in Yahoo News. It is not until the seventh paragraph that readers learn, “All of the incidents involved a Palestinian assailant attempting to stab an Israeli...”724
  • Reuters completely ignored the context of the events described in this headline, “Israeli troops kill three Palestinians in West Bank, Gaza.” In paragraph six, the report notes that one of the Palestinians was shot when he tried to ram Israeli troops at a checkpoint. Three paragraphs later, we learn that a Palestinian was killed among a group of protestors that was attacking troops in Hebron with rocks and petrol bombs. The third Palestinian died after shooting at a checkpoint.725
  • CBS ran an AP story with the headline, “Israel police kill three alleged attackers.” The AP’s original headline, however, was very different: “Gunman wounds 2 Israeli officers, 3 gunmen killed by police.” After a wave of criticism, CBS revised the headline to better reflect the facts: “Palestinians kill Israeli officer, wound another before being killed.” 726
  • On one day in November 2015, a 20-year-old Israeli woman was stabbed to death, another Israeli was rammed by a car and attacked with a knife, and a third was assaulted by a knife-wielding teen. All three terrorists were killed in the course of their attacks. The New York Times ran this headline with its story: “1 Israeli, 3 Palestinians Killed in Attacks in West Bank.” 727

Tamar Sternthal noted that the media also omits key facts in its coverage. “Thus, The New York Times excised statements by US Secretary of State John Kerry harshly condemning Palestinian violence. And when UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon released a statement condemning what he described as Palestinian terrorism and disproportionate Israeli force, Reuters, the Associated Press, National Public Radio, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and PBS quoted only his criticism of Israel.”728

Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. The media consistently minimizes the violence committed against Israelis and pays greater attention to the perpetrators. The families of the terrorists often get more attention than those of the victims.

One of the most egregious examples occurred after a suicide bombing in Petah Tikva on May 27, 2002, when CNN interviewed the mother of the bomber, Jihad Titi. The parents of a 15-month-old girl killed in the attack, Chen and Lior Keinan, were also interviewed. The interviews with the Keinans were not shown on CNN international in Israel or elsewhere around the world until hours after the interview with Titi’s mother had been broadcast several times. This was too much even for CNN, which subsequently announced a policy change whereby it would no longer “report on statements made by suicide bombers or their families unless there seemingly is an extraordinarily compelling reason to do so.” 729

MYTH:

Hezbollah is only a threat to Syria

FACT

Hezbollah, also known as 'The Party of God,' is a radical Shi’a Muslim group fighting against Israel and “western imperialism” in Lebanon and, more recently for the survival of its Syrian patron Hafez Assad. For its attacks against Israel as well as other targets, including the United States, it was labeled as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) by the U.S. State Department in October 1997.

Many people are unaware that Hezbollah terrorists have killed more Americans than any other terrorist group, with the exception of al-Qaida on 9/11. For example:

  • Hezbollah is believed to have kidnapped and tortured to death U.S. Army colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Buckley, and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992.730
  • The organization was responsible for the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II; the suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, in which 241 American servicemen were killed. This was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima in World War II.731
  • In April 1984, Hezbollah bombed a restaurant near an U.S. Air Force base in Torrejon, Spain, wounding 83 people.732
  • In September 1984, Hezbollah terrorists blew up the U.S. Embassy annex.733
  • Three members of Hezbollah were sought for the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 during which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered. 733
  • Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of Americans and other westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s.
  • In 1992 and 1994, Hezbollah was believed to have bombed the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. 734
  • Eight days after the AMIA Bombing the Israeli Embassy in London was car bombed by two Palestinians linked to Hezbollah.735
  • In 1996, a fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the U.S. military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. 736
  • In 2001, Koby Mandell, 13, of Silver Spring, MD, an American-Israeli, was found stoned to death along with a friend in a cave near the Jewish settlement of Tekoa. Two organizations, the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah-Palestine, claimed responsibility for the attack.737
  • In February 2005, the Palestinian Authority accused Hezbollah of attempting to derail the truce signed with Israel. Palestinian officials and former militants described how Hezbollah promised an increase in funding for any cell able to carry out a terrorist attack.
  • In January 2012, one Hezbollah suspect was arrested and another managed to avoid capture, in Thailand's capital city, Bangkok, where security services believe they were working in a cell planning to attack areas commonly frequented by Israeli tourists. 738

The group does not recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel and has, for years, engaged in kidnapping, incursions and rocket fire into Northern Israel. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has been open about his goals:

  • “If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”739
  • “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.”739
  • “The Palestinian National Charter will live on as long as there is a knife in a Palestinian woman's hand with which she stabs an Israeli soldier or settler ... as long as there are suicide bombers in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv... and as long as there is a child who throws a stone in the face of an Israeli soldier.”739
  • Malcolm Kerr, a Lebanese born American who was president of the American University of Beirut, was killed by two gunmen outside his office. Hezbollah said the assassination was part of the organization's plan to “drive all Americans out from Lebanon.”740
  • “... if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.”741

Hezbollah was believed to be bogged down in the civil war in Syria, losing many fighters and equipment, as well as witnessing a drop in morale in Lebanon. The group will get new life thanks to the tens of billions of dollars its patron Iran will receive in the nuclear agreement Assad signed.

For years, Israel has called on the international community to condemn Hezbollah and take action against them, but those cries went unanswered. Similarly, so long as Hezbollah was restricting its activities to fighting Israel, the Arab world was silent. Now, however, Arab states are suddenly waking up to Hezbollah terror attacks in the Syrian civil war. By siding with Shiite Iran and Assad against the Sunni world, Hezbollah has finally forced other states to speak out. Thus, on March 2, 2016, the Gulf Cooperation Council, which was content for years to watch Hezbollah kill Jews, decided the group’s actions in Lebanon warranted branding Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organization.

MYTH:

The United States has the formula to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians

FACT

The European Union, Russia, and the UN all have pursued largely one-sided policies in the Middle East detrimental to Israel, which has disqualified them as honest brokers. The United States is the only country that has the trust of both the Israelis and the Arabs and is therefore the only third party that can play a constructive role in the peace process In his first term, President Barack Obama's initiatives were actually destructive and resulted in a loss of Arab and Israeli confidence in the United States and enabled Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to avoid negotiations. Obama is reportedly making a last-ditch attempt to bring the parties together before the end of his term. Like past efforts, this effort is likely to fail because, historically, American peace initiatives always fail. The United States can play a valuable role as a mediator, but it is the parties themselves who must resolve their differences.

The Eisenhower Administration tried to ease tensions by proposing the joint Arab-Israeli use of the Jordan River. The plan would have helped the Arab refugees by producing more irrigated land and would have reduced Israel’s need for more water resources. Israel cautiously accepted the plan, the Arab League rejected it.

President Johnson outlined five principles for peace. “The first and greatest principle,” Johnson said, “is that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors.” The Arab response came a few weeks later: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...”

President Nixon's Secretary of State, William Rogers, offered a plan that sought to “balance” U.S. policy, but leaned on the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, to accept many Palestinian refugees, and to allow Jordan a role in Jerusalem. The plan was totally unacceptable to Israel and, even though it tilted toward the Arab position, was rejected by the Arabs as well.

President Ford's Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had a little more success in his shuttle diplomacy, arranging the disengagement of forces after the 1973 war, but he never put forward a peace plan, and failed to move the parties beyond the cessation of hostilities to the formalization of peace.

Jimmy Carter was the model for presidential engagement in the conflict. He wanted an international conference at Geneva to produce a comprehensive peace. While Carter spun his wheels trying to organize a conference, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat decided to bypass the Americans and go directly to the Israeli people and address the Knesset. Despite revisionist history by Carter's former advisers, the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was negotiated largely despite Carter. Menachem Begin and Sadat had carried on secret contacts long before Camp David and had reached the basis for an agreement before Carter’s intervention. Carter's mediation helped seal the treaty, but Sadat's decision to go to Jerusalem was stimulated largely by his conviction that Carter's policies were misguided.

In 1982, President Reagan announced a surprise peace initiative that called for allowing the Palestinians self-rule in the territories in association with Jordan. The plan rejected both Israeli annexation and the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel denounced the plan as endangering Israeli security. The plan had been formulated largely to pacify the Arab states, which had been angered by the expulsion of the PLO from Beirut, but they also rejected the Reagan Plan.

George Bush's Administration succeeded in convening a historic regional conference in Madrid in 1991, but it ended without any agreements and the multilateral tracks that were supposed to settle some of the more contentious issues rarely met and failed to resolve anything. Moreover, Bush’s perceived hostility toward Israel eroded trust and made it difficult to convince Israelis to take risks for peace.

"The United States was the first country to recognize Israel in 1948, minutes after its declaration of independence, and the deep bonds of friendship between the U.S. and Israel remain as strong and as unshakeable as ever."
- President Barack Obama
742

President Clinton barely had time to get his vision of peace together when he discovered the Israelis had secretly negotiated an agreement with the Palestinians in Oslo. The United States had nothing to do with the breakthrough at Oslo and very little influence on the immediate aftermath. In fact, the peace process became increasingly muddled as the United States got more involved.
Peace with Jordan also required no real American involvement. The Israelis and Jordanians already were agreed on the main terms of peace, and the main obstacle had been King Hussein's unwillingness to sign a treaty before Israel had reached an agreement with the Palestinians. After Oslo, he felt safe to move forward and no American plan was needed.

In a last ditch effort to save his presidential legacy, Clinton put forward a peace plan to establish a Palestinian state. Again, it was Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s willingness to offer dramatic concessions that raised the prospects for an agreement rather than the president’s initiative. Even after Clinton was prepared to give the Palestinians a state in virtually all the West Bank and Gaza, and to make east Jerusalem their capital, the Palestinians rejected the deal.

President George W. Bush also offered a plan, but it was undercut by Yasser Arafat, who obstructed the required reforms of the Palestinian Authority, and refused to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and stop the violence. Bush’s plan morphed into the Road Map, which drew the support of Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United Nations, but was never implemented because of continuing Palestinian violence. The peace process only began to move again when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made his disengagement proposal, a unilateral approach the State Department had long opposed. Rather than try to capitalize on the momentum created by Israel's evacuation of the Gaza Strip, however, the Bush Administration remained wedded to the Road Map.

President Obama’s peace efforts backfired in his first term; nevertheless, his new Secretary of State, John Kerry, is trying to revive them. To date, he too has failed to lure Abbas to the bargaining table and the Palestinians have not moved an inch from their longstanding irredentist positions. Israel, meanwhile, has repeatedly offered compromises and released dozens of convicted terrorists as a goodwill gesture that has been met with only more demands from Abbas. The Obama Administration is reportedly making one last try as if the answer that eluded his predecessors was simply the inability to devise the magic formula for peace. This plan also seems headed for the dustbin of history as Abbas rejected the initiative brought by Vice President Joseph Biden during his March visit to Israel. The deal reportedly called on Israel to freeze settlement construction and allow the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem in exchange for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the relinquishment of Palestinian rights to return to live in Israel. 743

History has shown that Middle East peace is not made in America. The obstacle to peace is not the absence of an American framework, a lack of U.S. commitment or the failure to sufficiently pressure Israel. In fact, the impediments have not changed since the first two-state solution was proposed in 1937; namely, the unwillingness of the Arabs to live beside a Jewish state, and the refusal of radical Muslims, such as Hamas, to contemplate Jews ruling over Muslims or Islamic land.

MYTH:

Human rights activists care deeply about the Palestinian people

FACT

In the media, reports from human rights organizations, and on college campuses there is a steady drumbeat of criticism of Israel for both real and imagined abuses of Palestinians in the disputed territories. While Israel may be legitimately criticized when abuses are documented, what is shocking is the utter hypocrisy of the critics who proclaim concern for Palestinian welfare, but express it only if Israel can be blamed. This raises the question as to whether the concern for Palestinians is genuine or simply a propaganda tool with which to tarnish Israel’s image.

It is a legitimate question given the near total silence regarding the treatment and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians living in the Arab world. Palestinians have lived as second or third class citizens in Arab countries for decades, but since the Arab Spring, thousands have been tortured, murdered and expelled by their fellow Muslims for alleged involvement in terrorism, for being Sunnis in areas of Shiite control or for being deemed disloyal.

According to journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, the plight of the Palestinians in Arab countries became increasingly tenuous long before the Arab Spring. 744 Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Palestinians cheered on Saddam Hussein. Fearing their disloyalty, Kuwait expelled more than 200,000 Palestinians living and working there. When Hussein was finally driven from power in the second Gulf War, Iraqi Shiites began to take revenge and have driven most Palestinians from the country (approximately 19,000 out of a population of 25,000).

Palestinian refugees are not welcome anywhere in the region. And the number has swelled due to the Syrian civil war where thousands of Palestinians have been killed. The lucky ones who escaped to Lebanon or Jordan are unwelcome and confined to refugee camps.

Ironically, even with the onus of occupation, the Palestinians are far safer in the disputed territories than anywhere else in the region. Hence, while Israel's critics accuse Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” the truth is the Palestinian population has grown exponentially in the disputed territories while it is being gradually wiped out in the Arab world. This is tragic. The fact that campaigners for Palestinian human rights and the media ignore what is happening before their eyes is appalling.

MYTH:

The Palestinians have aboriginal rights to Palestine

FACT

The Jews are often depicted by Israel's detractors as newcomers to “Palestine” who are displacing the aboriginal Arab people. The truth is quite different; however, as it is the Jews who are the aboriginal tribe in the land on the basis of their presence in the Holy Land for more than 2,000 years. Of all the people who lived in the area at that time, such as Phoenicians, Moabites, Philistines, only the Jews remain today.

The Arabs, however, are not native to “Palestine”; they are aboriginal to Arabia. “Judaism, the Hebrew language, and the Jewish people were established in the Holy Land for about a thousand years” before the emergence of Islam. It is “the Arab people,” who are “the interloping settler populating, including newer waves of Arab immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries.” 745

MYTH:

Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with Islam

FACT

Since his first major speech in Cairo just months into his presidency, President Obama has shown determination to improve relations with the Muslim world. Toward that end, he has stubbornly refused to use the words “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorists” for even the most heinous attacks by individuals and groups that say they are acting according to their religious beliefs. He will not, for example, refer to the ISIS terrorists as the Islamic State.746

During a speech about terrorism, Obama said “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” but would not say “terrible deeds in the name of Islam.” Instead, in every place where the word “Islam” might have been expected, the word “religion” was substituted.747 To avoid any linkage between Islam and terrorism, the administration went so far as to censor a video of his meeting with French President Francois Hollande. In the video released to the public, Hollande’s reference to “Islamist terrorism” was deleted.748

In contrast to Obama, the former and current prime ministers of England have no difficulty labeling terrorism committed by Muslims for what it is. David Cameron said in 2011:

We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia. Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values.747

Similarly, Tony Blair has called radical Islam a “poison” that “must be eradicated.” He said, “The world has not yet fully come to terms with either the scale of this radical Islamist problem or the need to deal with it.”749

Not all terrorists are Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists; nevertheless, a large percentage of terrorists call themselves Muslims. While the radical Muslims may pervert the tenets of Islam, they are clear about their motivations and insist their religious beliefs are their source.

Some Muslims, for example, explain that the concept of “jihad,” literally translated as “striving,” relates to a personal and communal spiritual struggle. Radicals, however, use the term to describe a holy war against infidels and the enemies of Islam - which may include other Muslims with whom they disagree.

The original jihad was led by Mohammed, when he led his Muslim fighters against the pagans in Arabia. That jihad continued for centuries as his successors established the Muslim Empire. Today's jihadists have adopted their own understandings of certain tenets of Islam. For example, suicide is forbidden in classical Islam, but some modern interpreters not only justify suicide bombings, they claim these terrorists are martyrs who will spend the afterlife in paradise.

It is hard to understand how anyone can claim that a group that, for example, calls itself “Islamic Jihad” is not acting according to Islam even if it does not comport with “mainstream Islam.” If a single group was perverting Islam, that would be an anomaly, but when thousands of Muslims either validate this behavior in surveys,750or engage in violence in the name of the Prophet, it is naive to believe no correlation exists between terror and Islam.

One Saudi TV host, Nadine Al-Budair, said what Obama and many others are afraid to say:

Whenever terrorism massacres peaceful civilians, the smart alecks and the hypocrites vie with one another in saying that these people do not represent Islam or the Muslims. Perhaps one of them could tell us who does represent Islam and the Muslims... it's time for us to feel shame and to stop acting as if the terrorists are a rarity. We must admit that they are present everywhere, that their nationality is Arab, and that they adhere to the religion of Islam. We must acknowledge that we are the ones who gave birth to them, and who have made them memorize the teachings of all the Salafi books. We must admit that it is the schools and universities that we established that told them the others are infidels.751

MYTH:

Convicted Palestinian terrorists do not receive payments from the Palestinian Authority

FACT

The Palestinian Authority constantly pleads poverty, and has shamed the international community into providing billions of dollars in aid to help the Palestinian public, an amount far greater per capita than what populations in far worse conditions receive. But those in greatest need receive little of the money because the corrupt dictatorship of Mahmoud Abbas siphons off millions of dollars for family members and cronies.

What is even more outrageous, however, is the millions of dollars paid to convicted terrorists incarcerated in Israeli prisons. Depending on how much time a prisoner has been in jail, they receive a minimum of 1,400 shekels a month (about $370), and the amount can grow to 12,000 shekels per month ($3,168) for someone who has spent 30 years in prison.752

Under pressure from donor countries in 2014, the PA agreed to cease payment of salaries to terrorist prisoners. Instead, the money was to be paid by the PLO. This was essentially a shell game since the PLO and PA are virtually synonymous with Abbas heading both. Furthermore, given the fungibility of aid funds, money transferred from the PA to the PLO might come from a different account but it would only be available because of the donors' contributions.

The United States and other donor nations have looked the other way, and continued to provide billions of dollars to the PA, even though some of this money is still paid to terrorists and their families. In fact, it is the PA Ministry of Finance that makes the decisions and provides the funds to pay salaries to jailed terrorists. 753

Americans should be especially outraged because their tax dollars are subsidizing the salaries of terrorists. Worse, since January 2015, at least five American citizens have been killed in terrorist attacks in Israel and the West Bank, meaning that American taxpayers are helping to support the murderers of Americans.

MYTH:

Israel's rejection of the French peace initiative proves it does not want peace

FACT

The President of France is trying to fill the vacuum left by the failures of the Obama administration to advance the peace process. Unfortunately, he seems intent on repeating the mistakes of past leaders who believed that an international gathering can substitute for direct negotiations between the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. While Francois Hollande's initiative is well-meaning, and he would like France to be a player in the peace process, he knows that only the United States can play the role of mediator because Israel will only feel safe to make the difficult compromises necessary for peace if Israelis believe America has their back. Israel also has a well-founded distrust of the Europeans whose policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict has historically tilted disproportionately in support of Palestinian demands.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told President Hollande he opposed the planned conference. Instead, Netanyahu repeated his frequent invitation for PA President Mahmoud Abbas to sit with him face to face to seek a mutually agreed upon agreement to establish a Palestinian state beside the Jewish state. “Any other process [like the French initiative] just pushes peace farther away and gives the Palestinians an escape hatch to avoid confronting the root of the conflict, which is the recognition of the state of Israel [as Jewish state],” Netanyahu said754 He told the press on May 12, 2016, “I am willing to meet President Abbas today, right now. He can come to my home here in Jerusalem or I can go to his home here in Ramallah.”755

On May 23, 2016, Netanyahu told visiting French Prime Minister Manuel Valls he would be willing to hold direct talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Paris and, he added, “it can still be called the French initiative because you would host this genuine effort for peace... But here's the difference: I will sit alone, directly, with president Abbas in the Elysee (French presidential) palace or anywhere else that you choose. Every difficult issue will be on the table."756

Predictably, Abbas rejected each invitation, continuing his seven-year boycott of peace talks with his Israeli counterpart.757 The Palestinians’ obdurateness provoked the dovish Labor Party peace negotiator, Yossi Beilin, to blame Abbas for the lack of progress and called on him to make concessions to facilitate an agreement:

You say that it all depends on the Israeli side, but the one who can lead the decision toward such a solution more than anybody else is you, Mr. President. Accept Kerry's parameters from March 2014, and on this basis, declare your readiness to negotiate the implementation of the second phase of the 'Road Map to Peace,' which your predecessor adopted without any reservations: a Palestinian state with provisional borders.758

Israel has proposed negotiating an arrangement for a state with provisional borders but Abbas has stubbornly refused to discuss the idea. Moreover, a return to the Road Map would, first and foremost, require Abbas to stop the terrorism and incitement that has been an unfulfilled commitment dating back to Yasser Arafat's letter recognizing Israel.

Beilin tries to appeal to Abbas' vanity, writing in his open letter that “it will be a national and a personal tragedy if you end your presidency without real hope for a Palestinian state, with much less democracy in the Palestinian Authority, much more corruption, and deep internal ruptures.”

Abbas is no more inclined to accept Beilin's ideas, however, than those of anyone else. He is not interested in a negotiated agreement, which is why he continues to seek recognition for “Palestine” at the United Nations and hopes the international community will force Israel to capitulate to his demands. It is even more of a mistake than the French initiative because it ensures months, if not years, of living with the status quo. It is a disservice to the Palestinians who do want to live in peace, but, like so many other corrupt dictators, Abbas cares more for his personal well-being than that of his people.

MYTH:

American policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be evenhanded.

FACT

Historically, calling for U.S. policy toward the Middle East to be evenhanded has been code language for increasing support for the Palestinians at the expense of Israel. This policy is typically promoted by Arabists who for decades have made the specious argument that American support for Israel hurts our relations with Arab states. Ambassador Dennis Ross observed that “every administration that sought to distance itself from Israel gained nothing. [Arab leaders] were never going to make their relationship with us depending upon our relationship with Israel. The threat to them came from their regional adversaries.”759

The United States should not be evenhanded in its foreign policy in general. We do not – or should not  – treat our enemies the same way we treat our friends. Americans have a clear preference for maintaining close relations with countries that share our values and interests. In the Middle East only one country satisfies those criteria  – Israel.

In addition to the moral and strategic reasons to give preferential treatment to Israel, it is also a prerequisite for achieving peace. The Palestinian perception that the United States does not treat them as equals is sometimes used as an excuse for them to avoid making the concessions necessary for peace; however, they know that the United States is the only country that can put pressure on Israel and the one country Israelis trust.

From the Israeli perspective, United States support is essential because they live in a dangerous neighborhood and the United States is the only country they can count on to have their back. To reach peace agreements with their neighbors, Israelis must take great risks. In the case of Egypt, for example, Israel gave up the large defensive buffer provided by the Sinai. The United States provided generous foreign aid as compensation and also set up a multinational force to verify that Egypt was adhering to its treaty commitments.

In past negotiations with the Palestinians, Israel has offered to withdraw from territory that would potentially put terrorists on the doorstep of its capital, and place its entire population within rocket range. Even with security “guarantees” included in a peace agreement, Israelis would risk the possibility that the Palestinians will immediately, or at some time in the future, pursue their goal of liberating all of “Palestine.”

Israelis know the dangers, and may be prepared to accept them, provided they believe that Americans stand with them. Bill Clinton put it best when he said, “We cannot really ever make a fundamental difference in the Middle East unless the Israelis think we care whether they live or die. If they do, we have a chance to keep pushing for peace.”760

MYTH:

Israel is illegally demolishing Palestinian homes built with EU funds.

FACT

A legal process exists for applying for building permits in the areas controlled by Israel in the West Bank. The Palestinians, however, flout the law and build houses and other structures illegally. The European Union is knowingly investing millions of Euros to build structures – houses, tents, barns, pens, schools -- that don’t have the required permits. Israel has, as the law provides, demolished structures that lack the required permits infuriating the EU donors to the point of threatening that relations with Israel may be damaged by Israel’s actions.761

Why are the Palestinians building illegally?

The principal reasons appears to be a land grab to create “facts on the ground” aided by the EU.

Under the 1995 Oslo II Interim Agreements, the West Bank was divided into the PA-controlled Area A, which includes all the Palestinian cities and most of the Arab population of the West Bank; Area B, where Israel retains security control and civil affairs are handled by the PA; and Area C, in which Israel is responsible for both security and all land-related civil matters.

Area C, represents about 60 percent of the West Bank and the Palestinians see this as a large part of a future Palestinian state. Jews already living there, however, hope to stay, and those in the large settlement blocs are expected to do so.

The EU insists that Israel’s actions are a way of undermining the two-state solution. According to the EU, since most of Area C is to become part of a Palestinian state, providing homes for Palestinians there should not be a problem.762

This is rank hypocrisy. By this logic the EU should not object to Israel building in settlement blocs that are expected to be part of Israel. The EU, however, vigorously oppose any building in areas controlled now or in the future by Israel.

Professor Eugene Kontorovich, an international lawyer from Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, told the Daily Mail: “There’s no question, the EU is openly in violation of international law.”

Alan Baker, an international lawyer who was involved in drafting the Oslo Accords, explained why they the EU’s actions are illegal. “The EU is a signatory to the Oslo Accords, so they cannot pick and choose when they recognize it,” Baker noted. “According to international law, all building in Area C must have permission from Israel, whether it is temporary or permanent. The same principle applies anywhere in the world. If you want to build, you need planning permission. The EU is ignoring international law and taking concrete steps to influence the facts on the ground,” Baker declared.763

MYTH:

Palestinians oppose terrorism.

FACT

Let us stipulate that Palestinians are unhappy living under Israeli rule and that they face many hardships. The question they face is how to improve their situation and, ideally, achieve independence.

To their misfortune, Palestinian leaders have eschewed the one way to reach their goals, namely negotiation. Instead, since well before Israel's capture of the West Bank in 1967, Palestinians have chosen the path of violence in the misguided belief that either they can inflict enough pain on Israelis to force them to capitulate to their demands or that they can draw enough sympathy to their plight that the international community will pressure Israel on their behalf. The failure of these strategies over nearly 50 years has not convinced them to eschew terror and embrace compromise.

Worse, Palestinian leaders have engaged in non-stop incitement through sermons, social and conventional media, education and acculturation, which has inspired men, women and even children to engage in terrorism. In recent years, they have been encouraged to seek martyrdom and suicide bombing has become an all-too-routine feature of Palestinian “protest.”

Politicians outside Israel have forgotten, or simply don't care, that Israel's agreement to negotiate with the PLO was predicated on Yasser Arafat's commitment to cease all violence. The promise of the Oslo agreements ultimately was sabotaged by Arafat's refusal to fulfill this obligation. Since then, the Palestinians have played the game of offering this same concession in every agreement (as they did for example in agreeing to the Road Map), knowing they have no intention of abandoning violence.

The international community, which hardly blinks when Jews are murdered, hold the Palestinians blameless for the failure to achieve peace and focus instead on the red herring of settlements. The Quartet’s latest report continues this pattern of equating heinous atrocities committed against Jews with the peaceful construction of homes on land that Israel has an equal or better claim to than do the Palestinians.

Whether it is wise for Israelis to exercise their claim to Judea and Samaria is a question of religion, politics and security. The incessant violence originating from the West Bank, combined with the sour experience of evacuating Gaza and being rewarded with rocket bombardments and ongoing terror instead of peace, has hardened the positions of Israelis (or simply made them more realistic). Thus, for example in the latest Peace Index, a monthly survey of Israeli opinion, a majority of Jewish Israelis said they would vote against withdrawal from the West Bank if a referendum were held today. A plurality of Jews believe holding the West Bank has improved Israel's security situation (though 57 percent acknowledge it has worsened Israel’s diplomatic situation).764

Israelis are also well aware of the incitement by the Palestinians and the widespread support murdering Jews enjoys among Israel's “peace partners.” In an analysis of polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), Daniel Polisar found a consistent pattern of approval for generic terror attacks against Israelis. What was more disturbing, however, is that when Palestinians were asked their opinions about specific assaults that resulted in the death of Jews, their level of support increased dramatically.765

In March 2016, for example, 60 percent of Palestinians supported “attacks against Israeli civilians within Israel.” Note these respondents were not asked about attacks on soldiers or settlers, they approved the murder of civilians in Israel. In June 2016, PSR asked their opinion of an April suicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus that wounded more than 20 Israelis; Palestinians approved the attack 65 percent to 31 percent.

A majority has consistently supported attacks on civilians, but, in 2003, 74 percent approved the bombing of a Haifa restaurant that killed 20 Israelis. The following year, 77 percent endorsed an attack in Beersheva that killed 16 Israelis. In June 2006, after Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, 69 percent applauded a bombing in Tel Aviv that left 11 Israelis dead.
In March 2008, a record 68 percent of Palestinians supported attacks against Israeli citizens. When asked about a February bombing in Dimona that killed one Israeli woman, 78 percent approved. Respondents were also asked about the bombing of a religious school in Jerusalem in which eight Israeli students were killed; a record 84 percent of Palestinians supported that attack.
Polisar concludes that “would-be terrorists contemplating an attack can be reasonably confident that if they succeed in killing or injuring Israeli civilians, their actions will earn support and praise in their society - for themselves, their families and the militant group to which they belong, whether or not they live to enjoy it personally. Indeed, they will be seen as heroes, not only in the communiques of Hamas, but in the minds of rank-and-file Palestinians.”

People looking for reasons why peace has not been achieved with the Palestinians should recognize the role terrorism plays in reinforcing Israeli fears that no concessions will satisfy their bloodlust. The United States and other countries are enabling Palestinian violence by failing to penalize the Palestinian Authority, by refusing to insist on the cessation of incitement in all forms, and by providing aid that is used to pay terrorists and their families, and subsidize their heinous acts.

MYTH:

Iran has moderated its hostility and should be an ally in the fight against ISIS.

FACT

The danger posed by ISIS in the Middle East and beyond led the United States and others to rush into alliances with countries that espouse policies that are not significantly different from ISIS. The regional fight with ISIS is not only about territory and power, it is also a continuation of the centuries old conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.

As a Sunni group, ISIS has naturally drawn the wrath of Shiites, particularly in Iraq and Iran (and by extension their Lebanese proxies, Hezbollah). Even Sunni nations are afraid of ISIS, however, because of its declared goal of establishing a caliphate (which they've already declared) with its leaders as rulers. Consequently, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States have joined the coalition to stop ISIS.

The irony is that Saudi Arabia is also a radical Islamic state that has been attempting to spread its influence around the world in a nonviolent jihad that involves the indoctrination of Muslims in the Wahhabi brand of Islam. Simultaneously, the Saudis work to undermine Western values, interests, and security.

We've also learned that Qatar has become one of the leading financiers for terrorists. As patrons of Hamas, for example, they are underwriting a terrorist organization that shares with ISIS the goal of spreading Islam around the globe until it becomes the dominant religion.

The most serious breach in the wall against Muslim extremism, however, is the notion that Iran is an ally in the fight against ISIS. Iran does have an interest in defeating ISIS because it is threatening Shiite domination of Iraq and Iranian patronage of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that Iran's leaders are just as brutal and fanatical as ISIS, and have for decades sought to spread their revolution across the region as a prelude to what they hope will ultimately result in the global domination of Islam. Unlike ISIS, Iran already controls a large nation with a formidable army, and is, along with the Saudis (and now the Qataris), the leading sponsor of international terror.

And if anyone believes that Iran's positions have dramatically changed as a result of the nuclear agreement and the "moderate" regime of president Hassan Rouhani, consider remarks made by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Supreme Leader has not stopped his calls for the elimination of Israel, stating in September 2015 that, “God willing, there will not be something named the Zionist regime in the next 25 years.”766 Reflecting his hard-line stance, in March 2016 Khamenei asserted, “those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors.”767

Defeating ISIS is vital to preventing the spread of one radical Islamic party, but it will not eliminate the broader Islamist threat posed by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and some of the countries we have chosen as allies.

MYTH:

The Iran nuclear deal is working as expected.

FACT

Prof. Mohammed Nuruzzaman of the Gulf University for Science and Technology in Kuwait noted that the JCPOA has not produced the change in behavior Obama anticipated. “Washington, to its deep frustration, has noticed that it simply made a series of unfounded calculations about Iran,” he said. “Just three months after the deal was concluded, Khamenei closed the door to U.S.-Iranian cooperation by imposing an outright ban on further negotiations with the United States.” Nuruzzaman added that Khamenei also ruled out cooperation with the “Great Satan” on regional issues.768

Iran has only received a fraction of the $150 billion windfall expected when sanctions are eased and assets released, but it is already creating greater chaos in the region. Iran has increased its involvement in backing the Syrian regime, has intervened in the civil was in Yemen against forces supported by Saudi Arabia, and fuels the ambition and arsenal of Hezbollah terrorists in preparation for a future conflict with Israel.

More seriously, as many opponents of the deal predicted, Iran is already cheating on the nuclear deal. Thanks to a leak from German intelligence, we know there have been extensive Iranian attempts to acquire illicit materials, especially goods that can be used in the field of nuclear technology.769

This revelation was followed by the disclosure of a part of the nuclear deal that was never revealed to the public. Instead of Iran being precluded from engaging in nuclear activities for 15 years, we now know that after 11 years, Iran can start replacing its current centrifuges with more advanced ones. As a result, instead of Iran having a one-year breakout time (which, absurdly, was considered a great achievement as opposed to destroying Iran’s capability altogether) to six months or less.770 The Obama administration had this information but failed to disclose it to the American people.

MYTH:

Palestinian swimmers have no access to Olympic size pools.

FACT

During the opening ceremonies of the 2016 Olympics, a six-person delegation from “Palestine” (the non-state that the International Olympic Committee recognized as a member in 1995)771 joined other athletes marching around the Maracana Stadium in Rio. As they passed the cameras, NBC’s ill-informed commentator suggested that swimmer Mary Al-Atrash was at a significant disadvantage because she had no access to an Olympic size pool.772 The information must have come from the Palestinian delegation or his researchers failed to make a cursory search of the Internet that would have disproven this statement.

Not every community has a 50-meter Olympic size pool, so swimmers, including Americans, often spend at least part of their training in 25 meter pools like the one Atrash used. This was not her only option, however, she could have applied for permission to train in Jerusalem where an Olympic size pool was available to her.773

She need not have entered “enemy territory” to find a regulation size pool; however, because at least three have been built in the Palestinian Authority - one in Gaza, one in Nablus and not one, but four in a resort in al-Atrash’s hometown of Beit Sahour.

It is unfortunate that NBC perpetuated the longstanding myth Palestinian propagandists have peddled about Israel stealing or denying water to the Palestinian Authority. Al-Atrash is only 22, so perhaps she’ll try to make it to the 2020 Olympics. If so, she can mosey on over to the Murad resort and workout in one of their beautiful Olympic size pools.774

MYTH:

Israel must dismantle all the settlements or peace is impossible.

FACT

If and when serious negotiations begin over the final status of the West Bank, battle lines will be drawn over which settlements should be incorporated into Israel, and which must be evacuated. In August 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon acknowledged that “not all the settlements that are today in Judea and Samaria will remain Israeli,” while leaked Palestinian negotiating documents indicate the Palestinians were prepared to accept that some settlements will be incorporated into Israel.775

In Gaza, Israel’s intent was to withdraw completely, and no settlements were viewed as vital to Israel for economic, security, or demographic reasons. The situation in the West Bank is completely different because Jews have strong historic and religious connections to the area stretching back centuries. Moreover, the West Bank is an area with strategic significance because of its proximity to Israel’s heartland and the fact that roughly one-quarter of Israel’s water resources are located there.

The disengagement from Gaza involved only 21 settlements and approximately 8,500 Jews; more than 100 settlements with a population of roughly 370,000 are located in Judea and Samaria.776 Any new evacuation from the West Bank will involve another gut-wrenching decision that most settlers and their supporters will oppose with even greater ferocity than the Gaza disengagement. Most Israelis, however, favor withdrawing from all but the largest communities.

Approximately 60 percent of the Jews in the West Bank live in five settlement “blocs” that are all near the 1967 border. Most Israelis believe these blocs should become part of Israel when final borders are drawn. The table below lists the “consensus” settlements:

Bloc

No. of
Communities

Population

Approximate. Area (sq. miles)

Ma’ale Adumim

4

48,468

28

Modiin Illit

4

72,313

2

Ariel

11

56,207

47

Gush Etzion

13

30,268

10

Givat Ze’ev

5

17,257

3

Total

37

224,513

90

As the table shows, these are large communities with thousands of residents. Evacuating them would be the equivalent of dismantling major American cities such as Annapolis, Maryland, Olympia, Washington, or Carson City, Nevada.

rossedited.gif

Ma’ale Adumim is a suburb of Israel’s capital, barely three miles outside Jerusalem’s city limits, a ten-minute drive away. Ma’ale Adumim is not a recently constructed outpost on a hilltop; it is a 35-year-old community that is popular because it is clean, safe, and close to where many residents work. It is also the third-largest Jewish city in the territories, with a population of 40,710. Approximately 8,000 people live in surrounding settlements that are included in the Ma’ale bloc. Israel has long planned to fill in the gap of approximately 3,250 acres between Jerusalem and this bedroom community (referred to as the E1 project). According to the Clinton plan, Ma’ale was to be part of Israel.

The Gush Etzion Bloc consists of 13 communities with a population of roughly 30,000 just 10 minutes from Jerusalem. Jews lived in this area prior to 1948, but the Jordanian Legion destroyed the settlements and killed 240 women and children during Israel’s War of Independence. After Israel recaptured the area in 1967, descendants of those early settlers reestablished the community. The largest of the settlements is the city of Betar Illit with nearly 35,000 residents.

The Givat Ze’ev bloc includes five communities just northwest of Jerusalem. Givat Ze’ev, with a population of just under 11,000, is the largest.

Modiin Illit is a bloc with four communities. The city of Modiin Illit is the largest in all the disputed territories, with more than 65,000 people situated just over the Green Line, about 23 miles northwest of Jerusalem and the same distance east of Tel Aviv.

Ariel is now the heart of the second most populous bloc of settlements (56,207). The city is located just 25 miles east of Tel Aviv and 31 miles north of Jerusalem. Ariel and the surrounding communities expand Israel’s narrow waist (which was just nine miles wide prior to 1967) and ensure that Israel has a land route to the Jordan Valley in case Israel needs to fight a land war to the east. It is more controversial than the other consensus settlements because it is the furthest from the 1949 Armistice Line, extending approximately 12 miles into the West Bank. Nevertheless, Barak’s proposal at Camp David included Ariel among the settlement blocs to be annexed to Israel and the Clinton plan also envisioned incorporating Ariel within the new borders of Israel.

“Clearly, in the permanent agreement we will have to give up some of the Jewish settlements.”

- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon777

Most peace plans, including Clinton’s, assumed that Israel would annex sufficient territory to incorporate 75-80% of the Jews currently living in the West Bank. Using the figures in the table above, however, it appears that Israel would fall short of that demographic goal even if these five blocs were annexed. The total population of these communities is approximately 225,000, which is roughly 60% of the estimated 370,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria. The expectation, however, is that roughly one-third of the Jews living in other settlements will move into these blocs, which would bring the total closer to 87%, but still require Israel to evacuate approximately 50,000 people.

finalborder.gif

At Camp David, Israel insisted that 80 percent of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria would be in settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty. President Clinton agreed and proposed that Israel annex 4-6 percent of the West Bank for three settlement blocs to accomplish this demographic objective and swap some territory within Israel in exchange.

Recognizing the demographics of the area, President Bush acknowledged the inevitability of some Israeli towns in the West Bank being annexed to Israel in his 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon. In his meeting a year later with Palestinian Authority President Abbas, however, he seemed to hedge his support by saying that any such decision would have to be mutually agreed to by Israelis and Palestinians. The Obama administration subsequently repudiated Bush’s commitment.778

Regardless, the future border is likely to approximate the route of the security fence, given the Israeli prerequisite of incorporating most settlers within Israel. Ultimately, Israel may decide to unilaterally disengage from the West Bank and determine which settlements it will incorporate within the borders it delineates. Israel would prefer, however, to negotiate a peace treaty with the Palestinians that would specify which Jewish communities will remain intact within the mutually agreed border of Israel, and which will need to be evacuated. Israel will undoubtedly insist that some or all of the “consensus” blocs become part of Israel.

MYTH:

Israel “occupies” the West Bank.

FACT

In politics, words matter, and, unfortunately, the misuse of words applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict has shaped perceptions to Israel’s disadvantage. As in the case of the term “West Bank,” the word “occupation” has been hijacked by those who wish to paint Israel in the harshest possible light. It also gives apologists an excuse to describe terrorism as “resistance to occupation,” as if the women and children killed by suicide bombers in buses, pizzerias, and shopping malls were responsible for the plight of the Palestinians.

Given the negative connotation of an “occupier,” it is not surprising that Israel’s detractors use the word, or some variation, as many times as possible in their propaganda and when interviewed by the press. The more accurate description of the territories in Judea and Samaria, however, is “disputed” territories.

Nonetheless, the European Union has fallen for the propaganda and accepted the fallacious terminology. In July 2013, the EU published guidelines severely limiting interaction with Israeli entities beyond the pre-1967 lines. The new rules enforce the union’s “long-held position that bilateral agreements with Israel do not cover the territory that came under Israel’s administration in June 1967.” This means the EU has banned funding and cooperation with Israeli institutions that operate beyond the “Green Line.779

In 2015, the EU imposed additional punitive measures against Israel by recommending that all goods originating from the disputed territories carry a label indicating they were from an “Israeli settlement.”780 Goods from other disputed territories around the world do not require labeling; thus, Israel is singled out for special treatment reminiscent of the Nazi boycott against Jews in Germany.

The EU action also undermines the prospect for a negotiated peace by giving the Palestinians the false hope that the international community will pressure Israel to make concessions without the Palestinians having to negotiate or compromise.

The hypocrisy of critics of Israel’s administration of the West Bank is compounded by the fact that other disputed territories around the world are not referred to as being occupied by the party that controls them. This is true, for example, of the hotly contested regions of Kashmir, Cyprus, and Tibet. Yet rarely does the international community make a fuss over these territories.781

Occupation typically refers to foreign control of an area that was under the previous sovereignty of another state. In the case of the West Bank, there was no legitimate sovereign because the territory had been illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Only two countries - Britain and Pakistan - recognized Jordan’s action. The Palestinians never demanded an end to Jordanian occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state.

“For a Texan, a first visit to Israel is an eye-opener. At the narrowest point, it's only 8 miles from the Mediterranean to the old Armistice line: That's less than from the top to the bottom of Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport. The whole of pre-1967 Israel is only about six times the size of the King Ranch near Corpus Christi.”

- President George W. Bush782

It is also necessary to distinguish the acquisition of territory in a war of conquest as opposed to a war of self-defense. A nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers is an occupier. One that gains territory in the course of defending itself is not in the same category. This is the situation with Israel, which specifically told King Hussein that if Jordan stayed out of the 1967 War, Israel would not fight against him. Hussein ignored the warning and attacked Israel. While fending off the assault, and driving out the invading Jordanian troops, Israel came to control the West Bank.

By rejecting Arab demands that Israel be required to withdraw from all the territories won in 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 acknowledged that Israel was entitled to claim at least part of these lands for new defensible borders.

Since Oslo, the case for tagging Israel as an occupying power has been further weakened by the fact that Israel transferred virtually all civilian authority in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. Israel retained the power to control its own external security and that of its citizens, but 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, and 100 percent in Gaza, came under the PA’s authority.

The extent to which Israel has been forced to maintain a military presence in the territories has been governed by the Palestinians’ unwillingness to end violence against Israel. The only way to resolve the dispute over the territories is for the Palestinians to negotiate a final settlement. Until now, the intransigence of the Palestinian Authority’s leadership has prevented the resumption of peace talks, which offer the only route to an agreement that will lead to a sustainable future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

MYTH:

Israel is the obstacle to peace.

FACT

The international community expects Israel to simply capitulate to Palestinian demands to withdraw from the entire West Bank and part of Jerusalem. No obligations are placed on them to negotiate let alone make any concessions. Worse, impatient politicians around the world express no concern for the lives of Israelis, which are taken by Palestinian terrorists and glorified by the Palestinian authorities.

Why would anyone expect Israelis to change the status quo while under constant attack? And why would Israelis further endanger their security by giving up territory to the terrorists after their experience following the evacuation of the Gaza Strip? In the 11 years since every Israeli citizen and soldier left Gaza, Israel has been bombarded by thousands of rockets, had its soldiers – and even the bodies of deceased soldiers -- held hostage, and watched Hamas divert building materials needed to reconstruct homes for the Palestinian people to dig tunnels for the purpose of infiltrating Israel to conduct terror operations.

Israelis justifiably worry that withdrawal from any additional territory (they’ve already withdrawn from nearly half the West Bank and turned over control of domestic affairs to the Palestinian Authority) will produce a similar result. Is this really so difficult to understand?

Put yourself in the shoes of Israelis who see and hear Palestinian officials incite their people to violence. Muslims are provoked by false claims that Israel is threatening the al-Aqsa Mosque. The media and education system indoctrinates young children that it is virtuous to murder Jews. Every signal from the Palestinian Authority, from the maps they issue to the celebration of the Nakba, to the insignia of the ruling Fatah party is designed to convey the message that all of Israel is Palestine.

What are Jews to make of the Palestinians’ celebration of murder? On October 10, 2016, a terrorist went on a shooting spree in Jerusalem, targeting people who were waiting at train stations. A 60-year-old woman and a policeman were killed and six others were injured. How did the Palestinian Authorities react to this heinous crime? As Palestinian Media Watch reported, Fatah immediately posted on its Facebook page that the terrorist was “a ‘Shahid,’ an Islamic Martyr - someone who died for Allah - a status the Palestinian Authority presents as the highest achievement a Muslim can reach in life…. Defining a dead murderer as a Shahid indicates that according to Fatah, the murder of Israelis is sanctioned and even desired in the name of Islam.”783

This is just the latest example of how the Palestinian Authority has redefined the conflict with Israel as a religious war. The PA now has the same agenda as Hamas, namely, the destruction of Israel. According to their interpretation of Islam, there can be no compromise with Israel and they find it inconceivable that Jews should rule over Muslims or what they consider Islamic land.

How can anyone paying attention to these developments believe that the president and inciter-in-chief of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, is a partner for peace?

It is also important to set the record straight regarding Israel’s obligations. The Palestinians are not entitled to any land. A Palestinian state never existed in any part of the Middle East; therefore, it is factually inaccurate to suggest that Israel occupies Palestinian land. The West Bank was last controlled - illegally - by Jordan, prior to that it was part of the British Mandate for Palestine. The operative UN resolution regarding the peace process is Security Council Resolution 242, which does not mention the Palestinians at all and calls on Israel to withdraw from an indeterminate area it captured in 1967 to secure and defensible borders in exchange for peace.

Israel has already made a major concession by accepting a Palestinian right to self-determination. The Palestinians, however, have not conceded the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their homeland, which is Israel. Today, the West Bank is most accurately described as disputed territory and the Palestinians have no greater claim to it than Israelis. In fact, based on the history noted above, their claim is weaker.

Despite all of the reasons cited to discourage Israelis from compromising with the Palestinians, Israel has made a commitment to a two-state solution. Such a solution, however, will only be possible if the incitement and terrorism ceases, Palestinians abandon their religious war, and the PA convinces Israelis that a future state will not become a terrorist base like Gaza, or the first stage in a plan to destroy Israel by “liberating all of Palestine.”

MYTH:

Jews have no historical connection to Jerusalem.

FACT

In the latest propaganda campaign at the United Nations, the “moderate” Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas succeeded in erasing the historical connection between Jews and their holy sites by convincing the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on October 13, 2016, to erase Jewish history from Jerusalem by declaring the Temple Mount holy only to Muslims. It further describes the sacred Jewish sites of the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem and Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarchs (revered as the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) as “two Palestinian sites.”

The Palestinians have denied the Jewish connection to Jerusalem for years. The history of Jerusalem is well-known and accepted by historians and theologians outside the Orwellian world of the UN. For centuries, the outer retaining wall for the site of the Temple has been referred to as the Western Wall/Wailing Wall. The Temple stood on that site until the year 70 CE, more than 600 years before the construction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Muslim authorities have acknowledged the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. For example, the Muslim authority in Jerusalem during the British Mandate was the Supreme Muslim Council, which published a tourist guide that said the Temple Mount site “is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.”784

More authoritatively, the Koran - the holy book of Islam - describes Solomon’s construction of the First Temple (34:13) and recounts the destruction of the First and Second Temples (17:7).

The Cave of the Patriarchs (Machpelah) is the world's most ancient Jewish site, and the second holiest place for the Jewish people after the Temple Mount. Jews believe the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Jewish people - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah - are buried in the Cave of the Patriarchs. The one missing matriarch, also revered by the Jews, is buried in Rachel’s Tomb. The Jewish connection to these holy places is questioned only by ignorant journalists and Arab propagandists, not by serious historians.

UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova rebuked her own board shortly after the vote:

In the Torah, Jerusalem is the capital of King David, where Solomon built the Temple and placed the Ark of the Covenant. In the Bible, Jerusalem is the city of the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the Quran, Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam, where Muhammad arrived after his night journey from Al Haram Mosq [sic] (Mecca) to Al Aqsa…The Al Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram al-Sharif, the sacred shrine of Muslims, is also the Har HaBayit – or Temple Mount – whose Western Wall is the holiest place in Judaism, a few steps away from the Saint Sepulcher and The Mount of Olives revered by Christians. 785

“Even if they do not read the Bible,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I would suggest that UNESCO members visit the Arch of Titus in Rome. The Arch shows what the Romans brought back to Rome after they destroyed and looted the Second Temple on the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago. There, engraved on the Arch of Titus, is the seven-branched menorah that is the symbol of the Jewish People, and today is the symbol of the State of Israel.”

Denying the more than 2,000-year link between Jews and Jerusalem is as absurd, Netanyahu suggested, as saying that “China has no connection to the Great Wall of China or that Egypt has no connection to the pyramids.” 786

Of course, facts do not matter in the UN’s theater of the absurd. The automatic pro-Arab majority assured the Palestinians would succeed in rewriting world history. The only countries who voted against were the United States, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Estonia. The “good news” is that that more countries voted against or abstained than voted in favor of the resolution. UN Watch also noted that all the European countries abstained and that the number of countries abstaining increased by seven from the 17 who supported a similar text in April. 787

This is just the latest salvo in the Palestinian strategy to ostracize Israel on an international level while refusing to negotiate peace terms. Abbas hopes he can avoid making any concessions by convincing the UN to coerce Israel to capitulate to his demands. Sadly, UNESCO, whose mission is to build a lasting peace “on the basis of humanity’s moral and intellectual solidarity,” allowed itself to be a tool of the Palestinians’ campaign to delegitimize Israel.

MYTH:

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance.

FACT

The United States and Israel signed a 10-year $38 billion foreign assistance agreement that made headlines and reinforced the misperception that Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance and that this aid represents a significant percentage of the U.S. budget. It is not true.

The Washington Post conducted a review of the 2017 U.S. foreign assistance budget. The paper calculated the total amount of economic and development assistance at $25.6 billion and security assistance at $16.8 billion making a total of $42.4 billion. In 2017, Israel is scheduled to receive $3.1 billion, which is only 7 percent of the overall aid budget and 18 percent of the total allocated for security assistance. The number one recipient of aid, specifically security assistance, is not Israel, however, it is Afghanistan ($3.6 billion).788

U.S. aid to Israel is also an infinitesimal fraction of the overall American budget. Most Americans mistakenly believe that foreign aid comprises a significant share of all government spending. For example, a Pew study cited in the Post found that, on average, respondents to a 2015 survey thought 26 percent of the federal budget went to foreign aid. The actual figure is about 1 percent.

Israel is grateful to receive more than $3 billion to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that is a lot of money, but critics who suggest this is such a significant sum that domestic needs are going unmet don’t tell you that this represents .07% of the $4 trillion budget.

MYTH:

Israelis overwhelmingly support withdrawal from the West Bank.

FACT

Jews on the left of the political spectrum in both Israel and the United States favor a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank/Judea and Samaria and have argued they represent popular opinion in Israel. They further try to delegitimize the Netanyahu government by suggesting it is out of touch and anti-peace. The polls, however tell a different story.

In the October 2016 Peace Index poll, a monthly survey of Israeli opinion on a variety of issues, participants were asked if they were for or against annexing all of the disputed territory to the state of Israel. Annexation was favored 46 percent to 42 percent, with nearly equal numbers strongly in favor (18 percent) as strongly opposed (21 percent). 789

Not surprisingly, if Arab respondents are added, the figures shift. The general public opposes annexation 48 percent to 41 percent. Still, more than 4 in 10 Israelis support annexing all the territory.

In the June 2016 survey, 52 percent said Israel should stay in the territories compared to 36 percent who favored evacuating the area.

When asked if they believed the settlement enterprise had contributed to, or damaged Israel’s national interest, the 52 percent saw the settlements as positive while 39 percent disagreed.

Israelis also don’t consider the West Bank “occupied” territory. More than 70 percent said in April 2016 it was not compared with only 23 percent defined Israel’s control of the area as “occupation.”

Two-thirds of Israeli Jews also agreed in September 2015 that the large [“consensus”] settlement blocs would be annexed even if a peace agreement was signed with the Palestinians. Asked directly in April 2015 in a joint Israeli-Palestinian poll if they support or oppose the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank, 54 percent were opposed. 790

The message of these polls is that a significant percentage of Israelis support the annexation of some or all of the settlements. There is no majority calling for the dismantling of settlement or withdrawal from the West Bank. These questions have been asked in the absence of any foreseeable peace agreement and in the context of decades of unceasing terror and incitement so it should not be surprising that Israelis are not in a compromising mood.

Moreover, Israeli politicians need to take into account public opinion, which helps explain the overall shift to the right of the electorate and the lack of support for organizations and parties that favor territorial concessions. This does not mean Israelis are not interested in peace, though they increasingly have grown skeptical of a two-state solution given the Palestinians’ ongoing refusal to make any compromises or even except the idea of a Jewish state coexisting beside a Palestinian state.

This does not mean that public opinion will not change if a Palestinian leader showed the vision and courage of Anwar Sadat and King Hussein and agreed to a peace agreement. Israel, after all, made the painful and risky decision to give up settlements and other resources in the Sinai in exchange for the mere promise of an end to the conflict with Egypt.

It behooves President Obama, President-elect Drumpf and other Western leaders to take note of the will of the people of Israel before embarking on any initiatives aimed at coercing them to evacuate the disputed territories in the absence of any change in the words and deeds of the Palestinians.

Sources:
1CNN.com, (January 10, 2005).
2Aljazeera.Net, (January 11, 2005).
3CNN.com (January 10, 2005); Herb Keinon, “Observer teams validate PA elections,” Jerusalem Post, (January 11, 2005).
4 Herb Keinon, “Sharansky: PA election not ‘truly free,’” Jerusalem Post, (January 11, 2005).
5Aljazeera.Net, (January 15, 2005); Jerusalem Post, (January 16, 2005).
6 Herb Keinon, “Sharansky: PA election not ‘truly free,’” Jerusalem Post, (January 11, 2005).
7WEST BANK/GAZA DEMOGRAPHY STUDY: THE 1.5 Million POPULATION GAP, American Research Initiative, (January 23, 2005)
8What is the True Demographic Picture in the West Bank and Gaza? - A Presentation and a Critique, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (March 10, 2005); Yair Ettinger, “Critics slam report debunking demographic threat,” Haaretz, (January 10, 2005).
9 Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (April 5, 2005; March 9, 2007).
10 CNN, (April 17, 2002).
11 Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, (May 15, 1997).
12Jerusalem Post, (May 23, 2001).
13Palestine News Agency WAFA, (April 28, 2005).
14 Al-Quds, (April 27, 2005).
15Endwave Corporation and SafeView, Inc.
16Muslim Women’s League; About.com
17 Chris McGreal, "Murdered in name of family honor," Guardian, (June 23, 2005).
18 Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, (June 14-19, 2005).
19Jerusalem Post, (July 4, 2005).
20 Jerusalem Post, (July 4- 5, September 7, 2005); Ha'aretz, (September 6, 2005).
21 Akiva Eldar, “Oslo said it: Hamas and elections don't go together,” Ha'aretz, (July 19, 2005).
22 Glenn Kessler, “If Hamas Participates, Sharon Says Israel Won't Aid Palestinian Elections,” Washington Post, ((September 17, 2005).
23 Yossi Beilin, “Recognizing Hamas is irresponsible,” Bitterlemons.org, (September 26, 2005).
24 Glenn Kessler, “If Hamas Participates, Sharon Says Israel Won't Aid Palestinian Elections,”Washington Post, (September 17, 2005).
25 Office of the Secretary-General, United Nations.
26 Khaled Abu Toameh, “A Palestinian Verdict: Terror Worked: Fatah and Hamas both claim it was 'our' fighters who beat Israel,” The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, (August 26, 2005).
27Jerusalem Post, (August 4, 2004).
28 Daniel Pipes, “Palestinian Responses to an Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza,” Danielpipes.org, (September 6, 2005).
29Al-Manar TV, (January 25, 2006).
30Wall Street Journal editorial, (February 20, 2006).
31Palestinian National Authority, (December 13, 2005).
32 Aaron Klein, “Israeli dig to spark Temple Mount violence?” WorldNetDaily.com, (October 24, 2005).
33Palestinian National Authority, (December 13, 2005).
34 Joshua Brilliant, “ ‘Israel digging under al-Aqsa,’ or not,” UPI, (January 3, 2006).
35“ Iran's Khameini says Israel behind Danish cartoons of Muhammad,” Al Bawaba, (February 7, 2006).
36Jyllands Posten Muhammed Cartoons.
37Jerusalem Post, (January 2, February 20, 2006).
38Jerusalem Post, (February 3, 2006).
39Jerusalem Post, (February 19, 2006).
40Ynet.com, (February 20, 2006).
41 Haaretz, (February 21, 2006).
42 Margot Dudkevitch, "Kassam-weary residents vow change," Jerusalem Post, (February 24, 2006).
43Jerusalem Post, (January 10, 2006).
44Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre, (February 2006).
46New York Times editorial, (March 4, 2006).
47Trade Information Center, International Trade Administration; Arab News, (December 31, 2005).
48 John Zarocostas, "Saudi meeting eyed for WTO violation," Washington Times, (March 9, 2006); Michael Freund, "S. Arabia to host Israel boycott event," Jerusalem Post, (March 7, 2006).
48a Michael Freund, "Saudis continue to boycott Israel," Jerusalem Post, (April 16, 2007).
49 Ehud Ya'ari, “O Jerusalem: The Next Chapter,” The Jerusalem Report, (March 20, 2006).
50 “Jordan arrests Hamas terror suspects,” Jerusalem Post, (April 25, 2006); Detainee’s confession televised, AP, (May 11, 2006).
51 Jamal Halaby, “Jordan Accuses Hamas of Smuggling Weapons,” AP, (April 18, 2006).
52 Alia A. Toukan, “Jordan warns Hamas members in Kingdom against inciting violence,” Jordan Times, (November 2, 1998).
53 P.R. Kumaraswamy, “The Jordan-Hamas Divorce,” Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, (August/September 2001).
54 “Jordan Strikes at Hamas,” Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, (September 1999).
55 P.R. Kumaraswamy, “The Jordan-Hamas Divorce,” Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, (August/September 2001).
56Jerusalem Post, (August 19, 2002).
57 State Department. Human Rights Report for the Occupied Territories, 1997, 1998.
58 Caroline Glick, "Why is Muhammad Abu al-Hawa dead?" Jerusalem Post, (April 18, 2006).
58a Khaled Abu Toameh, “PA: Death penalty for those who sell land to Jews,” Jerusalem Post, (April 1, 2009).
58b Khaled Abu Toameh, "PA court: Death to man who sold land to Jews," Jerusalem Post, (April 29, 2009).
59 Nazir Majali, "Philosophy of death," Haaretz, (April 23, 2006).
60 “Suicide Rhetoric,” Washington Post, (April 19, 2006).
61Ha'aretz, (February 11, 2001).
62 Al-Watan [Kuwait], (June 7, 2002).
63Jerusalem Post, (July 21, 2002).
64Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (June 11, 2002).
65 “Israel To Bypass Hamas With Aid Funds,” UPI, (May 11, 2006).
66Jerusalem Post, (June 13, 2006); Embassy of Israel.
67Prime Minister Olmert Addresses Joint Session of Congress, (May 24, 2006).
68 “Palestinian university president comes out against boycott of Israeli academics,” Associated Press, (June 18, 2006).
69 Editorial, Chicago Sun Times, (June 27, 2006).
70 Editorial, Washington Post, (July 1, 2006).
71Jerusalem Post, (July 18, 2006).
72London Times, (August 1, 2006).
73 Barbara Sofer, "The Human Spirit: Palestinian women in Israeli jails," Jerusalem Post, (July 6, 2006).
73a “Lebanon hails militants freed in prisoner swap,” CNN (July 16, 2008).
73b Barzak, Ibrahim, “Hamas hints it will raise stakes for captured Israel sodier,” AP (July 1, 2008)
74CNN, (July 23, 2006). Also, corrected transcripts from broadcast.
75CNN, (August 8, 2006).
76 Tom Gross, “The media war against Israel: The Jewish state is fighting not one enemy but two: Hizballah, and those who peddle its propaganda,” National Post, (August 2, 2006).
77CNN, (August 6, 2006).
78CNN, (August 7, 2006).
79 Reuven Koret, Hezbollywood Horror: “Civil Defense Worker” doubles as Traveling Mortician,” Israelinsider.com, (August 3, 2006) and “Hezbollywood? Evidence mounts that Qana collapse and deaths were staged,” Israelinsider.com, (July 31, 2006); EU Referendum, (July 31, August. 1, August 5, 2006).
80 AP, (August 8, 2006).
81 Tom Gross, “The media war against Israel: The Jewish state is fighting not one enemy but two: Hizballah, and those who peddle its propaganda,” National Post, (August 2, 2006).
82 “A Canadian soldier's report from South Lebanon,” CTV.ca, (August 6, 2006).
83 AP, (August 7, 2006).
84 Human Rights Watch, “Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon,” (August 3, 2006).
85 Joshua Muravchik, “Human Rights Watch vs. Human Rights: The cynical manipulation of a worthy cause has a history,” The Weekly Standard, (September 11, 2006).
86 Alan Dershowitz, “What Are They Watching?” New York Sun, (August 23, 2006).
87 Human Rights Watch, “Israel/Lebanon: Hezbollah Must End Attacks on Civilians,” (August 5, 2006).
88 Aluf Benn, “Haniyeh: I won't head a government that recognizes Israel,” Haaretz, (September 23, 2006); Herb Keinon, “Haniyeh: Rice trying to weaken region,” Jerusalem Post, (September 21 & October 3, 2006).
89 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Palestinian violence down, rhetoric up,” Jerusalem Post, (October 3, 2006).
90 Reuters, (October 4, 2006).
91Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (February 6, 2002).
92 Dror Etkes & Hagit Ofran, "Breaking the Law in the West Bank - One Violation Leads to Another: Israeli Settlement Building on Private Palestinian Property," (Jerusalem: Peace Now, October 2006).
93 Steven Erlanger, "Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land," (New York Times, November 21, 2006).
94 "Response of the Civil Administration - Judea and Samaria - to the "Peace Now" Report," Civil Administration, (November 21, 2006).
94a "Military database released to Peace Now shows little land seized from Palestinians to build largest West Bank settlement," Associated Press, (March 14, 2007).
95 "Instransigent Hamas," Washington Post, (October 11, 2006).
96Lebanese Higher Relief Council, (December 6, 2006).
97 Con Coughlin, "Teheran fund pays war compensation to Hizbollah families," Daily Telegraph, (August 4, 2006).
98Kuwait Times, (August 30, 2006).
99 John Keegan, "Why Israel will go to war again - soon," Daily Telegraph, (November 3, 2006).
100 UPI, (September 7, 2006).
101 Washington Times, (September 27, 2006); Steven Stotsky, “Questioning the Number of Civilian Casualties in Lebanon,” CAMERA, (September 27, 2006); Wikipedia.
102AP, (December 7, 2006).
103Washington Post, (December 16, 2006).
104 Ronny Sofer, “Peres: Syria deceiving, focus on Palestinians,” Ynet News.com, (December 21, 2006).
105 Anthony H. Cordesman, "Escalating to Nowhere: The Israeli-Palestinian War - The Actors in the Conflict: The Palestinian Factions That Challenge Peace and the Palestinian Authority," (DC: CSIS, September 12, 2003), p. 35; Khaled Abu Toameh, “ Palestinian Affairs: Guns and Poses,” Jerusalem Post, (November 25, 2006).
106 Khaled Abu Toameh, “ Palestinian Affairs: Guns and Poses,” Jerusalem Post, (November 25, 2006).
107 Israel Radio, (August 1, 2002).
108 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas: Aim guns against occupation, Jerusalem Post, (January 11, 2007); Aaron Klein, “Abbas urges: ‘Raise rifles against Israel,’” WorldnetDaily.com, (January 11, 2007).
109 Uzi Arad and Gal Alon, “Patriotism and Israel's National Security - Herzliya Patriotism Survey 2006,” Herzliya: Institute for Policy and Strategy, 2006.
110 Mira Tzoreff, “The Palestinian Shahida: National Patriotism, Islamic Feminism, or Social Crisis,” in Yoram Schweitzer, Ed. Female Suicide Bombers: Dying for Equality? (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, August 2006), pp. 13-24.
111 Yoram Schweitzer, “Palestinian Female Suicide Bombers: Reality vs. Myth,”in Yoram Schweitzer, Ed. Female Suicide Bombers: Dying for Equality? (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, August 2006), pp. 25-42.
112 “For Palestinians, a new low,” National Post, (November 25, 2006).
113 Avi Issacharoff, Aluf Benn and Jack Khoury, “Israel, PA agree on cease-fire starting today,” Haaretz, (November 26, 2006).
114 Shmuel Rosner, “EU slams Eilat bombing, calls it bid to derail peace,” Haaretz, (January 30, 2007).
115 “Militants demand Abbas apology for condemning Tel Aviv attack,” Haaretz, (January 29, 2007).
116Haaretz, (February 11, 2007).
116aJerusalem Post, (March 13, 2007).
117Jerusalem Post, (February 8, 2007).
118 “We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine,” Reuters, (March 12, 2007).
119General Monthly Survey,” Near East Consulting, (February 2007).
120 David Blair, “Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told,” Telegraph, (March 28, 2007).
121 Roee Nahmias, “Syria: Without peace, resistance will liberate Golan Heights,” Ynet News, (April 16, 2007).
122 “Arabs won't wait decades for Israeli response to Arab Peace Initiative: GCC,” Kuwait News Agency, (May 3, 2007).
123 “ISRAEL-OPT: More Palestinians entering Israel on health grounds,” IRIN, (February 15, 2007).
124 Corinne Heller, “Palestinians learn emergency medicine in Isrel, Reuters, (November 22, 2006).
125 Khaled Abu Toameh, "Gaza's Christians fear for their lives," Jerusalem Post, (June 19, 2007); “Catholic compound ransacked in Gaza,” AP, (June 19, 2007)
126 Aaron Klein, “‘Christians must accept Islamic rule,’” WorldNetDaily, (June 19, 2007).
127 Lebanonwire, Independent Border Assesment Team Report, (June 2007).
128 Lebanonwire, Independent Border Assesment Team Report, (June 2007).
129 Uzi Mahnaimi Zarit, “Hezbollah 'has stockpiled rockets' on Israeli border,” Timesonline. The Sunday Times. (June 10, 2007).
130 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Fatwa forbids PA Muslims to emigrate,” Jerusalem Post, (June 10, 2007); Mark Mackinnon, “Heavy-hearted Palestinians taking their chances abroad,” The Globe and Mail, (November 20, 2006); Sarah El Deeb, “More Palestinians Flee Homelands,” AP, (December 9, 2006).
131 Larry Derfner, “Jerusalem Undivided” U.S.News & World Report, (June 3, 2007).
132 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Fatwa forbids PA Muslims to emigrate,” Jerusalem Post, (June 10, 2007).
133 Stuart A. Cohen, “Why is the IDF crying wolf?” Jerusalem Post, (July 30, 2007).
134 “Does Iran have something in store?” Wall Street Journal, (December 26, 2006).
135 Iran Press Service, (December 14, 2001).
136 See, for example, “Egypt to build nuclear power plants,” AP, (October 29, 2007); “Analysis: Yemen, Jordan hope for nuclear,” UPI, (October 1, 2007); “Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear,” [London] Times Online, (November 4, 2006).
136a Al-Hayat (London), May 16, 2008.
137 Giles Whittell, “Bahrain accuses Iran of nuclear weapons lie,” TimesOnline, (November 2, 2007).
138 Giles Whittell, “Bahrain accuses Iran of nuclear weapons lie,” TimesOnline, (November 2, 2007).
139 David Jackson, “Iran, Iraq top agendas for meetings with allies,” USA Today, (November 1, 2007).
140Associated Press, (October 23, 2007).
141 Matt Spetalnick, "Bush: Threat of World War III if Iran goes nuclear," Reuters, (October 17, 2007).
142 Richard Cohen, "Bush's Legacy of Cynicism," Washington Post, (October 30, 2007).
143 "Erekat: Palestinians will not accept Israel as 'Jewish State'," Barak Ravid, Haaretz, (November 12, 2007).
1442006 Report on International Religious Freedom.
145 Herb Keinon, "Behind the scenes at Annapolis," Jerusalem Post, (November 28, 2007).
146 Herb Keinon, "FM's complaints of Arab conduct denied," Jerusalem Post, (November 29, 2007).
147 KEEVOON Research, Strategy and Communications, (December 26, 2007).
148 Ronny Shaked, “Thousands of Palestinians apply for Israeli citizenship,” Ynetnews.com, November 7, 2007).
149 Joshua Mitnick, “Better the Devil You Know,” The Jerusalem Report, (November 12, 2007).
150 Joshua Mitnick, “Better the Devil You Know,” The Jerusalem Report, (November 12, 2007).
151 Eetta Prince-Gibson, “Land (Swap) for Peace?” The Jerusalem Report, (November 26, 2007).
152Near East Consulting, Bulletin # II-12, (December 2007).
153 For example, demilitarization was one of several prequisites to ensure Israel’s security after the establishment of a Palestinian state according to a study group that explored Israel’s options for peace in 1989. The West Bank and Gaza: Israel's Options for Peace, Tel Aviv: The Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, 1989, p. 104.
154 Khaled Abu Toameh, "PA does not want demilitarized Palestine," Jerusalem Post, (January 4, 2008).
155 Jonathan Pearlman, “Fruitless Enterprise,” The Jerusalem Report, (August 7, 2006).
156 Lara Sukhtian, “Palestinians loot greenhouses; Pumps, hoses taken; Abbas appeals for order,” The Boston Globe, (September 14, 2005).
157 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Gaza: Gunmen raze Morag hothouses,” Jerusalem Post, (May 14, 2006).
158 Arnon Regular, “Palestinian militants ransack former Gush Katif greenhouses,” Ha'aretz, (October 2, 2006).
159 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Gaza: Gunmen raze Morag hothouses,” Jerusalem Post, (May 14, 2006).
160 Aaron Klein, “Ex-Jewish cities now for Hamas terror training,” World Net Daily, (March 20, 2007).
161 Will Rasmussen, “Gaza's greenhouses become hot property in Egypt,” Reuters, (January 31, 2008).
161a Raz, Noa. “Blair sister-in-law: Gaza world’s largest concentration camp.” Ynetnews.com (September 11, 2008)
162 Shelly Paz and Rebecca Anna Stoil, “Gaza human chain a few links short,” Jerusalem Post, (February 25, 2008).
162a Alhomayed, Tariq. “Hamas’s Gluttony.” Asharq Al-Awsat (September 7, 2008).
163 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Arab editor blames Hamas for Gaza crisis,” Jerusalem Post, (January 21, 2008).
164 “Palestinians refuse to receive fuel from Israel,” Xinhua, (December 2, 2007).
165 Jpost.com Staff, “PA: Hamas stealing Gaza hospitals’ fuel,” Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2007).
166 Jpost.com Staff, “Defense sources: Gaza blackout a Hamas trick,” Jerusalem Post,(January 20, 2008).
167 Amos Harel and Yuval Azoulay, “Gaza power plant shuts down due to fuel blockade,” Haaretz, (January 21, 2008).
168 Ellen Knickmeyer, “Gazans feeling recoil of attacks on Israel,” Washington Post, (February 19, 2008).
169 Eyad al-Sarraj and Sara Roy, “Ending the stranglehold on Gaza,” Boston Globe, (January 26, 2008).
170 Martin Kramer, “Gaza buried in flour,” Martin Kramer’s Sandbox, weblog, (January 28, 2008).
171 Ellen Knickmeyer, “Egyptians Reseal Border, Cutting Access From Gaza,” Washington Post, (February 4, 2008).
172 Near East Report, (May 22, 2006).
173 Matthew Krieger and Tovah Lazaroff, “Hamas bans Israeli produce from Gaza,” Jerusalem Post, (July 10, 2007) .
174Wikipedia, “List of Qassam Rocket Attacks”.
175 Matan Tzuri,“‘We Didn't Think They Would Get to Us’,” Yediot Achronot, (March 2, 2008,) pg 8 (Hebrew).
176Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, “Population of Localities Numbering Above 1,000 Residents and Other Rural Population on 30/09/2007."
177 Mijal Grinberg and Yuval Azoulay, “5 Hurt in Ashkelon as Close to 50 Rockets Hit Southern Israel,” Haaretz, (March 2, 2008).
178 Ofra Edelman and Yuval Azoulay, “Student Killed in Negev College as Qassam Barrage Intensifies,” Haaretz, (February 28, 2008).
179 Shelly Paz and Judy Siegel, ‘I Screamed as Loud as I could So They Could Hear Me,’ Jerusalem Post, (February 11, 2008).
180 Ron Ben Yishai, “Givati Officers: Lessons from Lebanon Implemented in Gaza,” YNET News, (March 4, 2008).
181 Ibid.
182 Tani Goldstein, “Rocket Hits Ashkelon House; Qassams Land in Sderot,” YNET News, (March 3, 2008).
198 Roee Nahmias, “Report: Abbas Does Not Rule Out Resuming Armed Conflict with Israel,”YNET News, (February 28, 2008).
199 Abba Eban, “The Saudi Text,” The New York Times, (November 18, 1981).
200 Interview with Jerusalem District Police Chief Aryeh Amit by Eetta Prince Gibson, “The Back Page,” The Jerusalem Report, (March 31, 2008).
201 Jitka Maleckova and Alan Kreuger, “Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?” (July 2002), quoted in the Daily Star [Lebanon], (August 6, 2002).
202Washington Post, (December 5, 2001).
203 “Without Distinction - Attacks On Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups,” Amnesty International, (July 11, 2002).
204Jerusalem Post, (January 15, 2003).
205 Staff and AP, “Haniyeh: Hamas Will Weigh Ceasefire,” Jerusalem Post, (March 28, 2008).
206 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Palestinian Affairs: Abbas's latest headaches,” Jerusalem Post, (March 27, 2008).
207Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (June 11, 2002).
208 The Associated Press, “Palestinian Resigns Over Smuggling,” Washington Post, (April 7, 2008).
208aThe Associated Press, “Palestinian Anti-Corruption Chief: Aide of Late Leader Arafat Suspected of Stealing Millions,” Washington Post, (May 16, 2012).
209 The Associated Press, “Hezbollah agrees to remove Lebanon roadblocks,” International Herald Tribune (May 15, 2008).
210 The Associated Press, “Hizbullah wins veto right in government,” The Jerusalem Post (May 21, 2008).
211 Robert F. Worth and Nada Bakri, “Hezbollah Begins to Withdraw Gunmen in Beirut,” The New York Times (May 11, 2008).
212Palestine Chronicle, (July 6, 2003); Embassy of Israel (USA), (June 27, 2003).
213Washington Institute for Near East Policy, (June 2, 2003).
214Jerusalem Post, (July 17, 2003); Ha'aretz, (July 7 and 14, 2003); Israel Radio, (July 10, 2003).
215IMRA.
216The State Department, (June 20, 2003).
217 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Truce doesn’t mean end of resistance,” The Jerusalem Post (May 20, 2008).
218 “Israeli Cabinet debates evacuation pay,” JTA (September 14, 2008).
219 “Olmert sees land swaps in deal with Palestinians,” JTA (August 12, 2008); Leslie Susser, “Olmert’s Last Hurrah,” Jerusalem Report (September 15, 2008).
220“Lobby For Human Rights In Jerusalem, ” (October 7, 1998).
221 Kirchick, James, “Palestine and Gay Rights,” The Advocate, (July 11, 2006).
222 AP, “Israel’s Supreme Court Approves Same-Sex Marriages Performed Abroad,” International Herald Tribune, (November 21, 2006).
223 “First openly gay MK submits bill to legalize civil marriages,” Haaretz, (February 23, 2009).
224 Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, (November 16, 2008).
225 “Hamas announces ceasefire in Gaza,” BBCNews, (January 18, 2009).
226 Ibid.
227 “A surge in the number of rockets and mortar shells fired at Israel,” IICC, (March 1, 2009).
228 “Gaza rocket hits Ashkelon, Israel files complaint with UN,” Haaretz, (March 3, 2009).
229 “Increased humanitarian aid to Gaza after IDF operation,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (March 2, 2009).
230 Steinberg, Gerald. “Arab Peace or Durban War?” Jerusalem Post, (November 25, 2008).
231 Lazaroff, Tovah and Abe Selig.  “Durban II draft document ‘getting worse’,” Jerusalem Post, (February 23, 2009).
232 U.S. Department of State, Press Release (February 27, 2009)
233 Steinberg, Gerald. “Analysis: Will the conference be delegitimized?” Jerusalem Post, (March 3, 2009).
234 Isikoff, Michael and Mark Hosenball, “The Intel Czar Stumbles,” Newsweek, (March 10, 2009).
235 Ibid.
236 “Blame ‘the Lobby’,” The Washington Post, (March 12, 2009).
237 Ibid.
238 Frank R. Wolf, “Charles Freeman Orchestrated His Own Fall,” The Washington Post, (March 14, 2009).
239 “Blame ‘the Lobby’,” The Washington Post, (March 12, 2009).
240 Ibid.
241 “AIP calls on Iran to respect int’l treaties relevant to Bahrain, UAE,” Gulf in the Media, (March 23, 2009); “Arab League slams Iran’s ‘provocation’,” The Jerusalem Post, (March 22, 2009).
242 “AIP calls on Iran to respect int’l treaties relevant to Bahrain, UAE,” Gulf in the Media, (March 23, 2009); “Abu Musa Island,” GlobalSecurity.org, (October 15, 2008).
243 “AIP calls on Iran to respect int’l treaties relevant to Bahrain, UAE,” Gulf in the Media, (March 23, 2009).
244 “Arab League slams Iran’s ‘provocation’,” The Jerusalem Post, (March 22, 2009).
245 “Morocco severs relations with Iran,” aljazeera.net, (March 7, 2009).
246 “Iran ‘angered’ by Morocco severing ties,” The Jerusalem Post, (March 8, 2009).
  24 7“Netanyahu ‘will be peace partner,’” BBC, (March 25, 2009).
248 “Chronological Review of Events Related to the Question of Palestine,” United Nations, (January 31, 1997).
249 “The Wye River Memorandum,” US Department of State, (October 23, 1998).
250 Raphael Ahren, “Netanyahu: Economics, not politics, is the key to peace,” Haaretz, (November 21, 2008).
251 Raphael Ahren, “Netanyahu promises peace talks,” Haaretz, (March 27, 2009).
252 Herb Keinon, “Netanyahu refused to nix two state solution,” Jerusalem Post, (March 28, 2009).
253 Shahar Ilan, “Netanyahu vows ‘every effort to reach viable peace,’” Haaretz, (March 30, 2009).
254 “Obama defends boycott of UN racism meeting,” AFP, (April 19, 2009).
255 Edward Cody, “Iranian: Israel Is a Racist State,” The Washington Post, (April 21, 2009).
256 “UN Chief: Ahmadinejad ‘misused’ Durban II for political purposes,” Haaretz, (April 21, 2009).
257 Edward Cody, “Iranian: Israel Is a Racist State,” The Washington Post, (April 21, 2009).
258 Bruno Waterfields, “Britain isolated amid UN racism summit boycott,” Telegraph.co.uk., (April 20, 2009).
259 Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, “Mahmoud Abbas: ‘I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will,’” Palestinian Media Watch, (April 28, 2009).
260 Ari Shavit, “The two nation-state solution,” Haaretz, (April 24, 2009).
261 “Sari Nusseibeh: Palestinians should waive right of return,” Ynet, (July 30, 2008).
262 “Abbas Calls Israel ‘Zionist Enemy’,” CBS News, (January 5, 2005).
263 “Abu Mazen: Little Jihad is Over, Big Jihad Starts,” IsraelNN, (January 5, 2005).
264 Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, “Abbas mocks idea of Jewish state,” Palestinian Media Watch, (May 4, 2009).
265 Tagreed El Khodary and Ethan Bronner, “Addressing U.S., Hamas Says It Grounded Rockets,” New York Times, (May 4, 2009)
266 Ibid.
267 Address to “The Decline of the Zionist Regime” conference, Tehran University, Press TV, (May 27, 2008).
268 Special Dispatch 2137, MEMRI, (December 3, 2008).
269 Uri Bialer, Cross on the Star of David, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005, p. 3.
270 Tony Johnson, “Vatican-Israel Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, (May 12, 2009).
271 “Pope: Holocaust victims’ cry still echoes in our hearts,” Haaretz, (May 11, 2009).
272 Rachel Donaido, “Vatican-Israel Tensions Rise Over Pius,” New York Times, (October 19, 2008).
273 Richard Owen, “Dismay as Pope welcomes back Holocaust bishop Richard Williamson,” Times Online, (January 26, 2009).
274 Rachel Donaido and Alan Cowell, “In Bethlehem, Pope Urges Lifting of Gaza Embargo,” New York Times, (May 13, 2009).
275 Ibid.
276 Only about 5% of the Security Fence is a wall. “Pope: West Bank fence is symbol of ‘stalemate’,” Haaretz, (May 13, 2009).
277 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Obama Tells Netanyahu He Has an Iran Timetable,” The New York Times, (May 18, 2009).
278 “Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel,” White House Office of the Press Secretary, (May 18, 2009).
279 Ibid.
280 Ibid.
281 Hadad, “Qassam lands near house in Sderot,” Ynet News, (May 19, 2009).
282 “Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel,” White House Office of the Press Secretary, (May 18, 2009).
283 Herb Keinon, “PM: No new West Bank settlements,” Jerusalem Post, (May 24, 2009).
284 Isabel Kershner, “Israel Removes Illegal Settler Outpost in West Bank,” New York Times, (May 21, 2009).
285 “Middle East Peace Report, Vol. 10, Issue 35,” Americans for Peace Now, (May 26, 2009).
286 Barak Ravid, “Lieberman to Haaretz: Israel ready for mutual peace moves,” Haaretz, (April 2, 2009).
287 Glenn Kessler and Howard Schneider, “U.S. Urges Israel to End Expansion,” Washington Post, (May 24, 2009).
288 “Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel,” White House Office of the Press Secretary, (May 18, 2009).
289 White House Press Release (May 28, 2009).
290 Tovah Lazaroff, “Channel 2: Olmert Offers PA 98.1% of West Bank,” The Jerusalem Post (September 15, 2008).
291 Jackson Diehl, “Abbas’s Waiting Game,” The Washington Post (May 29, 2009).
292 Ibid.
293 Marty Peretz, “The Spine,” The New Republic (May 29, 2009).
294 Jackson Diehl, “Abbas’s Waiting Game,” The Washington Post (May 29, 2009).
295 White House Press Release (May 28, 2009).
296 “Prime Minister's Speech at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University,” Prime Minister’s Office, (June 14, 2009).
297 “Statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech,” The White House, (June 14, 2009).
298 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Palestinians: Netanyahu has buried peace process,” Jerusalem Post, (June 14, 2009).
299 Jackson Diehl, “Abbas’s Waiting Game,” The Washington Post (May 29, 2009).
300 Avi Issacharoff and Jack Khoury, “Abbas: We Choose Peace, but Rreserve Right to Resistance,” Haaretz, (August 4, 2009).
301 Mohammed Assadi, “Fatah Congress to Keep ‘Armed Struggle’ Option,” Reuters, (August 3, 2009).
302 C. Jacob and B. Chernitsky, “Fatah: We Never Relinquished the Right to Armed Struggle,” MEMRI, (September 3, 2009).
303 Mohammed Assadi, “Fatah Congress to Keep ‘Armed Struggle’ Option,” Reuters, (August 3, 2009).
304 Mohammad Yaghi, “Fatah Congress: Will New Resolutions Mean a New Direction?” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, (August 14, 2009).
305 Mohammed Assadi, “Fatah Congress to Keep ‘Armed Struggle’ Option,” Reuters, (August 3, 2009).
306 Michael Freund, “Forget Normalization – Saudi Arabia Steps Up Boycott of Israel,” Jerusalem Post, (September 13, 2009).
307 Ibid.
308 Ibid.
309 “Excerpts from Interview with U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice,” Washington Post, (September 22, 2009) and “Israel's Bombardment of Gaza is Not Self-Defen ce - It's a War Crime,” The Sunday Times, (January 11, 2009).
310 Bernard Josephs, “Dispute Over ‘Biased’ Gaza Inquiry Professor,” thejc.com, (August 27, 2009).
311 “Israel’s Initial Reaction to the Report of the Goldstone Fact Findin Mission,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (September 15, 2009).
312 “UN Smears Israeli Self-Defense as War Crimes,” Gerald M. Steinberg, Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2009.
313 Ibid.
313 a“Israel's Analysis and Comments on the Gaza Fact-Finding Mission Report,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (September 15, 2009).
314 Ibid.
315 “Analysis: Blocking the Truth Behind the Gaza War,” Jonathan D. Halevi, Jerusalem Post, September 21, 2009.
316 Ibid.
317 Eli Lake, “EXLUSIVE: Israel Makes Secret Offer on Settlements.” Washington Times, September 22, 2009.
318 Edward Cody, “Wrong Man for Top Job at UNESCO?” The Washington Post, (September 9, 2009).
319 Itamar Eichner, “Egyptian Culture Minister: I Would Burn Israeli Books Myself,” Ynet News, (May 14, 2008).
320 Edward Cody, “Wrong Man for Top Job at UNESCO?” The Washington Post, (September 9, 2009).
321 Barak Ravid, “Netanyahu Lifts Objection to Anti-Israel Egyptian Minister as Head of UNESCO,” Haaretz, (May 26, 2009).
322 Edward Cody, “Wrong Man for Top Job at UNESCO?” The Washington Post, (September 9, 2009).
323 Ibid.
324 Raymond Stock, “Very, Very Lost in Translation,” Foreign Policy, (September-October 2009).
325 Associated Press, “Egyptian Minister Loses UNESCO Race,” Ynet News, (September 22, 2009).
326 Steven Erlanger, “After Uproar, UNESCO Rejects Egyptian,” New York Times, (September 22, 2009).
327 Roee Nahmias, “Egyptian Minister Declares ‘Culture War’ on Israel,” Ynet News, (Sept 26, 2009).
328 Uriel Heilman, “In Do-Over on Goldstone. Human Rights Council Ignores Hamas,” JTA, (October 16, 2009).
329 Ibid.
330 “U.K. Commander Tells UN Council ‘IDF Took More Precautions Than Any Military in History of Warfare’,” UNWatch, (October 16, 2009).
331 Ibid.
332 “Human Rights Council,” UNWatch.
333 Uriel Heilman, “In Do-Over on Goldstone. Human Rights Council Ignores Hamas,” JTA, (October 16, 2009).
334 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).
335 Ibid.
336 “Snapshots: A Camera Blog,” Camera.org, (October 28, 2009).
337 Bard, Mitchell, Will Israel Survive?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p. 95.
338 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).
339 Bard, Mitchell, Will Israel Survive?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p. 95.
340 “Response to Amnesty International's Report on Israeli-Palestinian Water Issues,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (October 27, 2009).
341 Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).
342 “Israel Turns Over Gaza Water Processing Facility to Palestinians,” IMRA, (November 21, 2005).
343 Jonathan Lis, “IDF Chief: Hezbollah Has Rockets Capable of Hitting Tel Aviv,” Haaretz, (November 10, 2009).
344 Ibid.
345 Aron Heller, “Israel: Commandos Seize Huge Iranian Arms Shipment,” Associated Press, (November 5, 2009).
346 Yaakov Katz, “The haul: 320 tons of Katyushas, other rockets, shells and bullets,” Jerusalem Post, (November 5, 2009).
347 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, (March 24, 2007).
348 Aron Heller, “Israel: Commandos Seize Huge Iranian Arms Shipment,” Associated Press, (November 5, 2009).
349 Tovah Lazaroff and AP, “Assad Rejects Direct Talks with Israel,” Jerusalem Post, (November 15, 2009).
350 Anna Fifield, “Israel has Choice on Peace, Says Assad,” Financial Times, (March 9, 2009).
351 Matthew RJ Brodsky, “Why Syrian-Israeli Peace Deals Fail,” inFocus, (Spring 2009).
352 Barak Ravid, “Netanyahu Declares 10-Month Settlement Freeze ‘to Restart Peace Talks’,” Haaretz, (November 25, 2009).
353 Paul Martin, “In the Tunnels of Gaza, Smugglers Risk Death for Weapons and Profit,” Times Online, (June 28, 2008).
354 Agence France Presse, “Leading Egypt Clerics Back Gaza Tunnel Barrier: Report,” Yahoo News, (January 1, 2010).
355 Herb Keinon, “Comment: Sip a Diet Coke and Take a Breathe,” Jerusalem Post, (January 11, 2010).
356 “George Mitchell, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East,” Charlie Rose, (January 6, 2010), (VIDEO).
357 “An Arab Lament,” Jerusalem Post, (January 11, 2010).
358 Yakovee, Rehavia. “Arms for Oil-Oil for Arms: An Analysis of President Carter's 1978 Planes 'Package Deal' Sale to Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia,” Claremont, Ph.D. Diss., 1983, pp. 75-76, 86.
359 Barak Ravid and Aluf Benn, “Bush Sold Arab States Arms in Violation of Deal with Israel,” Jerusalem Post, (January 10, 2010).
360 Ibid.
361 Joe Klein, “Q&A: Obama on His First Year in Office,” Time, (January 21, 2010).
362 Ibid.
363 An Arab Lament,” Jerusalem Post, (January 11, 2010).
364 Barak Ravid, Associated Press, “Netanyahu on Mitchell-Abbas Meet: Stop Wasting Time,” Haaretz, (January 22, 2010).
365 “Israel to include West Bank shrines in heritage plan,” Reuters, (February 21, 2010).
366 Barak Ravid, “Netanyahu: Abbas Remarks on Heritage Sites are Lies, Hypocrisy,” Haaretz, (February 23, 2010).
367 “Israel to include West Bank shrines in heritage plan,” Reuters, (February 21, 2010).
368 Ibid.
369 “President Peres meets with UN Special Coordinator Serry,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (Feb. 24, 2010).
370 “Palestinians Riot to Protest Synagogue Reopening,” CNN, (March 16, 2010).
371 Abe Selig and Hilary Leila Krieger, “Hurva Is Again a House of Prayer,” Jerusalem Post, (March 16, 2010).
372 “The Hurva’s Symbolism,” Jerusalem Post, (March 14, 2010).
373 Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “Abbas Supports PA’s Naming Square After Terrorist Killer,” Palestinan Media Watch, (January 19, 2010).
374 Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “Fayyad and Abbas Preach Non-Violence While Repeatedly Honoring Terrorists,” Palestinan Media Watch, (April 7, 2010).
375 Ibid.
376 Itamar Marcus and Barbara Cook, “Abbas Promotes Terrorist Killer to the Rank of Major-General,” Palestinian Media Watch, (March 28, 2010).
377 Roni Sofer, “Yahya Ayyash Building ‘Shocking Incitement’,” Ynet News, (April 7, 2010).
377a Khaled Abu Toamed, "Fatah has Never Recognized Israel", Jerusalem Post, (July 22, 2009).
378Palestine Today, (November 26, 2009).
379 “Behind The Headlines: The Seizure of the Gaza Flotilla,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (May 31, 2010).
380 “The Gaza Flotilla Incident,” Jewish Virtual Library.
381 Ron Ben Yishai, “A Brutal Ambush At Sea,” Ynet News, (May 31, 2010).
382 “MEMRI TV Clips on the Gaza Flotilla: Activists On Board Chant Songs of Martyrdom at Departure,” MEMRI, (May 31, 2010).
383 “Behind The Headlines: The Seizure of the Gaza Flotilla,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (May 31, 2010).
384 “Law Expert Dr Robbie Sabel IDF Action in International Waters Legal,” IMRA, (May 31, 2010).
385 JPost Staff, “Congress Shows Israel Support,” Jerusalem Post (June 9, 2010).
386 Amy Teibel, “Yuval Diskin Warns Against Lifting the Blockade,” The Huffington Post, (June 15, 2010).
387 Herb Keinon, “Don’t Undo Blockade, It Weakens Hamas,” Jerusalem Post, (June 14, 2010).
388 Barak Ravid, “Abbas to Obama: I’m Against Lifting The Gaza Naval Blockade,” Haaretz, June 13, 2010.
389UN Security Council Resolution 425.
390UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
391 AFP, “US Discusses Peacekeeping Force for Lebanon, Rules Out US Troops,” Space War, (July 22, 2006).
392 Eli Ashkenazi, The Associated Press and Anshel Pfeffer, “Lebanon Army Dismantles 4 Rockets Aimed at Israel,” Haaretz, (October 27, 2010).
393 Natasha Mozgovaya, “Gates: Hezbollah Has More Rockets Than Most Governments in the World,” Haaretz, (April 27, 2010).
394 “Villagers Disarm UN  Patrol in South Lebanon: Army,” AFP, (July 3, 2010).
395 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas &Fayyad: Do They Have a Mandate?” Hudson NY, (August 24, 2010).
396 Poll No.170, Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, (January 1, 2010).
397 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas &Fayyad: Do They Have a Mandate?” Hudson NY, (August 24, 2010).
398 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas &Fayyad: Do They Have a Mandate?” Hudson NY, (August 24, 2010).
399 Matthew Lee and Robert Burns, “Israelis, Palestinians Agree to Second Round of Talks,” Huffington Post, (September 2, 2010).
400 Reuters and Aluf Benn, "PA Rejects Olmert's Offer to Withdraw From 93% of West Bank", Haaretz, (August 12, 2008).
401 Herb Keinon, “Loyalty Oath to 'Jewish State' Set to be Approved”, Jerusalem Post, (October 6, 2010).
402 Dani Izenberg, "Ruth Gavison: Loyalty Declaration Bill is Bad Legislation", Jerusalem Post, (October 15, 2010).
403 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom, “Israel and the Occupied Territories”, US Department of State (October 26, 2009)
404 Jerusalem Post Staff, “Zoabi: 'Israel has Reached the Height of Fascism”, Jerusalem Post (October 7, 2010).
405 “2002 Basic Law”, The Palestinian Basic Law (2002).
406 Dani Izenberg, "Ruth Gavison: Loyalty Declaration Bill is Bad Legislation", Jerusalem Post, (October 15, 2010).
407 Attila Somfalvi, "Netanyahu Orders Change to Loyalty Oath", Jerusalem Post, (October 18, 2010).
408 Khaled Abu Toameh, "Palestinians May Ask UN to Recognize State in '67 Borders", Jerusalem Post, (October 16, 2010).
409 Herb Keinon, "Israel: PA Threat to Declare State Unilaterally a 'Mirage'", Jerusalem Post, (October 10, 2010).
410 Tal Becker, "International Recognition of Unilaterally Declared Palestinian State: Legal and Policy Dilemma's", Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (2000).
411 Dan Izenberg, "Does the PA Fulfill the Criteria for an Independent State?", Jerusalem Post, (October 18, 2010).
412 Hillary Rodham Clinton, "Remarks to the American Task Force on Palestine", US Department of State, (October 20, 2010).
413 Douglas J. Feith, "Can Israel Be Both Jewish and Democratic", Wall Street Journal, (October 25, 2010).
414 JPOST Editorial, "No Contradiction Between 'Jewish' and 'Democratic'", Jerusalem Post, (October 19, 2010).
415 Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, "Modern Israel at 62: Tiny Country and Huge Success", Arutz Sheva, (April 19, 2010).
416 Associated Press, "Israel Slams 'absurd' UNESCO Decision on Jerusalem, West Bank Holy Sites", Haaretz, (October 29, 2010).
417 Barak Ravid, "Netanyahu: Abbas Remarks on Heritage Sites are Lies, Hypocrisy", Haaretz, (February 23, 2010).
418 News Agencies, "UN: Israel 'Heritage Sites' are on Palestinian Land", Haaretz, (February 22, 2010).
419 United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization, "Decisions Adopted by the Executive Board At Its 160th Session", UNESCO, (Nov 22, 2000).
420 JPost Staff, "PM Slams UNESCO's Classification of Rachel's Tomb as Mosque", Jerusalem Post, (October 29, 2010).
421 JPost Staff, "Ottoman Imperial Decrees Debunk Erdogan's Claims", Jerusalem Post, (November 8, 2010).
422 "Abbas Talks Peace Process at Arafat Memorial", Ma'an News Agency, (November 12, 2010).
423 Tani Goldstein, "Rocket Hits Ashkelon House; Qassams Land in Sderot", YNET News, (March 3, 2008).
424 "A Conversation with Mahmoud Abbas", The Washington Post, (September 30, 2007).
425 Khaled Abu Toameh, "Abbas Vows to Walk in Arafat's Footsteps in Palestine", The Jerusalem Post, (November 12, 2010).
426 AP Story, (January 1, 2005).
427 "Erekat Delivers Message from President Abbas to Quarter", Independent Media Review Analysis, (August 22, 2010).
428 Ali Waked, &qquot;Abbas: We Won't Waive Right of Return", YNET News, (July 12, 2009).
429 AP Story, (January 1, 2005).
429a Khaled Abu Toameh, "Fatah: No to Israel as Jewish State, No Land Swaps'", Jerusalem Post, (November 28, 2010).
430 "Abbas Scorns 'Jewish State'", Palestinian Media Watch, (April 27, 2009).
431 Ynet, "Abbas: We Won't Recognize Israel as Jewish State", YNET News, (October 15, 2010).
432 Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, "Mahmoud Abbas: 'If all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor'", Palestinian Media Watch, (July 7, 2010).
433 Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, "Abbas Honors Hezbollah Spiritual Leader", Palestinian Media Watch, (July 11, 2010).
434 Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, "Abbas Eulogizes Munich Massacre Mastermind", Arutz Sheva, (July 4, 2010).
435 "Palestinian Authority Holocaust Denial and Distortion", Palestinian Media Watch.
435 Speech Marking Anniversary of Arafats Death, (November 2006).
437 Jeffrey Fleishman, “WikiLeaks Cables Highlight Arab Contempt for Iran”, Los Angeles Times, (December 1, 2010)
438 Lee Smith, “Deadly Fictions”, Tablet Online Magazine, (November 29, 2010).
439 Ross Colvin, “Saudis Urged Action at Meeting with Top US General”, Reuters, (November 28, 2010).
440 US Embassy Cable, “Emirati Crown Prince Broaches Invasion of Iran”, The Guardian, (November 28, 2010).
441 US Embassy Cable, “Jordan Wary of US Engagement with Iran”, The Guardian, (November 28, 2010).
442Roee Nahmias, “Egypt: Iran Tried Smuggling Arms to Gaza”, Ynet News, (November 30, 2010).
443 Janine Zacharia, “Netanyahu says WikiLeaks cables show Arab states share Israeli concerns”, Washington Post, (November 29, 2010).
444 Ibid.
445 US Embassy Cable, “Bahrain King Says Iranian Nuclear Programme Must be Stopped”, The Guardian, (November 28, 2010).
446 US Embassy Cables, "Hillary Clinton Says Saudi Arabia 'A Critical Source of Terrorist Funding'", The Guardian, (December 5, 2010).
447 Mitchell Bard, The Arab Lobby, HarperCollins Publishers: New York (2010); page 165.
448 Mitchell Bard, The Arab Lobby, HarperCollins Publishers: New York (2010); page 166.
449 Dore Gold, Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism, Regnery Publishing: Washington DC (2003); page 204.
450 Declan Walsh, "WikiLeaks Cables Portray Saudi Arabia as a Cash Machine for Terrorists", The Guardian, (December 5, 2010).
451 Eric Lichtblau, Cash Flow to Terrorists Evades U.S. Efforts", The New York Times, (December 5, 2010).
452 Brian Ross, "U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al-Qaeda's Coffers", ABC News Blotter, (September 11, 2007).
453 Jonathan Lis, “Netanyahu: Israel agreed to new settlement freeze”, Haaretz, (January 3, 2011).
454 Editorial Staff, “Little Room for Optimism about Middle East Peace”, Baltimore Sun, (December 27, 2010).
455 Tovah Lazaroff, “Frontlines: Is Settlement Growth Booming?”, Jerusalem Post, (December 30, 2010).
456 Ibid
457 Jeffrey Helmreich, “Jerusalem Issue Brief: Diplomatic & Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue”, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (January 19, 2003).
458 Eric Rozenman, “Israel is not expanding settlement areas”, Baltimore Sun, (December 30, 2010).
459 Tovah Lazaroff, “Frontlines: Is Settlement Growth Booming?”, Jerusalem Post, (December 30, 2010).
460 Danny Ayalon, “Who’s Stopping the Peace Process?”, Los Angeles Times, (December 14, 2010).
461 Melanie Lidman, "Clinton Criticizes East Jeruslaem Shepherd Hotel Demolition", Jerusalem Post, (January 10, 2011)
462 Ronen Medzini, "Mufti's Descendents: Shepherd Hotel Ours", Ynet News, (January 10, 2011).
463 "Background Information from the Municipality of Jerusalem Regarding the Shepherd Hotel", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (July 19, 2009).
464 Gven Ackerman, "Israel Says East Jerusalem Building Demolition Legal", Bloomberg News, (January 10, 2011).
465 Benjamin Netanyahu, "Statement on the Shepherd Hotel", Prime Ministers Office, (January 10, 2011).
466 AFP, "Israel Slams Criticism of Hotel Demolition", European Jewish Press, (January 11, 2011).
467 CNN Wire Staff, "Netanyahu: Talks Should Focus on 'Core Issues', not Settlements", CNN, (December 13, 2010).
468 Patricia Sullivan, "Strategist Caused Stir for Accusing Saudis of Supporting Terror", Washington Post, (October 14, 2009).
469 Committee for National Responsibility, "The Kinneret Agreement", (January 11, 2002).
470 Section II, "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Concflicts at Sea", International Humanitarian Law, (June 12, 1994).
471 "Beyond the Headlines: The Israeli Humanitarian Lifeline to Gaza", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (May 25, 2010).
472 Article 50 - Section III, "Military Authority over the Territory of the Hostile State", The Hague Convention (IV), (October 18, 1907).
473 Abraham Bell, “International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense,” (January 28, 2008) and “Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?”, Jerusalem: Institute of Contemporary Affairs, (February 28, 2008).
474 Dan Izenberg, "Mandelbilt: Gaza Blockade is Legal", Jerusalem Post, (August 27, 2010).
475 Justice Jacob Turkel, "The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of May 31, 2010- Part One", The Turkel Commission, (January 2011).
476 Saeb Erekat, "The Returning Issue of Palestine's Refugees", The Guardian, (December 10, 2010).
477 The Palestine Papers, "Abbas Admits Refugee Return 'Illogical'", The Guardian, (January 24, 2010).
478 The Palestine Papers, "PA Relinquished Right of Return", Al-Jazeera, (January 24, 2010).
479 Matti Friedman, "Israeli PM Says Ties With Egypt Must Be Preserved", The Washington Post, (January 30, 2011).
480 Yossi Klein HaLevi, "Israel, Alone Again?", New York Times, (February 1, 2011).
481 "Sports Show on Egyptian TV Turns into Platform for Spreading Anti-Semitism", MEMRI-TV, (March-April 2010).
482 Adrian Blomfeld, "King Abdullah II of Jordan Sacks Government Amid Street Protests", The Telegraph, (February 1, 2011).
483 Richard Cohen, "A Democratic Egypt or a State of Hate?", The Washington Post, (February 1, 2011).
484 Helene Cooper, "US Scrambles to Size Up ElBaradei", New York Times, (January 31, 2011).
485 Barry Rubin, "Obama Must Back Egypt's Regime, or Face a Disaster like US did in Iran", Christian Science Monitor, (January 31, 2011).
486 Herb Keinon, "Jones: Israeli-Palestinian Strife Still Core of ME ills", Jerusalem Post, (February 8, 2011).
487 Interview with Melissa Bell, "Amr Moussa: Secretary General of the Arab League", France 24, (April 14, 2010).
488 Daniel Pipes, The Long Shadow: Culture and Politics in the Middle East, (NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990), pp. 273-74.
489 Hilary Leila Krieger, "US Vetoes UN Resolution Condemning Settlements as Illegal", Jerusalem Post, (February 19, 2011).
490 Ian Black, "Israel Spurned Palestinian Offer of 'Biggest Yerushalayim in History'", The Guardian, (January 23, 2011).
491 Herb Keinon, "Israel has Shown Genuine Desire to Renew Negotiations", Jerusalem Post, (February 22, 2011).
492 Ambassador Meron Reuben, "The Situation in the Middle East Including the Palestinian Question", Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations, (February 18, 2011).
493 Dore Gold, "The Hidden Agenda Behind 'Israel Apartheid Week'", Jerusalem Post, (March 6, 2010).
494 "Israel Apartheid Week Comes To Town", Honest Reporting, (March 5, 2010).
495 Michael Ignatieff, "Statement by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on Israeli Apartheid Week", Canadian Liberal Party, (March 7, 2011).
496 Apartheid Week: A Campaign Against Human Rights, "The Truth About Israel", CAMERA, (March 2011).
497 Ishmael Khalidi, "Lost in the Blur of Slogans", San Francisco Chronicle, (March 4, 2009).
498 Benjamin Pogrund, "Israel is a Democracy in which Arabs Vote", Focus Magazine (Helen Suzman Foundation), (December 2005).
499 Editorial Staff, "A Fatal Israeli-Palestinian Flaw", Los Angeles Times, (March 14, 2011).
500 CNN Wire Staff, "Israel Approves Settlement Increase After Family Killed", CNN, (March 14, 2011).
501 Richard C. Holbrooke, To End a War, Random House Publishers, New York, (1999).
502 Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs, "Incitement and Culture of Peace Index", (October - December 2010).
503 Itamar Marcus, "Let's Stop Pretending", Jerusalem Post, (March 13, 2011).
504 Itamar Marcus, "PA-TV Glorified Terrorist who Killed 3 in Itamar in 2002", Palestinian Media Watch, (March 13, 2011).
505 Attila Somfalvi, "Palestinian Incitement: Jews Receive 'Der Sturmer" Depiction", Ynet News, (March 13, 2011).
506 Benjamin Netanyahu, "Remarks in Response to the Terrorist Attack in Itamar", Prime Minister's Office, (March 12, 2011).
507 Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, "Developments in Policy Towards the West Bank and Gaza in 2010", Israel Defense Forces, (March 17, 2011).
508 Ibid
509 Ibid
510 "Emergency Treatment Center Opens at Erez Crossing", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (January 18, 2009).
511 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Heart to Heart", YouTube Video, (January 21, 2009).
512 Ben Hartman, "Shock and Fear Returns to Beersheba", Jerusalem Post, (March 24, 2011).
513 "Rocket Attacks Towards Israel", Israel Defense Forces, (October 2010).
514 Map, "Distance From Gaza: Warning Time Before Rocket Falls", Israel Defense Forces, (October 2010).
515 "Gaza: Stop Rocket Attacks Against Israeli Civilians", Human Rights Watch, (March 1, 2011).
516 Ewen MacAskill, "Obama Advisor Aligns with White House in Criticism of Rocket Attacks on Israel", The Guardian, (December 29, 2008).
517 Richard Goldstone, "Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and War Crimes", Washington Post, (April 1, 2011).
518 Ibid
519 Editorial, "Mr. Goldstone Recants", Wall Street Journal, (April 5, 2011).
520 Richard Goldstone, "Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and War Crimes", Washington Post, (April 1, 2011).
521 Colonel Richard Kemp, "Goldstone Gaza Report", UN Watch, (October 16, 2009).
522 David Harris, "Hamas Admits Up to 700 Fighters Killed in Operation Cast Lead", The Israel Project, (November 1, 2010).
523 Richard Goldstone, "Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and War Crimes", Washington Post, (April 1, 2011).
524 Ibid
525 Barak Ravid, "Netanyahu to UN: Retract Gaza War Report in wake of Goldstone's Comments", Haaretz, (April 2, 2011).
526 Haaretz Service, "Barak: Goldstone should retract Gaza report in International Forum", Haaretz, (April 3, 2011).
527 "Escalation in the South", IDF Spokesperson, (April 10, 2011).
528 Anshel Pfeffer, "Head to Head: Expert Ofir Shoham", Haaretz, (April 11, 2011).
529 Tech Talk, "Israel Deploys Unique, Controversial Missile System", CBS News, (March 31, 2011).
530 News Wire, "Israel's Military Ordering More Iron Dome Defense Systems", JTA, (April 11, 2011).
531 Conal Urquhart, "Israel Warns Iron Dome Still at Experimental Stage", The Guardian, (April 11, 2011).
532 Yaakov Katz, "Boy, 16, Badly Hurt After Hamas Fires Missile at School Bus", Jerusalem Post, (April 8, 2011).
533 Matti Friedman, "New Israeli System Alters War Against Gaza Rockets", Associated Press, (April 10, 2011).
534 Conal Urquhart, "Israel Warns Iron Dome Still at Experimental Stage", The Guardian, (April 11, 2011).
535 Dan Williams, "Analysis: Rocket Shield Reprieves Israeli Frontiers, For Now", Reuters, (April 14, 2011).
536 Ibid.
537 Mark Mazzetti, "Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden", New York Times, (May 2, 2011).
538 A.E. Stahl, "Targeted Killings Work", Infinity Journal, (Winter 2010).
539 "IDF Strike Kills Hamas Leader Ahmed Yassin", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (March 22, 2004).
540 Associated Press, "Hamas to Call Truce", The Guardian, (December 3, 2004).
541 Barack Obama, "Osama Bin Laden is Dead: Full Transcript", The Telegraph, (May 1, 2011).
542 Daniel Byman, "Do Targeted Killings Work?", Foreign Affairs, (March/April 2006).
543 Jimmy Carter, "Support the Palestinian Unity Government", Washington Post, (May 3, 2011).
544 Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, "Advisor to Abbas: Hamas has No Need to Recognize Israel", Arutz Sheva, (May 4, 2011).
545 Ethan Bronner, "Accord Brings New Sense of Urgency to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", The New York Times, (May 5, 2011).
546 Elliott Abrams, "The End of the 'Peace Process'", Council on Foreign Relations, (May 6, 2011).
547 Avi Issacharoff, "Gaps Between Hamas, Fatah Loom Large Despite Unity Deal", HaAretz, (May 4, 2011).
548 Tovah Lazaroff, "Netanyahu: Fatah-Hamas Unity a Blow to Peace", Jerusalem Post, (May 4, 2011).
549 Ethan Bronner, "Hamas Leader Calls for Two State Solution, but Refuses to Renounce Violence", The New York Times, (May 5, 2011).
550 Jennifer Rubin, "Interview with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Part 1)", Washington Post, (May 4, 2011).
551 Wire Staff, "Half of Democratic Senators Urge PA Aid Cut Off", JTA, (May 8, 2011).
552 Reuters, "UN Condemns Israeli Fire at Lebanon Border Protest", Jerusalem Post, (May 16, 2011).
553 Ariel Zirulnick, "Nakba Protests Bring Arab Spring to Israel's Doorstep", The Christian Science Monitor, (May 16, 2011).
554 Lenny Ben David, "One If By Land, and Two If By Sea", I*Consult, (May 16, 2011).
555 "Prime Minister's Response to Events in North", IMRA, (May 15, 2011).
556 "Letters of Complaint Regarding Demonstrations on Israel's Borders", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (May 16, 2011).
557 Jennifer Rubin, "Foggy Bottom's Hazy Rhetoric on Israeli Border Incursions", Washington Post, (May 17, 2011).
558 Associated Press, "Hamas Leader on Nakba Day: The Zionist Project Must End", HaAretz, (May 15, 2011).
559 "PM Netanyahu's Address at the Knesset: Herzl Day", Prime Minister's Office, (May 16, 2011).
560 "Remarks by President Obama and PM Netanyahu After Meeting", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (May 20, 2011)
561 David Bedein, "Abba Eban: The June 1967 Map", Israel Behind the News, (November 17, 2002).
562 "Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace", Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (2008).
563 David Frum, "Obama Pushing Wrong Way in Middle East", CNN, (May 24, 2011).
564 Map, "Israel's Airspace Vulnerabilities", Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
565 Map, "Israel's Narrow Waistline", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
566 Map, "Israel's Geographic and Topographic Vulnerabilities", Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
567 George W. Bush, "Letter from President Bush to PM Sharon", CNN, (April 14, 2004).
568 Barak H. Obama, "AIPAC Policy Conference 2011 Speech", AIPAC, (May 22, 2011).
569 Benjamin Netanyahu, "Speech to a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress", Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (May 24, 2011).
570 Dore Gold, "The Debate Over Defensible Borders in the Era of Missiles", Mid-East Strategy Blog, (January 26, 2011).
571 Dan Izenberg, "Analysis: Is There a Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza", Jerusalem Post, (March 22, 2010).
572 Rotem Caro Weizman, "Red Cross Official: There is No Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza", Israel Defense Forces, (April 20, 2011).
573 Yaakov Lappin, "Red Cross: There is No Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza", Jerusalem Post, (April 21, 2011).
574 Coordinator of Government Activities, "Developments in Policy Towards the West Bank and Gaza in 2010", Israel Defense Forces, (March 17, 2011).
575 Yaakov Lappin, "Syrian TV: 18 Killed, 277 Hurt in Naksa Day Border Protest", Jerusalem Post, (June 5, 2011).
576 IDF Website, "IDF Prevents Breach of Syria Border", Israel Defense Forces, (June 5, 2011).
577 "Warning Issued by the IDF to Rioters Near Majdal Shams", IDF Youtube, (June 5, 2011).
578 Israel News, "IDC Cuts Ceasefire Short When Protesters Climb Border Fence", Ynet News, (June 5, 2011).
579 Benjamin Netanyahu, "Comments About the Threats to Breach Israel's Borders", Prime Minister's Office, (June 2, 2011).
580 Andrew Quinn, "Syria 'Clearly' Inciting Israel Border Protests: US", Reuters, (June 6, 2011).
581 "RPS Statement Concerning the Stompers of the Golan Heights", Reform Party of Syria, (June 5, 2011).
582 Barak Ravid, "Netanyahu: Syria Provoking Israel to Divert Attention from Internal Bloodshed", HaAretz, (June 6, 2011).
583 Wire Staff, "US Warns Against New Gaza Flotilla Plans", Reuters, (June 24, 2011).
584 Editorial Staff, "The Floating Gaza Strip Show", Washington Times, (June 27, 2011).
585 Reuters Wire, "Cyprus Bans All Sailings to Gaza Ahead of Flotilla Plan", Reuters Canada, (June 23, 2011).
586 Barak Ravid, "Israel Fears Gaza Flotilla Activists May Try to Kill IDF Soldiers", HaAretz, (June 27, 2011).
587 Yousef al-Helou, "Miles of Smiles Aid Convoy Enters Gaza", PressTV, (June 19, 2011).
588 Factsheets, "Government Officials Against the Flotilla", NGO Monitor, (May 29, 2011).
589 Neil MacFarquhar and Ethan Bronner, "Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid", The New York Times, (September 1, 2011).
590 Prime Minister's Office, "Prime Minister's Office accouncement following publication of Palmer Report by UN Secretary General," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (September 3, 2011).
591 Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President Alvaro Uribe, Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Suleyman Ozdem Sanberk, "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident," The United Nations, (September 2011).
592 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas: Israel’s ‘intransigence’ forcing us to the UN,” The Jerusalem Post, (September 7, 2011).
593 AFP, “EU may 'draft own resolution on Palestinian UN bid',” Yahoo News, (September 3, 2011).
594 Steven Rosen, “The Palestinians' Imaginary State,” Foreign Policy, (August 3, 2011).
595 Larry Grossman, “AJC Briefing: The Perils of UDI,” The American Jewish Committee, (September 2011).
596 Irwin Cotler, “The time isn't right for statehood bid,” The Montreal Gazette, (September 8, 2011).
597 DPA, “U.S.: We will stop aid to Palestinians if UN bid proceeds,” Haaretz, (August 26, 2011).
598 Associated Press Staff, “EU: Palestinian state vote could be 'dangerous',” Cnsnews.com, (June 14, 2011).
599 Oren Dorell, “PLO ambassador says Palestinian state should be free of Jews,” USA TODAY, (September 14, 2011).
600 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas Vows: No Room for Israelis in Palestinian state,” The Jerusalem Post, December 25, 2010.
601 Alan Dershowitz, “Push for Palestinian state at UN must be rejected: It will hurt Arabs and Jews alike,” New York Daily News, September 21, 2011.
602 VOA News, “Israel Considers Response to UNESCO Vote,” Voice of America, November 1, 2011.
603 Democratic Underground, “PA Official: Abbas expects US pressure to push out Netanyahu,” May 29, 2009.
604 Jeffrey Heller and John Irish, “I sraeli settlement freeze ends, peace talks in balance,” Reuters, September 27, 2010.
605 Condoleezza Rice, “No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Time in Washington,” Crown Publishers: 2011.
606 Condoleezza Rice, “Best. Deal. Ever,” The Daily Beast, October 23, 2011.
607 Israel Harel, “The IDF, now part of Mahmoud Abbas’ fan club,” Haaretz, October 27, 2011.
608 Itamar Marcus and Nan Jaques Zilberdik, “Abbas glorifies terrorist prisoners,” Palestinian Media Watch, November 1, 2011.
609 Mark Landler, “Obama and Abbas: From Speed Dial to Not Talking,” New York Times, September 9, 2011.
610 Yoel Marcus, “Abbas must choose to seek peace deal with Israel,” Haaretz, October 28, 2011.
611 Director General, “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” International Atomic Energy Agency, November 8, 2011.
612 David E. Sanger, “America’s Deadly Dynamics with Iran,” New York Times, November 5, 2011.
613 Susan Rosenbluth, “Good News in Israel: Best Economy in the West, Energy Independence, and Maybe Future Exports,” The Jewish Voice and Opinion, January 13, 2011.
614 Zachary A. Goldfarb, “S&P Downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time," Washington Post, August 6, 2011.
615 Nadav Shemer, “S&P raises Israel’s credit rating from A to A+,” Jerusalem Post, Sept. 9, 2011.
616 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,“History of the OECD,” 2011.
617 “Economic Highlights: 3rd Quarter 2011,” State of Israel Ministry of Finance International Affairs Department, September 2011.
618 World Economic Forum, “The Global Competitiveness Index 2011-2012 rankings,” 2011.
1 Dan Izenberg, "Analysis: Is There a Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza", Jerusalem Post, (March 22, 2010).
2 Rotem Caro Weizman, "Red Cross Official: There is No Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza", Israel Defense Forces, (April 20, 2011).
3 Yaakov Lappin, "Red Cross: There is No Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza", Jerusalem Post, (April 21, 2011).
4 Coordinator of Government Activities, "Developments in Policy Towards the West Bank and Gaza in 2010", Israel Defense Forces, (March 17, 2011).
5 Wire Staff, "US Warns Against New Gaza Flotilla Plans", Reuters, (June 24, 2011).
6 Editorial Staff, "The Floating Gaza Strip Show", Washington Times, (June 27, 2011).
7 Reuters Wire, "Cyprus Bans All Sailings to Gaza Ahead of Flotilla Plan", Reuters Canada, (June 23, 2011).
8 Barak Ravid, "Israel Fears Gaza Flotilla Activists May Try to Kill IDF Soldiers", HaAretz, (June 27, 2011).
9 Yousef al-Helou, "Miles of Smiles Aid Convoy Enters Gaza", PressTV, (June 19, 2011).
10 Factsheets, "Government Officials Against the Flotilla", NGO Monitor, (May 29, 2011).
11 Neil MacFarquhar and Ethan Bronner, "Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid", The New York Times, (September 1, 2011).
12 Prime Minister's Office, "Prime Minister's Office accouncement following publication of Palmer Report by UN Secretary General," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (September 3, 2011).
13 Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President Alvaro Uribe, Joseph Ciechanover Itzhar, Suleyman Ozdem Sanberk, "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident," The United Nations, (September 2011).
14 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas: Israel’s ‘intransigence’ forcing us to the UN,” The Jerusalem Post, (September 7, 2011).
15 AFP, “EU may 'draft own resolution on Palestinian UN bid',” Yahoo News, (September 3, 2011).
16 Steven Rosen, “The Palestinians' Imaginary State,” Foreign Policy, (August 3, 2011).
17 Larry Grossman, “AJC Briefing: The Perils of UDI,” The American Jewish Committee, (September 2011).
18 Irwin Cotler, “The time isn't right for statehood bid,” The Montreal Gazette, (September 8, 2011).
19 DPA, “U.S.: We will stop aid to Palestinians if UN bid proceeds,” Haaretz, (August 26, 2011).
20 Associated Press Staff, “EU: Palestinian state vote could be 'dangerous',” Cnsnews.com, (June 14, 2011).
21 Oren Dorell, “PLO ambassador says Palestinian state should be free of Jews,” USA TODAY, (September 14, 2011).
22 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas Vows: No Room for Israelis in Palestinian state,” The Jerusalem Post, December 25, 2010).
23 Alan Dershowitz, “Push for Palestinian state at UN must be rejected: It will hurt Arabs and Jews alike,” New York Daily News, (September 21, 2011.
24 VOA News, “Israel Considers Response to UNESCO Vote,” Voice of America, (November 1, 2011.
25 Democratic Underground, “PA Official: Abbas expects US pressure to push out Netanyahu,” May 29, 2009).
26 Jeffrey Heller and John Irish, “I sraeli settlement freeze ends, peace talks in balance,” Reuters, (September 27, 2010).
27 Condoleezza Rice, “No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Time in Washington,” Crown Publishers: 2011.
28 Condoleezza Rice, “Best. Deal. Ever,” The Daily Beast, (October 23, 2011.
29 Israel Harel, “The IDF, now part of Mahmoud Abbas’ fan club,” Haaretz, (October 27, 2011.
30 Itamar Marcus and Nan Jaques Zilberdik, “Abbas glorifies terrorist prisoners,” Palestinian Media Watch, (November 1, 2011.
31 Associated Press, “Palestinian leader meets woman who aided 2001 killing of Israeli teen; Israel irked,” Washington Post, December 21, 2011.
32 Mark Landler, “Obama and Abbas: From Speed Dial to Not Talking,” New York Times, (September 9, 2011.
33 Yoel Marcus, “Abbas must choose to seek peace deal with Israel,” Haaretz, (October 28, 2011.
34 Director General, “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” International Atomic Energy Agency, (November 8, 2011.
35 David E. Sanger, “America’s Deadly Dynamics with Iran,” New York Times, (November 5, 2011.
36 Susan Rosenbluth, “Good News in Israel: Best Economy in the West, Energy Independence, and Maybe Future Exports,” The Jewish Voice and Opinion, (January 13, 2011.
37 Zachary A. Goldfarb, “S&P Downgrades U.S. credit rating for first time," Washington Post, August 6, 2011.
38 Nadav Shemer, “S&P raises Israel’s credit rating from A to A+,” Jerusalem Post, Sept. 9, 2011.
39 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,“History of the OECD,” 2011.
40 “Economic Highlights: 3rd Quarter 2011,” State of Israel Ministry of Finance International Affairs Department, (September 2011.
41 World Economic Forum, “The Global Competitiveness Index 2011-2012 rankings,” 2011.
42 Reuters, “Gaza: Luxury hotel hosts freed terrorists,” YNet, (October 19, 2011.
43 Yaniv Kubovich, Avi Issacharoff, Nir Hasson, Gili Cohen and Eli Ashkenazi, “Palestinian prisoners return to heroes’ welcome,” Haaretz, (October 19, 2011.
44 Editorial, “Israeli-Palestinian Prisoner Swap Offers Little New Hope for Peace,” Washington Post, (October 19, 2011.
45 Nidal al-Mughrabi, “Would-be bomber tells Gaza children to be like her,” Reuters, (October 19, 2011.
46 Adrian Blomfield, “Freed Palestinian Prisoner Vows to “Sacrifice” Her Life,” Telegraph, (October 19, 2011.
47 IPT News, “Released Hamas Terrorists Pledge More Violence,” October 27, 2011.
48 Middle East Media Research Institute, “Released Terrorist Muhammad Abu Ataya, Sentenced to 16 Life Terms in Prison, Brandishes Gun and Says: Netanyahu ‘Will Not Deter Us from Continuing the Journey of Resistance,’” MEMRI video clip, (October 20, 2011.
49 Stephen Farrell, “On the Day After, Moving Ahead and Looking Back,” New York Times, (October 19, 2011.
50 Malkah Fleisher, “Hamas: Temple Mount Gate Closure is ‘Declaration of War,’” The Jewish Press, December 13, 2011.
51Matti Friedman, “Citing public safety, Israel orders closure of controversial walkway in Jerusalem’s Old City,” Associated Press, December 12, 2011.
52 Palestinian Center for Human Rights, “In the Context of Efforts to Create a Jewish Majority in Occupied East Jerusalem, IOF Close Bab al-Maghariba in Anticipation of Altering the City’s Non Jewish Features,” December 13, 2011.
53 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Bethlehem mayor calls for cultural boycott of Israel,” Jerusalem Post, December 16, 2011.
54 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Fatah declares ‘war’ on normalization with Israel,” Jerusalem Post, December 17, 2011.
55 Khaled Abu Toameh, "Protest again thwart Israeli-Palestinian meeting," Jerusalem Post, December 21, 2011.
56 Nelson Mandela, “Mandela in his own words,” CNN, (June 26, 2008.
57 Attila Somfalvi, “Erekat: No negotiations yet,” YNet, (January 2, 2012).
58 Greg Sheridan, “Ehud Olmert still dreams of peace,” The Australian, (November 28, 2009).
59 Christine Parrish, “Sen. George Mitchell on Mid-East Peace Process,” The Free Press, (November 17, 2011.
60 Barry Rubin, “Hamas Openly Joins Brotherhood; Brotherhood Openly Joins Hamas’s War on Israel,” GLORIA Center, (January 3, 2012).
61 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Palestinian ceasefire violations since the end of Operation Cast Lead,” MFA, (January 4, 2012; DPA, “Hamas calls Israeli-Palestinian meeting a ‘farce,’ Haaretz, (January 4, 2012).
62 Barak Ravid, Avi Assacharoff and Natasha Mozgovaya, “Palestinians plan diplomatic steps to put Israel under ‘international siege,’” Haaretz, (January 2, 2012).
63 Ibid.
64 Israel Hayom Staff, “Abbas appoints terrorist released in Shalit deal as adviser,” Israel Hayom, (January 2, 2012).
65 Barak Ravid, Natasha Mozgovaya and the Associated Press, “Israeli, Palestinian envoys agree to meet in Jordan again next week,” Haaretz, (January 3, 2012).
66 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “107 Israel-PLO Mutual Recognition- Letters and Speeches- 10 September 1993,” MFA, (September 10, 1993.
67 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Fogel family stabbed to death in Itamar,” MFA, (March 11, 2011.
68 AFP, “British tourist killed by Jerusalem bomb,” AFP, (March 24, 2011.
69 Yair Altman, “Livnat: My nephew murdered by terrorists masked as policemen,” YNet, April 24, 2011.
70 Ben Hartman and Jpost.com staff, “Defense Ministry: Asher Palmer, son were terror victims,” Jerusalem Post, (September 28, 2011.
71 Yaakov Katz, “Border Police thwart major terror attack near Jenin,” Jerusalem Post, (January 8, 2012).
72 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Palestinian ceasefire violations since the end of Operation Cast Lead,” MFA, (January 4, 2012).
73 Haaretz Service, “Boy hurt in Gaza rocket attack on Israeli bus dies of his wounds,” Haaretz, April 17, 2011.
74 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Eight killed, over 30 wounded in terror attacks in southern Israel,” MFA, August 18, 2011.
75 Yaakov Lappin, “Man killed by Beersheba rocket named: Yossi Shoshan, 38,” Jerusalem Post, August 21, 2011.
76 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Eliyahu Naim,” MFA, (September 4, 2011.
77 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Moshe Ami,” MFA, (October 29, 2011.
78 Yaakov Katz, “Analysis: A boiling pot waiting to explode,” Jerusalem Post, December 29, 2011.
79 Walter Reich, “Saving Shalit, Encouraging Terror,” New York Times, (October 18, 2011.
80 Yaakov Katz, “IDF preparing for major Gaza action within months,” Jerusalem Post, (January 16, 2012).
81 Ibid; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Palestinian ceasefire violations since the end of Operation Cast Lead,” MFA, (January 4, 2012).
82 AFP, “Israel raises alarm over Sinai-Gaza cooperation,” AFP, (January 16, 2012; Roee Nahmias, “Blast hits Israel-Egypt gas pipeline for 7th time,” YNet, (November 10, 2011.
83 Nasouh Nazzal, “Palestine women’s ministry staff go on hunger strike,” Gulf News, (January 18, 2012).
84 Ibid.
85 U.S. Department of State, “2009 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, (March 11, 2010; U.S. Department of State, “2010 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, April 8, 2011.
86 U.S. Department of State, “2010 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, April 8, 2011.
87 U.S. Department of State, “2009 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, (March 11, 2010).
88 U.S. Department of State, “2010 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, April 8, 2011.
89 U.S. Department of State, “2009 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, (March 11, 2010; U.S. Department of State, “2010 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, April 8, 2011.
90 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Gaza cops use ‘beatings, stun guns’ on women reporters,” Jerusalem Post, (March 28, 2011.
91 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Hamas Exploitation of Civilians,” MFA, (January 13, 2009).
92 United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, “UN Women Brochure,” UN Women, (February 18, 2011.
93 Karin Laub, “Palestinian leader: Talks with Israel over,” AP, (January 25, 2012).
94 Evelyn Gordon, “So, You Think the Palestinians Are Interested in Negotiating?” Commentary, (January 30, 2012).
95 Avi Issacharoff, “PA to demand Barghouti release as part of renewed negotiations with Israel,” Haaretz, (October 25, 2011.
96 United Nations Department of Public Information, “Statement by Middle East Quartet,” United Nations, (September 23, 2011.
97 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Behind the headlines: The Palestinian refusal to negotiate peace,” MFA, (January 4, 2010; Avi Issacharoff and Jack Khoury, “Abbas to lead Palestinian unity cabinet, following Hamas-Fatah deal,” Haaretz, (February 6, 2012).
98 Roi Kais, “PM: Probe Jerusalem mufti who encouraged killing of Jews,” YNet, (January 22, 2012).
99 Dan Williams, “Israel condemns Palestinian cleric over sermon,” Ma’an News Agency, (January 22, 2012).
100 AFP, “Hezbollah has 50,000 rockets, report,” AFP, December 7, 2010; Ethan Bronner, “Unity Deal Brings Risks for Abbas and Israel,” New York Times, (February 6, 2012).
101 JTA, “Netanyahu blames Iran for attacks on diplomats in India, Georgia,” JTA, (February 13, 2012; Panarat Thepgumpanat, “US Embassy warns of terrorist attack, Thai police arrest Hezbollah suspect,” Christian Science Monitor, (February 13, 2012).
102 Jpost.com Staff, Herb Keinon and Reuters, “Thai officials: Attacks in Bangkok aimed at Israelis,” Jerusalem Post, (February 14, 2012).
103 Eli Shvidler, “Azerbaijan thwarts terror attack against Israeli, Jewish targets,” Haaretz, (January 23, 2012).
104 JTA, “Israeli diplomat’s wife injured by car bomb in New Delhi,” JTA, (February 13, 2012).
105 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Major Terror Attacks against Israeli Embassies and Representatives Abroad,” MFA, (February 2012).
106 JTA, “Jewish Agency gathers in Buenos Aires,” JTA, (November 14, 2011).
107 Jpost.com Staff, "FM: World must respond decisively to Iran attacks," Jerusalem Post, (February 15, 2012).
108 Roger Cohen, “The Dilemmas of Israeli Power,” New York Times, (February 13, 2012).
109 Knesset, “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty,” Knesset, (March 17, 1992.
110 Gerald Steinberg, “Israel’s Vibrant Democracy,” The Times of Israel, (February 19, 2012).
111 Consultado General De Israel Los Angeles, “Israel in the Community,” Consulate General of Israel Los Angeles, December 7, 2011).
112 Gerald Steinberg, “Israel’s Vibrant Democracy,” The Times of Israel, (February 19, 2012).
113 Daniella Cheslow, “Poster Child,” Tablet Magazine, (January 9, 2012).
114 Ruth Wisse, Jews and Power, Schocken and Nextbook: New York, 2007, p. 184.
115 Jason Burke, “Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns,” The Guardian, (June 29, 2011).
116 Summer Said, “Saudi Arabia, China Sign Nuclear Cooperation Pact,” Wall Street Journal, (January 16, 2012).
117 ESI-Africa.com, ?#8220;Egypt’s el-Dabaa nuclear power station will go ahead,” ESI-Africa.com, (January 20, 2012).
118 BBC, “South Korea awarded UAE nuclear power contract,” BBC, December 27, 2009).
119 World Nuclear Association, “Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries,” World Nuclear News, (February 2012).
120 Federation of American Scientists, Israel's Strike against the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor 7 June, 1981, Jerusalem: Menachem Begin Heritage Center, 2003.
121 Seymour M. Hersh, “A Strike in the Dark: Why did Israel bomb Syria?” The New Yorker, (February 11, 2008.
122 Jeffrey Goldberg, “Obama to Iran and Israel: ‘As President of the United States, I Don’t Bluff,” The Atlantic, (March 2, 2012).
123 Gavriel Queenann, “Report: Arab Nations Pressing for Iran Strike,” Arutz Sheva, (November 18, 2011).
124 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Declaration of Establishment of state of Israel,” MFA, (May 14, 1948; Sarah Trister, “Women’s Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Supporting the Fight for Freedom and Equality,” Huffington Post, (March 10, 2010).
125 “Golda Meir,” Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter, Jerusalem, 1972, pp. 1242–44.
126 Knesset website, “Women Knesset Members,” Knesset, (March 8, 2012); Jennifer E. Manning and Colleen J. Shogan, “Women in the United States Congress: 1917-2012,” Congressional Research Service, (March 7, 2012).
127 Knesset website, “Eighteenth Knesset: Government 32,” Knesset, (March 8, 2012).
128 Knesset website, “Tzipi Livni: Kadima,” Knesset, (March 8, 2012); Shelly Yachimovich, “About Shelly,” Shelly Yachimovich website, (January 16, 2009).
129 Raday, Frances, “Law in Israel,” Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia, Jewish Women's Archive, (March 8, 2012
130 The Israel Project, “Women Now Majority in Israeli Justice System,” The Israel Project, (March 8, 2012).
131 Anat Maor, “Women in Israel,” Israel Studies: An Anthology, (March 2010).
132 Ibid.
133 Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, “Statistical Abstract of Israel 2011: Employment Rate of Persons Aged 15 and Over, by Sex,” CBS, 2011).
134 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Integration of women in the IDF,” MFA, (March 8, 2009).
135 Israel Defense Forces Blog, “163rd IAF Flight Course Graduates,” Israel Defense Forces, December 22, 2011).
136 Anat Maor, “Women in Israel,” Israel Studies: An Anthology, (March 2010).
137 Israel Diplomatic Network, “Our Training Extensions: MCTC,” MASHAV, (March 8, 2012).
138 Sarah Trister, “Women’s Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Supporting the Fight for Freedom and Equality,” Huffington Post, (March 10, 2010).
139 David Horovitz, "Gaza's strategic repercussions," The Times of Israel, (March 13, 2012).
140 Hirsh Goodman, “A Lesson Learned,” Jerusalem Report, (September 19, 2005.
141 Ronald Reagan, “Ronald Reagan on Libya,” Ronald Reagan.com, (June 5, 2004.
142 “Drones are Lynchpin of Obama’s War on Terror,” Der Spiegel, (March 12, 2010; Scott Wilson, Craig Whitlock and William Branigin, “Osama bin Laden killed in U.S. raid, buried at sea,” Washington Post, (May 2, 2011).
143 Jonah Mandel, “Israeli targeted killings called into question,” The China Post, (March 14, 2012).
144 Aviram Zino, “High Court: Targeted killing permissible,” YNet, December 14, 2006.
145 Amos Yadlin, “Ethical Dilemmas in Fighting Terrorism,” Vol. 4, No. 8, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (November 25, 2004.
146 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Measures Taken by Israel in Support of Developing the Palestinian Economy and Socio-Economic Structure”, MFA, (March 18, 2012).
147 Israel Defense Forces Blog, “Developments in Policy Towards the West Bank and Gaza in 2010,” IDF, (March 17, 2011.
148 Israel Defense Forces Blog, “Israeli Cooperation with the Palestinians,” IDF, accessed March 20, 2012).
149 Ehud Rosen, “The Global March to Jerusalem: Part of the International Campaign to Delegitimize Israel,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (March-April 2012).
150 JPost.com staff, “Abbas urges Arabs to fight Judaization of J’lem,” Jerusalem Post, (February 26, 2012).
151 Palestinian Media Watch, “‘Judaization of Jerusalem,’” PMW, (March 28, 2012).
152 The Israel Project, “Jerusalem Tip Kit,” TIP, (March 28, 2012).
153 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Behind the Headlines: Background information from the Municipality of Jerusalem regarding the Shepherd Hotel building,” MFA, July 19, 2009).
154 Gil Ronen, “Jerusalem Planning Over 5,000 New Arab Housing Units,” Arutz Sheva, (November 18, 2009).
155 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “14 Protection of Holy Places Law,” MFA, (June 27, 1967.
156 The Israel Project, “Jerusalem Tip Kit,” TIP, (March 28, 2012).
157 Pechter Polls, “Detailed November 2012 East Jerusalem Survey Results—The Palestinians of East Jerusalem: What Do They Really Want?” Pechter Polls, (January 13, 2011; David Pollock, “What Do the Arabs of East Jerusalem Really Want?” JCPA, (September 7, 2011.
158 Victoria Nuland, “Daily Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, (March 28, 2012).
159 Churches for Middle East Peace, “CMEP to Sec. Clinton on Palestinian Christian Issues,” CMEP, (May 5, 2009).
160 Bob Simon, Harry Radliffe, "Christians of the Holy Land," CBS, April 22, 2012).
161 Rania Al Qass Collings, Rifat Kassis, and Mitri Raheb (Eds.), “Palestinian Christians: Facts, Figures and Trends,” DIYAR, 2008.
162 Ibid.
163 Jewish Council for Public Affairs, “JCPA Background Paper: The Palestinian Christian Population,” JCPA, p.5.
164 Pajamas Media, “Christians Suffer Under Palestinian Authority, PJ Media, (November 15, 2009).
165 Stand with Us, “Christians in the Holy Land: persecuted under the Palestinian Authority,” SWU
166 Jonathan Adelman and Agota Kuperman, “The Christian Exodus from the Middle East,” Jewish Virtual Library.
167 Associated Press, “Palestinian area churches attacked,” YNet News, (September 16, 2006.
168 Michael Oren, “Israel and the Plight of Mideast Christians,” Wall Street Journal, (March 9, 2012).
169 Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, “Statistical Abstract of Israel, 2010: Population, by Religion,” CBS, 2010).
170 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Jerusalem: the Holy City,” MFA.
171 Adam Garfinkle, Politics and Society in Modern Israel: Myths and Realities, (NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1997), pp. 108 & 110.
172 “2008 President Candidates Views on the Middle East – Barack Obama,” Jewish Virtual Library.
173“Remarks by President Obama at AIPAC Policy Conference,”The White House, (March 4, 2012).
174Michael McAuliff, “Senators Offer License to Strike Iran Nuclear Program,” Huffington Post, (February 29, 2012).
175“Uranium Production: Enriching Uranium,” Federation of American Scientists.
176“Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran,”IAEA,(February 24, 2012).
177“IAEA to Press Iran Over Nuclear Concerns,” Reuters,(January 19, 2012).
178“Security Council Resolution 1696,” United Nations, (July 31, 2006).
179Borzou Daragahi, “Efforts on Iran ‘a failure,'” Los Angeles Times, (December 6, 2008).
180Paul Richter, “US Signals Major Shift on Iran Nuclear Program,” Los Angeles Times, (April 27, 2012).
181Steven Slivnick, “Questions & Answers About Iran’s Nuclear Proliferation,” Jewish United Fund, (Summer 2011).
182Tovah Lazaroff, "PM Calls on Abbas to Return to Negotiating Table," Jerusalem Post, (May 8, 2012).
183avid Shyovitz, "Camp David 2000," Jewish Virtual Library.
184"The Mofaz Plan: A Permanent Palestinian State In Temporary Borders In Advance of Final Status Talks," Israel Policy Forum, (November 16, 2009).
185Reuters, "Abbas Says Ready to Engage with Netanyahu on Middle East Peace Process," Haaretz, (May 9, 2012).
186 Edmund Sanders, "Palestinians Clash with Israeli Soldiers in Nakba Day Protests," Los Angeles Times, (May 15, 2012)
187 Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar, “I dream of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it,” Xinhua, (April 1, 2006).
188 Jerusalem Post, (May 15, 2005).
189 "Palestinian Public Opinion Poll #43," Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, (April 3, 2012).
190 Al-Manar TV, (January 25, 2006).
191 "PM Netanyahu's Address at the Knesset: Herzl Day", Prime Minister's Office, (May 16, 2011)
192 “Bush Pitches Palestinian State,” ABC News, (June 24, 2002).
193 Khaled Abu Toameh, “The Main Goal of the Palestinian Government,” Gatestone Institute, (May 16, 2012).
194 Gabe Kahn, “PA Corruption Probe: Maybe, Maybe Not,” Arutz Sheva, (December 21, 2011).
195 "Press Briefing on the West Bank and Gaza, IMF Middle Eastern Department," International Monetary Fund, (September 20, 2003).
196 Khaled Abu Toameh, "Palestinian Affairs: Abbas's Latest Headaches," Jerusalem Post, (March 27, 2008).
197 The Associated Press, “Palestinian Resigns Over Smuggling,” Washington Post, (April 7, 2008).
198 Amira Hass, “What Happens When a Palestinian Journalist Dares Criticize the Palestinian Authority?” Haaretz, (April 2, 2012).
199 Gabe Kahn, “Second PA Minister Indicted in Corruption Probe,” Arutz Sheva, (November 29, 2011).
200 The Associated Press, “Late Yasser Arafat’s Moneyman Targeted in Corruption Probe, Accused of Stealing Millions,” Washington Post, (May 16, 2012).
201 “Palestinian Public Opinion Poll #43,” Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, (April 3, 2012).
202 Jonathan Schanzer, “Reining in Abbas: How America Should Punish the Palestinian Leader,” The National Interest, (October 18, 2011).
203 Reuters, "Muslim Brotherhood Vows Not to Recognize Israel," Jerusalem Post, (January 1, 2012).
204 The Debate, "Egypt: Who's in Charge?," France24, (June 26, 2012).
205 Steve Frank, "Muslim Brotherhood 'Against Violence'," CNN, (February 3, 2011).
206 JPost Staff, "New Egypt Leader Morsi Vows to Keep International Accords," Jerusalem Post, (June 25, 2012).
207 "Egyptian Presidency Denies Mursi Gave Interview on Stronger Ties With Iran," Al-Arabiya News, (June 25, 2012).
208 Political Desk, "Newly Elected Egyptian President to Travel to Iran: Report," Tehran Times, (July 3, 2012).
209 Richard Cohen, "Palestinians' Destructive Veneration of Terrorists," Washington Post, (March 16, 2010).
210"Abbas Greets Newly Released Palestinian Prisoners: You Are Freedom Fighters," Haaretz, (October 18, 2011).
211 "List of Palestinian Prisoners Released in First Stage of 'Shalit Exchange Deal'," Jewish Virtual Library, (October 18, 2011).
212 Itamar Marcus, "Palestinian Authority Funding Glorification of Terrorists," FrontPage Magazine, (July 29, 2011).
213 "PA Children Taught to Hate Jews and Christians," Palestinian Media Watch, (June 17, 2012).
214 "Israel is Monster that Eats Palestinian Children, in Palestinian Art on PA-TV," Palestinian Media Watch, (July 23, 2012).
215 Elior Levy, "Gaza Kindgergartners Want to 'Blow Up Zionists'," YNet News, (June 12, 2012).
216 Ron Friedman, "Kerem Shalom Attack has Already led to Better Security Cooperation, Says Deputy FM," Times of Israel, (August 7, 2012).
217"IDF Thwarts Major Infiltration Attempt by Terrorists at Israel-Egypt Border," IDF Spokesperson, (August 6, 2012).
218 Frida Ghitis, "World Citizen: Egypt's Ties with Israel, Hamas to be Forged in Sinai," World Politics Review, (August 9, 2012).
219 Kareem Fahim, "Egyptian Officials Fired Over Soldiers' Killings in Sinai," New York Times, (August 8, 2012).
220 Amos Harel & Avi Issacharoff, "Israel-Egypt Security Cooperation at One of Highest Levels Since Peace Deal," Haaretz, (August 9, 2012).
221 Gabe Fisher & Stuart Winer, "Since Egypt Isn't Talking to Us, We Don't Know What It's Planning," Times of Israel, (August 13, 2012).
222 "Sinai Attack Shows Egypt Needs Israel," The Algemeiner, (August 8, 2012).
223 Diaa Hadid, “Israeli Court Rejects US Activists’ Family Lawsuit,” Yahoo News, (August 28, 2012).
224 Harriet Sherwood, “Rachel Corrie’s Death was Accident, Israeli Judge Rules,” The Guardian, (August 28, 2012).
225 Editorial, "The Corrie Verdict," Jerusalem Post (August 28, 2012).
226“About the International Solidarity Movement,” ISM Official Website.
227 “International Solidarity Movement Culpable in the Death of Rachel Corrie,” NGO Monitor, (August 27, 2012).
228 Toby Harnden, “The ‘Peace’ Group that Embraces Violence,” The Telegraph, (January 15, 2004).
229 Adam Levick, “Put ISM on Trial for Rachel Corrie’s Death,” The Jewish Press, (August 28, 2012).
230 Elad Benari, “UN Recognizes Hamas-Supporting Organization,” Arutz Sheva, (April 12, 2011).
231 “ISM’s Response to the Rachel Corrie Verdict,” ISM Official Website, (August 28, 2012).
232 David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, "U.N. Says Iran Has Fuel for 2 Nuclear Weapons," New York Times, (May 31, 2010).
233 Fredrik Dahl, "Iran doubles underground nuclear capacity: U.N. agency," Reuters, (August 30, 2012).
234 Walter Pincus, "Slick Iranian move puts U.S. in precarious place," Washington Post, (September 11, 2012).
235 Interview, Piers Morgan Tonight: One-on-One with Bill Clinton, (September 25, 2012).
236 Ibid.
237 Thomas Erdbrink and Glenn Kessler, "Ahmadinejad makes nuclear claims, stifles protests on revolution's anniversary, Washington Post, (February 11, 2010).
239 Interview, Piers Morgan Tonight, (September 25, 2012).
240 Jason Burke, “Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns,” The Guardian, (June 29, 2011).
241 “Dear Colleague Letter,” Russlyn Ali - Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, (October 26, 2010).
242 Colum Lynch, “Ahmadinejad tells U.N. ‘uncivilized Zionists’ are threat to Iran; U.S. boycotts address,” Washington Post, (September 26, 2012).
243 Remarks by Obama and Middle East Leaders on the Resumption of Direct Negotiations, Jewish Virtual Library, (September 1, 2010).
244 Remarks by US Secretary Hillary Clinton, PM Netanyahu and PA President Abbas, Jewish Virtual Library, (September 2, 2010).
245 European Public Opinion Polls, Jewish Virtual Library, 2012).
246 ADL Anti-Semitism Audit, Jewish Virtual Library, 2010).
247 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 623, Jewish Virtual Library, (December 9, 1998).
248 Myths and Facts, Jewish Virtual Library, 2010).
249 Jerusalem Report, (March 11, 2002.
250 Hashemi Rafsanjani, “Qods Day Speech (Jerusalem Day),” GlobalSecurity.org, (December 14, 2001).
251 AP, “UN nuclear chief: Iran not cooperating with probe of suspected secret work on nuclear weapons,” Washington Post, (November 5, 2012); Michael Segall, “Iran: Sanctions Biting, Nuclear Program Progressing,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (November 4, 2012).
252 AP, “Iran offers nuclear technology to Islamic states,” NBC News, (September 15, 2005.
253 Interview, Piers Morgan Tonight: One-on-One with Bill Clinton, (September 25, 2012).
254 Richard Landes, “Pallywood, ‘According to Palestinian Sources…’” Augean Stables Blog, accessed (November 20, 2012).
255 Screenshot from Algemeiner, (November 18, 2012).
256 Jodi Rudoren and Fares Akram, “Mistaken Lull, Simple Errand, Death in Gaza,” New York Times, (November 16, 2012).
257 AP, “Gaza kids risk in crowded urban battle zone,” USA News, (November 16, 2012; Elder of Ziyon, “Dead child cradled by Egypt PM was killed by Hamas! (UPDATED),” (November 17, 2012); Algemeiner, “Shocking: Evidence Indicates Child Whose Death Was Blamed on Israel, Was Actually Killed by Hamas Rocket (VIDEO),” (November 18, 2012).
258 Pheobe Greenwood, Damien McElroy, and Nick Meo, “Israeli forces prepare for war as troops mass on Gaza border,” The Telegraph, (November 17, 2012).
259 Billy Hallowell, “Gaza Man Caught Faking Injuries to Create Anti-Israel Media Bias? Here’s the Video Evidence,” The Blaze, (November 15, 2012).
260 The Algemeiner, (November 19, 2012; Lahav Harkov, “Hamas co-opts photos of injured Syrians,” Jerusalem Post, (November 18, 2012).
261 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Operation Pillar of Defense - IDF Updates,” MFA, (November 21, 2012
262 Jodi Rudoren’s Facebook page post, (November 18, 2012).
263 Lahav Harkov, “Foreign journalists freely cover Gaza operation,” Jerusalem Post, (November 19, 2012.
264 The Israel Project, "Hamas's War On Journalists," TIP, (November 18, 2012.
265 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Hamas detains foreign journalists in the Gaza Strip,” MFA, (November 17, 2012
266 Elad Benari, “Israel Pushing Ahead with Next Anti-Missile System,” Israel National News, (November 25, 2012.
267 JPost.com staff, “Home Front Command launches bomb shelter awareness campaign,” Jerusalem Post, (October 3, 2010
268 Jeffrey Goldberg, "The Strange Obsession With Proportional Body Counts," The Atlantic, (November 20, 2012.
269 Richard Kemp, "British Commander: The IDF Tried to Safeguard Civilians," Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2010.
270 Danny Brom, Ruth Pat-Horenczyk, “The influence of war and terrorism on post-traumatic distress among Israeli children,” International Psychiatry, (November 2011).
271 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Hamas exploitation of civilians as human shields: Photographic evidence,” MFA, (March 6, 2008
272 IDF, “Why Is the Number of Israeli Casualties So Low?” IDF Blog, (November 20, 2012; Israel MFA, "Israel under fire," MFA, (November 22, 2012).
273 Israel Defense Forces, "Operation Pillar of Defense: Summary of Events," IDF Blog, (November 22, 2012).
274 Nira Lee, "What I Saw During Operation Pillar of Defense," American Thinker, (November 27, 2012).
275 George S. Patton, “General Patton’s Address to the Troops,” Patton HQ, accessed November 27, 2012).
276 Nadav Shragai, “Protecting the Contiguity of Israel: The E-1 Area and the Link Between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim,” JCPA, (May 24, 2009).
277 "The logic of E1," Jerusalem Post, (December 2, 2012.
278 Jeffrey Heller, “Israel says it will stick with settlement plan despite condemnation,” Reuters, (December 3, 2012).
279 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Hashaal vows Hamas will not concede land” Jerusalem Post, (December 8, 2012).
280 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “UN Security Council Resolution 242,” MFA, (November 22, 1967).
281 Yaakov Lappin, “Bernard Lewis: Iran in apocalyptic mood,” YNet, (January 29, 2007).
282 Mitchell Bard, “Will Israel Survive?” NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, pp. 76-77.

341 Al-Manar TV (January 25, 2006).
342 Benjamin Netanyahu, "Speech at the Opening of the Knesset Summer Session," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (May 16, 2011).
343 “Gates: No blank check from US to Israel on Iran,“ Jerusalem Post (October 5, 2012).
344 Eban, Abba. Abba Eban. NY: Random House, 1977, p. 358.
345 Lyndon B. Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency 1963–1969, (NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), p. 299.
346 Sachar, Howard. A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998, p. 629.
347 Shirad Bozorgmehr, “Rouhani is Iran’s Next President After Appealing to Tradition, Reform,” CNN (June 15, 2013); “Iranian President-elect Hassan Rouhani Pledges Path of Moderation,” The Guardian (June 17, 2013); Max Fisher, “Iran’s Next President, Hassan Rouhani, Seen as Best Hope for Ending Nuclear Standoff with West,” Washington Post (June 15, 2013).
348 Louis Charbonneau, “Rohani Once Appoved of Hiding Iran Atomic Work,” Reuters (June 19, 2013).
349 “President-elect’s First Press Conference,” Rouhani.Ir (June 18, 2013).
350 “Rafsanjani and Iran’s Nuclear Program,” Iran Affairs (February 5, 2010).
351 Avi Issacharoff, “The Regime Wanted Him to Win,” The Tower (June 16, 2013).
352 “Nukes are Iran’s ‘Inalienable rights,’ its New President Says,” JTA (June 18, 2013).
353 Fredrik Dahl, “Iran Nuclear Program Advances Despite Sanctions: IAEA Chief,” Reuters (June 17, 2013).
354 Michal Shmulovich, “Kerry’s peace plan includes ‘settlement freeze outside major blocs,’” Times of Israel (July 6, 2013).
355 Herb Keinon, “EU officially publishes settlement guidelines despite Israeli objections,” Jerusalem Post (July 19, 2013).
356 Douglas Murray, “’Occupied Territories’: What About Cyprus, Kashmir, Tibet?” Gatestone Intitute (July 23, 2013).
357 George W. Bush, “Speech to the American Jewish Committee,“ (May 3, 2001).
358 “Gaza Strip,” CIA Word Factbook 2013; “West Bank,” CIA Word Factbook 2013.
359 AFP, “Hamas rejects return to Mideast peace talks,” Al Arabiya (July 20, 2013).
360 AFP, “Palestinian party rejects Mideast peace talks,” YNet (July 29, 2013); “Nablus: Elements of the left demonstrating against negotiations,“ Palestine Press News Agency (July 30, 2013).
361 “Report on Human Rights Practices for 2011: Occupied Palestinian Territories,“ United States Department of State (May 2012).
362 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas Vows: No Room for Israelis in Palestinian state,” The Jerusalem Post, December 25, 2010).
363 Oren Dorell, “PLO ambassador says Palestinian state should be free of Jews,” USA TODAY (September 18, 2011).
364 Noah Browning, “Abbas wants ‘not a single Israeli’ in future Palestinian state,” Reuters (July 29, 2013).
365 Yaron Druckman, “Identities of prisoners up for release revealed,“ YNet, July 27, 2013.
366 Yoram Ettinger, “Water or fuel to the fire?“ Israel Hayom, August 2, 2013.
367 Prisoner Release List (Hebrew), Israel Prison Service (Shabas), August 13, 2013 (in Hebrew).
368 Haviv Rettig and Aaron Kalman, “Among the terrorists to be released, the murderer of a Holocaust survivor,“ Times of Israel, August 12, 2013.
369 Ali Salim, “Begin on Saturday, Finish on Sunday,” Gatestone Institute (August 21, 2013).
370 “Egypt: Mass Attacks on Churches,“ Human Rights Watch (August 22, 2013).
371 Kareem Fahim, “Islamists Step Up Attacks on Christians,” New York Times (August 20, 2013).
372 “Christians Killed in Syria,” The Tablet (August 23, 2013).
373 Staff, “For Arab World’s Christians, An Uncertain Fate,” NPR (August 25, 2013).
374 Mideast News, “Russian Official Urges Defense of Christians in Syria,” Christian Post (August 21, 2013).
375 International Religious Freedom Report for 2012 – Saudi Arabia,” U.S. State Department
376 “Guide: Christians in the Middle East,” BBC News (October 11, 2011).
377 Yoram Ettinger, “Bethlehem Will Become Town of Churches Devoid of Christians,” IsraPundit (December 29, 2007).
378 “International Religious Freedom Report for 2012 – Israel,” U.S. State Department
379 “Benjamin Netanyahu Signals Willingness to Freeze Settlements,“ Reuters (June 10, 2013).
380 Yarom Druckman, “Identities of Prisoners Up for Release Revealed,“ YNet News (July 27, 2013).
381 Herb Keinon, “Israel Approves 5,000 More Palestinian Work Permits,“ Jerusalem Post (September 8, 2013).
382 Avi Issacharoff, “Abbas Rejected Netanyahu Offer to Free 50 Pre-Oslo Prisoners for New Talks,“ Times of Israel (June 10, 2013).
383 Sharona Shwartz, “As Obama Pushes for Peace Process, Abbas Vows No Israeli n Palestine,“ The Blaze (July 30, 2013).
384 Daniel Estrin, “Israel Complains to US Over Palestinian Leaks,“ Associated Press (September 8, 2013).
385 "Introducing the BDS Movement," BDS Movement
386 Moti Bassok, "Israel, Palestinian Authority Sign Bilateral Trade Agreements," Haaretz (August 1, 2012).
387 "Israel Foreign Trade Data," Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (2012).
388 Herb Keinon, "Israel Approves 5,000 More Palestinian Work Permits," Jerusalem Post (September 8, 2013).
389 Khaled Abu Toameh, "20,000 Palestinians Working in Settlements, Survey Finds," Jerusalem Post (August 15, 2013).
390 Amira Hass, "Study: Palestinians Invest Twice as Much in Israel as They Do in West Bank," Haaretz (November 22, 2011).
391 Richard Behar, "An Israeli Special Forces Commando, an Arab Investor, A Religious Zionist - And a Hot Start-Up Called Webydo," Forbes (July 28, 2013).
392 Philip Weiss, "Omar Barghouti, Tel Aviv Student, on the University's Refusal to Expel Him," Mondoweiss (May 9, 2009).
393 Mike Shuster, “Iran’s Nuclear Fatwa: A Policy Or A Ploy?,” NPR (June 14, 2012).
394 “Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly,” White House (September 24, 2013); “MEMRI: Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons not real, despite Obama claim,“ JNS (September 30, 2013)
395 Michael Eisenstadt, “Nuclear Fatwa,” Washington Institute (September 2011); Fareed Zakaria, “They May or May Not Want the Bomb,” Newsweek (May 22, 2009).
396 “Special Dispatch: Report #5461,” MEMRI (September 29, 2013).
397 Patrick Goodenough, “Iranian Nuclear ‘Fatwa’ Cited by Obama May Not Exist,” CNS News (October 1, 2013).
398 “Phony Fatwa? Group Claims Iranian anti-nuke edict cited by Obama a hoax,” FOX News (September 30, 2013).
399 “Board Report: GOV/2013/40,” International Atomic Energy Agency (August 2013).
400 Saeed Kamali Dehghan, "Non-Aligned Movement Summit: 'You'd Think Iran was Hosting the Olympics'," The Guardian (August 30, 2012).
401 Steven Erlanger, "Britain and Iran Move to Repair Diplomatic Relations," New York Times (October 8, 2013).
401a Iran Daily Briefs (October 25, 2013; October 25, 2013; October 25, 2013)
402 Steven Lee Meyers, "Obama Exempts Japan & 10 European Nations from Iran Sanctions Law," New York Times (March 20, 2012).
403 FARS News Agency (September 26, 2013).
404 Con Coughlin, "Rouhani Won't Decide on Nuclear Iran," Wall Street Journal (October 1, 2013).
405 Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, (MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 590.
406 Middle East Studies, (January 1986); See also, Morris, pp. 263, 590–2.
407 “International: On the Eve?,” Time Magazine, (May 3, 1948).
408 London Daily Mail, (August 12, 1948) cited in Shmuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, (Taylor Publications Ltd: 2002), p. 13.
409 Edward Atiyah, The Arabs, (London: Penguin Books, 1955), p. 183.
410 Yehoshofat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel, (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1972), p. 364.
411 The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386–7.
412 King Abdallah, My Memoirs Completed, (London: Longman Group, Ltd., 1978), p. xvi
413 Al-Hayat al-Jadida, (December 13, 2006), quoted in Itamar Marcus and Barbara Cook, “The Evolving Palestinian Narrative: Arabs Caused the Refugee Problem,” Palestinian Media Watch, (May 20, 2008).
414 Itamar Marcus, “Abbas' UN Speech Contradicts his 'Refugee' History,“ Palestinian Media Watch (October 10, 2013).
415 Morris, p. 592.
416 Harriet Sherwood, "Netanyahu: Occupation is not Cause of Conflict," The Guardian (October 7, 2013); and, Alistair Dawber, "Middle East Peace Process Hits Stumbling Block," The Independent (July 31, 2013).
417 Ilan Ben-Zion, "Palestinians Make Stiff Land Demands for Peace," Times of Israel (October 27, 2013).
418 Jacob Donnelly, "PLO Representative Areikat: Palestine Must Stop Concessions to Israel," The Daily Princeton (October 7, 2013).
419 Ben Harris, "Who Israel Released," JTA (August 14, 2013).
420 Jodi Rudoren, "Prisoner Release Stirs Anger in Israeli Coalition," New York Times (October 28, 2013).
421 "Netanyahu on Prisoner Release: Promises Must be Kept," Jerusalem Post (October 27, 2013).
422 "West Bank Seeing 'Infectious Wave of Attack'," Jerusalem Post (October 22, 2013)
423 "Abu Mazen Greets the Prisoners," Yediot Ahronoth (October 30, 2013).
424 Khaled Abu Toameh, "Hamas, Islamic Jihad Call for a Third Intifada," Jerusalem Post (September 26, 2013).
425 Shlomi Eldar, "Only Palestinian Authority Can Prevent Third Intifada," Al-Monitor (September 23, 2013).
426 Khalid Amayreh, "Is a Third Intifada in the Offing?", Al-Jazeera (October 1, 2013).
427 "AWRAD Poll: West Bankers Oppose Intifada," IMRA (November 5, 2013).
428 "Results of an Opinion Poll," AWRAD (February 21, 2013).
429 Khalid Amayreh, "Is a Third Intifada in the Offing?", Al-Jazeera (October 1, 2013).
430 Ibid.
431 Spencer Ho, "Ya'alon Says Third Intifada Not in the Offing," Times of Israel (October 22, 2013).
432 Maayan Lubell, "Sanctions Relief Worth up to $40 Billion to Iran: Israel," Reuters (November 13, 2013).
433 "Board of Governors Report," International Atomic Energy Agency (November 2013).
434 "Fissile Material Basics," Institute for Energy & Environmental Research (April 2012).
435 "Remarks at Start of Weekly Cabinet Meeting," Prime Minister's Office (November 24, 2013).
436 Herve Asquin, "France Firm on Iran Nuclear Issue, Hollande Tells Israel," Agence France-Presse (November 17, 2013).
436a Barrie McKenna, "Canada 'Deeply Skeptical' Iran Will Follow Through on Nuclear Deal," Globe and Mail (November 24, 2013).
437 Amena Bakr, "Saudi Arabia Warns of Shift Away from U.S. Over Syria, Iran," Reuters (October 22, 2013).
438 Mark Urban, "Saudi Nuclear Weapons 'On Order' from Pakistan," BBC News (November 6, 2013).
439 Rebecca Shimoni Stoil, "US Now Indicates Iran Interim Deal Wasn't Quite Finalizes," Times of Israel (November 27, 2013).
440 "Spokesman Confirms US Release of $8bln of Iran's Frozen Assets," FARS News Agency (November 25, 2013).
441 Lazar Berman, "Iran Rejects US's 'One-Sided' Version of Nuclear Deal," Times of Israel (November 26, 2013).
442 "Iranian News Agency Publishes Alleged Text of Nuclear Deal," Times of Israel (November 24, 2013).
443 AFP, "Iran Has Final Say on Nuclear Enrichment, Says Zarif," Yahoo News (November 29, 2013).
444 "Iran, Powers to Meet Next Week on Carrying Out Nuclear Deal," Reuters (December 1, 2013).
445 "Rouhani Says Iran will Intensify Nuclear Work," Israel Hayom (December 1, 2013).
446 AP, "Report: Iran FM Says Country Won't Talk to Israel," Washington Post (November 29, 2013).
447 American Studies Association, "ASA Turpie Award Winners in Opposition to Israeli Boycott Resolution," ASA (January 5, 2014).
448 Yoel Goldman, "Abbas: Don't boycott Israel," Times of Israel (December 13, 2013).
449 William A. Jacobson, "List of Universities rejecting academic boycott of Israel (Update -- Over 150)" Legal Insurrection (December 22, 2013).
450 President of Harvard University, "Statement on ASA Resolution" Harvard University, Office of the President (December 20, 2013).
451 BDS Cookbook, "In Their Own Words" StopBDS.com (2014).
452 Stanley Fish, "Academic Freedom Against Itself: Boycotting Israeli Universities" NYTimes.com (2014).
453 Alan Luxenberg, "Hypocricy, Thy Name is ASA," The American Interest (December 20, 2014), Walter Reich, "Reject boycott of Israel," Philly.com (January 7, 2014), Henry Reichman, "Against Academic Boycotts," Inside Higher Ed (December 12, 2013).
454 "Why Can't Arab Armies be More Humane Like Israel's?" Tom Gross Media (January 16, 2014).
455 “Netanyahu: Jew Free Palestinian State Would be Ethnic Cleansing,“ Algemeiner, (January 15, 2014); Israel Security Agency, "Terror Data and Trends: 2013 Annual Summary Report."
456 "Kerry Says No Deaths from West Bank Terror in 2013, Just Days After Shin Bet Lists Fatalities," Algemeiner (February 3, 2014).
457 "Terror in 2014: The Nonstop Threats to Israel," IDF Blog (February 7, 2014).
458 Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “PA Allocates $46 million more for terrorists in 2014,“ Palestinian Media Watch, (February 12, 2014).
459 “Arab League rejects Israel as Jewish State,“ Al Jazeera, (March 9, 2014).
460 “Full Transcript: Prime Minister Netanyahu's Speech at AIPAC Policy Conference, 2014,“ Algemeiner (March 4, 2014).
461 AP, “Palestinian President Abbas says there's 'no way' he'll recognize Israel as Jewish state,“ Fox News (March 7, 2014).
462 Michael Wilner, “Kerry: Netanyahu wrong to insist Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish state“ Jerusalem Post (March 14, 2014).
463 “Peace Index: February 2014“ Peace Index.
464 Times of Israel Staff, "TV report: Abbas said 'no' to Obama on 3 core peace issues," Times of Israel (March 22, 2014).
464a Khaled Abu Toameh, "Abbas: I Am a Hero. I said 'no' to Obama," Gatestone Institute (March 21, 2014).
465 Wolf Blitzer, Territory of Lies (NY: Harper & Row, 1989), p. 201.
466 "Edward Snowden has more US-Israel secrets to expose, Glenn Greenwald says," Reuters (January 7, 2014).
467 New York Times (December 2 and 21, 1985).
468 Blitzer, pp. 166-171.
469 Ruth Marcus, "Free Jonathan Pollard," Washington Post (April 2, 2014); Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah, (MA: Little Brown, & Co., 1991), pp. 289-312.
469a M.E. Bowman, "Don't Trust This Spy," New York Times (January 14, 2014).
470 Washington Post (December 23, 2000).
471 Washington Post (November 14, 2003).
472 Matthew E. Berger, "After court denies his appeal, Pollard left with few legal options," JTA (July 24, 2005).
473 "Conference of Presidents leaders Back Peres' request for Pollard's release," Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (April 11, 2012).
474 “Hamas placing rockets near water reservoirs, digging dozens of ‘terror tunnels,’“ Times of Israel (January 23, 2014).
475 Think-Israel; Space War; Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System; “Assad forces hide in mosques, fearing a US missile strike,“ The National (September 3, 2013).
476 Joel Gulhane, “Gaza tunnels discovered in Rafah Mosque,” Daily News Egypt (April 27, 2014).
477 “Extended Footage (English): Hezbollah Removes Weapons from Explosion Site in Al-Shahabiya, Israel Defense Forces (September 6, 2010).
478 Donatella Rovera, “Challenges of monitoring, reporting, and fact-finding during and after armed conflict,” Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection (April 28, 2014).
479 “Dateline Durban: UN World Conference Against Racism,” ADL (September 4, 2001).
480 “Robinson Calls NGO Language Inappropriate,” ADL (September 7, 2001).
481 David Bernstein, “Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia,” Wall Street Journal (July 15, 2009).
482 Donatella Rovera, “Challenges of monitoring, reporting, and fact-finding during and after armed conflict,” Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and Protection (April 28, 2014).
483 “Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon,”Human Rights Watch Vol. 18, No. 3, (August 2006), p. 3.
484 Joshua Muravchik, “Human Rights Watch vs. Human Rights: The cynical manipulation of a worthy cause has a history,” The Weekly Standard (September 11, 2006).
485 Alan Dershowitz, “What Are They Watching?” New York Sun (August 23, 2006).
486Near East Report, (June 25, 2001); Jerusalem Post, (July 20, 2001).
487Arnon Ben-Dror, “Welcome to Camp Hamas,” Israel Defense Forces, (August 29, 2009).
488Michael Morrow, "Hamas groups run brutal summer camps for Palestinian kids, News.com.au, (June 11, 2014); Sophia Rosenbaume, "Inside the summer camp for child terrorists, New York Post, (June 11, 2014).
489Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “Fatah to Israelis: Prepare body bags,” Palestine Media Watch, (July 7, 2014).
490BBC Trending, “Are #GazaUnderAattack images accurate?” BBC News, (July 8, 2014).
491JoeSettler, “Iron Dome, Human Shields, and the Real Problem,” The Jewish Press.com, (July 10, 2014).
492“Interview: Mark Regev” JC.com, (July 10, 2014).
493Alan M. Dershowitz, "Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate,'" Wall Street Journal, (January 2, 2009).
494Steven Erlanger, "Leader Celebrates Founding of Hamas With Defiant Speech," New York Times (December 8, 2012).
495Palestinian Media Watch, (July 15, 2014).
496 “UNRWA Discovers 20 Rockets Hidden in Gaza School; Claims Incident Was ‘First of its Kind in Gaza,” The Algemeiner, (July 17, 2014); UNRWA Strongly Condemns Placement of Rockets in School,” UNRWA, (July 17, 2014).
497Raphael Ahren, “UN agency handed rockets back to Hamas, Israel says,” Times of Israel, (July 20, 2014).
498UNRWA Condemns Placement of Rockets, For a Second Time, in One of Its Schools, UNRWA, (July 22, 2014).
499“Hamas Interior Ministry To Social Media Activists: Always Call The Dead 'Innocent Civilians'; Don't Post Photos Of Rockets Being Fired From Civilian Population Centers,” MEMRI, (July 17, 2014).
500Mitchell Bard, “Israel's other enemy in Lebanon war - the media,” Jweekly.com, (April 27, 2007).
501“Hamas MP Fathi Hammad: We Used Women and Children as Human Shields,” Al-Aqsa TV, cited in Dispatch #1710, MEMRI (February 29, 2008).
502Editorial, “Mr. Goldstone Recants,” Wall Street Journal, (April 5, 2011).
503Richard Goldstone, “Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and War Crimes,” Washington Post, (April 1, 2011).
503aProgress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).
504 Lazar Berman, "Palestinain kids taught to hate Israel in UN-funded camps, clip shows." Times of Israel, (August 14, 2013).
505 Rachel Avraham, "Analysis: UNRWA Teaches Palestinian Children to Support Violence and Hate Israel," Jerusalem Online, (September 4, 2013).
506 Justus Reid Weiner and Noam Weissman, "Hamas' Determination to Perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Critical Role of Hate Indoctrination," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, (August 1, 2006).
507 "Israel OK's Gaza's 'Humanitarian Corridor.'" CBS News, (January 6, 2009).
508 Josh Rogin, "Did the United Nations Give Rockets to Hamas?" The Daily Beast (July 20, 2014).
509 Mitch Ginsberg, "Militants 'blow up UNRWA clinic,' killing 3 soldiers.'" Times of Israel, (July 30, 2014).
510 Power and Politics with Evan Solomon, CBC News Network, (July 31, 2014).
511 James Lindsay, Fixing UNRWA: Repairing the UN's Trouble System of Aid to Palestinian Refugees. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. (January 2009).
512 "Kerry Says No Deaths from West Bank Terror in 2013, Just Days After Shin Bet Lists Fatalities," The Algemeiner (February 3, 2014).
512aJerusalem Report (July 28, 2014).
513 Noam 'Dabul' Dvirynet, “Border Guard officers thwart terror attack near Jerusalem, Ynet.com, (July 27, 2014).
514 Facebook, "Fatah-The Main Page", Palestinian Media Watch, (July 24, 2014).
515 Erel Segal, "Obama administration gets it wrong on Hamas,” Al-Monitor, (June 2, 2014).
516 Khaled Abu Toameh, "The real 'seige' of the Gaza Strip", The Gatestone Institute, (August 12, 2014).
517 Section II, "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea", International Humanitarian Law, (June 12, 1994).
518 “Hamas opens hospital for gunmen,” Jerusalem Post, (January 6, 2009).
519 Jerusalem Post, (July 1, 2005).
520 Barak Ravid, “Abbas to Obama: I'm Against Lifting The Gaza Naval Blockade,” Haaretz, (June 13, 2010).
521 "Israel Disrupts Hamas Plot to Overthrow PA," The Investigative Project on Terrorism, (August 19, 2014).
522 Avi Issacharoff, "US said to seek adding 'Jewish state' language to Arab Peace Initiative," The Times of Israel, (January 7, 2014).
523 Mitchell Bard “The Arab Lobby,” pg 177.
524 Mitch Ginsberg, “Saudi royal turns down ex-IDF intel chief's invite to the Knesset,”The Times of Israel (May 26, 2014).
525 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Fatah blasts Hamas over 'crimes' during Gaza operation,”The Jerusalem Post (August 30, 2014).
526 “Palestinian UN rep 'Each and every missile launched against Israel constitutes a crime against humanity',”UN Watch (July 13, 2014).
527 “Iran's supreme leader approves working with US military to strike at Isis in challenge to the west',”The Daily Mail (September 5, 2014).
528 UNIFIL Press Releases
529Memri
530 Yasser Arafat calls for "jihad, struggle, and combat".Palestinian Media Watch, October 21 1996. 
531Islam-based hate speech on PA TV: Jews are "most evil among creations," "barbaric apes, wretched pigs" Palestinian Media Watch, (September 18 2014).
532Itamar Marcus, "PA: The Western Wall... No person besides Muslims ever used it as a place of worship, throughout all of history."  Palestinian Media Watch, (January 15 2013).
533Itamar Marcus, "Abbas calls for "War for Allah"" Palestinian Media Watch, (July 27 2014).
534Why TV News Loves A Liar.  New York Post, (April 17, 2002).
5352006 Report on International Religious Freedom.
536David Harris, "Palestinian leaders: denying reality, delaying peace".  AJC.  (October 12, 2010).
537 Melanie Lidman, Khaled Abu Toameh "Clinton Criticizes East Jerusalem Shepherd Hotel Demolition".  Jerusalem Post, (January 10, 2011).
538"PA's Erekat claims 90% of Gaza's dead were civilians".  Times of Israel, (September 29 2014).
539Jack Khoury, Jonathan Lis, "Palestinian, Arab Israeli leaders lash out at Netanyahu's 'Islamophobic' UN speech" Haaretz, (September 30, 2014).
540NBC News.
541Michael Isikoff, "White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths".  Yahoo News, (September 30 2014).
542"ISIS fight: Coalition airstrike casualties weigh on Canada's decision".  CBC News, (October 5 2014).
543Herb Keinon, "Steinitz ahead of nuclear talks: Iran is Israel's greatest threat, not ISIS or Hezbollah".  The Jerusalem Post, (September 17, 2014).
544Yasser Okbi, Maariz Hashavua, "Iran's Khamenei vows 'Zionist regime and its supporters will go extinct".  The Jerusalem Post, (October 4, 2014).
545"Arabs Praise Israel for Treatment of Palestinian Workers", Breitbart, (October 1 2014).
546"Hamas Opens Hospital for Gunmen", Jerusalem Post(January 6, 2009).
547 Jerusalem Post (January 6, 2009).
548"Israel Hospitals Took Care of Nearly 220,000 PA Arabs in 2012," The Jewish Press.com, (July 30, 2013).
549"Hamas leader's daughter received medical treatment in Israel: sources," Reuters, (October 19, 2014).
550"Senior Hamas official Marzouk's sister hospitalized in Israel," Jerusalem Post, (March 11, 2014).
551 Shragai, The 'Al-Aqsa is in Danger' Libel, 2012.
552 Ibid., p. 54.
553Ibid., p. 61.
554Ibid., p. 100-101.
555 Mohammed Mar'i, "Israel planning to raze Al-Aqsa to build 'second temple,'" Saudi Gazette, (June 25, 2013).
556   Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, "PA: Israel planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque," Palestine Media Watch, March 30, 2014.
557"Gov't condemns Israeli building on Al Haram Al Sharif," The Jordan Times, September 2, 2013.
558 Mudar Zahran, "Who Is Destroying Al-Aqsa Mosque?" Gate Stone Institute, December 9, 2013
559"Jerusalem court convicts sheikh of incitement," Times of Israel, November 7, 2013.
560"Irish parliament calls on government to recognize Palestine," Times of Israel, October 22 2014.  "Jerusalem slaps Spain's parliament for Palestine recognition vote," The Jerusalem Post, November 19, 2014.
561"Hamas holds Gaza military parade, vows Israel's destruction," The Jordan Times, December 14, 2014.
562"Hamas Shoots Seven Test Rockets in Two Days," Arutz Sheva, December 5, 2014.
563"Abbas orders probe into Hamas coup plot revealed by Israel," Times of Israel, August 19, 2014.
564"Egypt building underground metal wall to curb smuggling into Gaza," The Gaurdian December 10, 2014.
565"Egypt gets Israel's OK for more Sinai troops to fight Islamists," JTA November 6, 2014.
566"Obama: Israel and the Palestinians Must Do More for Middle East Peace," The Huffington Post, November 22, 2009.
567"Jordan: Draft Palestinian Statehood Resolution," United Nations Security Council, December 30, 2014.
568"Former British Commander in Afghanistan: No Army Acts With As Much Discretion As The IDF Does," The Jerusalem Post, September 4, 2014.
569"Ten Points Regarding the Fundamental Breach by the Palestinians of the Oslo Accords," JCPA, January 5, 2015.
570"In Washington, Gantz warns against concessions with Iran," The Jerusalem Post, (January 8, 2015).
571"Former British commander in Afghanistan: No army acts with as much discretion as IDF does," The Jerusalem Post, (September 4, 2014).
572"Top US general: Israel protected civilian lives in Gaza," Times of Israel, (November 7, 2014).
573"American Muslims Visit Israel, Others Promise to Boycott Them"Arutz Sheva, (January 20, 2015).
574"Miss Lebanon's selfie with Miss Israel stirs up controversy in Middle East"Fox News, (January 19, 2015).
575"Abbas pumps new life into Hamas"The Gatestone Institute (April 30, 2014).
576Cohen, Gili.  "Israeli forces nab ISIS-linked cell in the West Bank,"Haaretz (January 4, 2015).
577Abu Toameh, Khaled.  "Islamic State Deepens grip in Future Palestine"The Gatestone Institute (January 3, 2015).
578Abu Toameh, Khaled.  "Why Palestinians Opposed Abbas's Statehood Bid" The Gatestone Institute (December 31, 2014).
579 PCPO (November 2014).
580 PCPO (November 2014).
581 JMCC (November 2013).
582 “Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups,” Pew Research Center (September 10, 2013).
583 “IAEA: Iran still stalling UN nuclear probe as deal deadline looms,” Jerusalem Post (February 19, 2015).
584 Kredo, Adam. “Iran: White House Lying About Iran's Concessions in Nuke Talks,” Free Beacon (December 9, 2014).
585 “AP Exclusive: US and Iran Discussing Nuclear Talks Compromise,” The Washington Post (February 3, 2015).
586 Kredo, Adam. “U.S. to Award Iran $11.9 Billion Through End of Nuke Talks,” Free Beacon (January 21, 2015).
587 Nasrallah, Shadia. “Iran Still Stalling U.N. Nuclear Inquiry as Deal Deadline Looms: IAEA” Reuters (February 20, 2015).
588 Epstein, Reid. “Obama to get an earful from Saudis” Politico (March 28, 2014).
589 Berman, Lazar. “False 'Israel drowns Gaza' claims sweep internet” Times of Israel (February 25, 2015).
590 Sheera Frenkel. “No, Gaza Was Not Flooded By Israel Opening 'The Dams'” Buzzfeed News (February 24, 2015).
591 Miller, Elhanan. “How Hamas used the weather to defame Israel” Times of Israel (December 18, 2013).
592 “2014 Gaza War Assessment” JINSA (March 2015).
1- JINSA Report, page 10
2- JINSA Report, page 7
3- JINSA Report, pages 9-10
4- JINSA Report, page 33
5- JINSA Report, page 40
6- JINSA Report, pages 11, 20
7- JINSA Report, page 11
8- JINSA Report, page 36
9- JINSA Report, page 12
10- JINSA Report, page 42
11- JINSA Report, page 46
12- JINSA Report, page 46
13- JINSA Report, page 45
14- JINSA Report, page 7
593 “Wikipedia: List of Arab members of the Knesset”
594 Maltz, Judy. “More Women and Arabs, Fewer Orthodox in Next Knesset” Haaretz (March 18, 2015).
595 Ravid, Barak. “Netanyahu: If I'm Elected, There Will Be No Palestinian State” Haaretz, (March 16, 2015).
596 “Obama's Israel Tantrum” Wall Street Journal, (March 24, 2015).
597 “Khamenei Calls 'Death to America' As Kerry Hails Progress on Nuke Deal” Times of Israel, (March 21, 2015).
598 Cohen, Tom/King, John. “Obama: 'Peace is Possible,' But See The World as Palestinians do” CNN, (March 22, 2015).
599 “Rabin Speech to the Knesset on Ratification of Oslo Peace Accords” CNN, (October 5, 1995).
600 “Netanyahu's Foreign Policy Speech at Bar-Ilan University” Haaretz, (June 14, 2009).
601 “Netanyahu's Foreign Policy Speech at Bar-Ilan University” NRG, (March 16, 2015).
602 Abu Toameh, Khaled. “Abbas Wants Arabs to Bomb Gaza Strip” The Gatestone Institute, (March 31, 2015).
603 “Vatican clarifies Abbas 'angel of peace' comments” BBC News, (May 18, 2015).
604 Miller, Elhannan. “Palestinians reject Netanyahu bid to define settlement blocs,” Times of Israel, (May 26, 2015).
605 Keinon, Herb. “Diplomacy: pulling in different directions,” Jerusalem Post, (May 24, 2015).
606 Abu Toameh, Khaled. “Fatah armed militias warn Israelis 'you must leave!',” Gatestone Institute, (May 20, 2015).
607 Reuters. “Palestinians want Israel out of fifa, eyes a 3/4 majority to pass proposal,” Jerusalem Post, (May 2, 2015).
608 Reuters. “Fifa president rejects call to ban Israelis',” Jerusalem Post, (April 7, 2015).
609 Lazaroff, Tovah. “Number of Palestinians working in Israel doubles,” Jerusalem Post, (March 4, 2015).
610 Khoury, Jack. “Israel to double amount of water supplied to Gaza,” Jerusalem Post, (March 4, 2015).
611 www.thetower.org staff. “Hamas rebuilding terror tunnels, not housing, as fued with Fatah continues,” The Tower, (April 15, 2015).
612 Bravin, Jess. “High court backs President in use of Jerusalem on U.S. Passports,” Wall Street Journal, (June 8, 2015).
613 Harel, Amos. “Gaza testimonies / Diverting the debate from the real issue,” Haaretz (July 16, 2009).
614“Breaking the Silence,” NGO Monitor, (May 25, 2015).
615 Friedman, Matti. “The latest 'Breaking the Silence' report isn't journalism. It's propaganda,” Mosaic Magazine, (May 25, 2015).
616“Key preliminary findings of the high level international military group on the Gaza Conflict,” UNWatch, (June 12, 2015).
617 Yemini, Ben-Dror. “A Manipulation of Human Rights,” Ynet News, (May 9, 2015).
618 Daoud, David. “Former leading IDF official accuses Breaking the Silence of publishing baseless findings,” Algemeiner, (June 14, 2015).
619 “Top world generals: No Israeli war crimes in Gaza,” Israel Today, (June 15, 2015).
620 Lazaroff, Tovah. “Ex-Generals, Diplomats, absolve Israel of war crimes,” Jerusalem Post, (June 13, 2015).
621 Colonel Richard Kemp. “Submission to the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict,” www.richard-kemp.com, (February 21, 2015).
622 “US General Charles Wald, USAF (Retired): UNHRC report on 2014 Gaza conflict unbalanced, fails to accurately assess violations by Hamas,” BusinessWire, (June 22, 2015).
623 Harel, Amos. “Israeli brigade commander: excessive caution in Gaza caused harm to soldiers,” Haaretz, (June 24, 2015).
624 Bernstein, David. “Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey undermines Obama administration criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza,” Washington Post, (November 10, 2014).
625 “US military chiefs back Israel on Gaza tactics,” VOA, (November 10, 2014).
626 Stephen F. Hayes, “The Iran Deal, Then and Now,” Weekly Standard, (July 6, 2015).
627 Eli Lake & Josh Rogin, “No, U.S. Doesn't Have 'Absolute Knowledge' on Iran's Nukes,” BloombergView, (June 19, 2015); David E. Sanger And Michael R. Gordon, “Crucial Questions Remain as Iran Nuclear Talks Approach Deadline,” New York Times, (June 28, 2015).
629 Robin Wright and Keith B. Richburg, “Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb,” Washington Post, (November 18, 2004).
630 Thomas Erdbrink and David E. Sanger, “Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei, Seems to Pull Back on Nuclear Talks,” New York Times, (June 23, 2015).
631 Adam Kredo, “US to award Iran $11.9 billion through end of nuke talks,” Fox News, (January 21, 2015); Thomas Erdbrink and David E. Sanger, “Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei, Seems to Pull Back on Nuclear Talks,” New York Times, (June 23, 2015).
632 Teresa Welsh, “U.S. Denies Shielding Iranian Sanctions Violations from UN,” US News & World Report, (June 10, 2015).
633 Alan J. Kuperman, “The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw,” New York Times, (June 23, 2015).
634 Carol Morello, “Iran nuclear talks to miss Tuesday deadline, will run ‘a few days’ longer,” Washington Post, (June 28, 2015).
635 Shaked, Ronny. “Abbas escapes assassination attempt,” Ynet News, (January 28, 2007).
636 Rosen, Steven J. “Will Mahmoud Abbas reject Israeli protection?” The Gatestone Institute, (October 20, 2014).
637 Hanna, Elie. “Palestinian Authority President Abbas to Qatari Emir Tamim: Meshaal is lying,” Al-Akhbar, (September 5, 2014).
638Ma’an, (April 23, 2015) quoted in http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=14696.
639 Issacharoff, Avi, “PA determined to curb Hamas resistance in West Bank,” Times of Israel, (July 5, 2015).
640 “Intense Campaign by Hamas's Military Wing to Recruit Youths for Its Summer Camps,” Middle East Media Research Institute, (July 6, 2015).
641 “Hamas Summer Camp Trains 25,000 Gazans as Fighters,” Ynet News, (July 25, 2015).
642 Pollock, David. “New Poll Shows Most Palestinians for Practical Progress, Tactical Compromises with Israel,” Fikra Forum, (July 23, 2015).
643“Netanyahu calls Abbas after toddler murder,” Turkish Weekly, (August 1, 2015).
644“Israelis protest hate crimes in wake of baby's death,” Al Jazeera, (August 2, 2015).
645“Glorifying Terrorists and Terror,” Palestinian Media Watch.
646 Metropolitan State University of Denver. “Selected Quotes From Golda Meir,” MSU Denver.
647 Nadav Shragai, “The Al-Aqsa is in Danger Libel: The History of a Lie”, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
648 Rafael Israeli, “From Arab Spring to Islamic Winter”, New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 2013, p. 291.
649“Al-Aqsa is in Danger” Libel, 2012, pp.100-101.
650 Yasser Okbi, “Islamic Movement leaders warn of Israeli plan to destroy al-Aqsa Mosque,” Jerusalem Post, (September 20, 2013).
651 Avi Issacharoff. “Israel foiled 17 suicide attacks so far this year, Shin Bet says,” Times of Israel, (August 12, 2015).
652 Shin Bet Reports.
653 Shin Bet 2013 Annual Summary.
654 Shin Bet 2014 Annual Summary.
655 “In pictures: Hamas run Palestinian youth military summer camp in Gaza,” Telegraph (No date given).
656 “Hamas Summer camp opens it's doors in Gaza,” Jerusalem Post, (July 25, 2015).
657 “Hamas 'summer camp' trains 25,000 Gazans as fighters,” YNet News, (July 25, 2015).
658“Thousands of Gazan children graduate Hamas military summer camp,” Jerusalem Post, (August 6, 2015).
659Turkce Okuyun. “Hamas concludes first-ever military training camp for girls,” AL Monitor (August 10, 2015) .
660Yossi Melman. “Hashemite concerns,” Jerusalem Report, (July 27, 2015), pp. 14-17.
661Salma Wardany/Caroline Alexander. “Fences rise across Middle East as Jihadi threat escalates,” Bloomberg, (July 23, 2015).
662“The al-Aqsa is in danger libel: History of a lie,” JCPA.
663 Bassam Tawil. “Palestinians: Why our leaders are hypocrites and liars,” Gatestone Institute, (October 4, 2015).
664 Luiz Martinez/Jacqueline Shire. “Iran is building nukes in underground locations,” ABC News, (November 21, 2005).
665 “Britain: Iran conducting secret missile tests,” USA Today, (June 29, 2011).
666 Steven AHildreth. “Iran's ballistic missile and space launch programs,” Congressional Research Service, (December 6, 2012).
667 Bill Sweetman. “Controversy continues over Iran's rockets and weapons,” Aviation Week (February 17, 2015).
668 Mehrdad Balali. “Khamenei tells Iran armed forces to build up 'irrespective' of diplomacy,” Reuters (November 30, 2014).
669 “Iran test-fires 'new strategic weapon' to battle 'Great Satan' US,” RT (February 27, 2015).
670 Bill Gertz. “North Korea transfers missile goods to Iran during nuclear talks,” Washington Free Beacon (April 15, 2015).
671 “I'm talking about information that says they not only have these missiles, but I am aware of information that suggests that they were working hard as to how to put the two together. There is no doubt in my mind - and it's fairly straightforward from what we've been saying for years - that they have been interested in a nuclear weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able to deliver, not just something that sits there.” Wright, Robin/Richburg, Keith. “Powell says Iran is pursuing bomb,” Washington Post, (November 18, 2004).
672 “Iran unveils new missile, says seeks peace through strength,” Reuters (August 22, 2015).
673 Tzvi Kahn. “FPI bulletin: Iran's ballistic missile program continues,” Foreign Policy Initiative (August 31, 2015).
674 Sam Wilkin. “Iran tests new precision-guided ballistic missile,” Reuters (October 11, 2015).
675 Carol E Lee. “White house sees signs Iran missile test violated UN Resolution,” Wall Street Journal (October 13, 2015).
676 Ari Lamm. “Scholars Debunk ‘Times’ Article on Temple Mount,” Tablet, (October 12, 2015).
677 The Supreme Muslim Council. “A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif, Jerusalem,” The Temple Institute, (1925).
678 Ari Soffer. “UNESCO Passes Arab Resolution: Cave of Patriarchs 'Islamic',” Israel National News, (October 21, 2012).
679 Martin Kramer. “Boycotting Israel at NYU,” Campus-Watch, (March 31, 2004).
680 “Dalia Rabin: My father might have stopped Oslo,” IMRA, (October 20, 2010).
681 Allyn Fisher-Ilan. “Netanyahu renews support for two-state solution with Palestinians,” Reuters, (May 20, 2015).
682 “Netanyahu Rejects Obama's 1967 Border Proposal,” Fox News, (May 20, 2011).
683 Lahav Harkov. “Netanyahu: Border must remain in Jordan Valley - like Rabin said,” Jerusalem Post, (October 16, 2013).
684 Tovah Lazaroff. “Netanyahu: I won't evacuate settlements,” Jerusalem Post, (January 26, 2014).
685 Oren Lieberman. “Benjamin Netanyahu: Jerusalem will remain united city,” CNN, (May 17, 2015);
Dunetz, Jeff. “Yitzhak Rabin was not the blind peace-maker that Bubba Clinton claims he was,” The Lid, (November 1, 2014).
686 “PA Terror Campaign - October 2015,” Palestinian Media Watch, (October 2015).
687Itamar Marcus/Nan Jaques Zilberdik.“Palestinian football tournament named after murderer who stabbed two to death last month,” Palestinian Media Watch, (November 4, 2015).
688 Gili Cohen. “Israeli police to guard ambulances carrying wounded Palestinian terrorists,” Haaretz, (October 29, 2015).
689 Ruth Eglash. “Her dad was killed by Palestinian stone throwers. Weeks later, she saved a suspected stabber's life,” Washington Post, (October 16, 2015).
690 Judy Bergman. “The same fight,” Israel Hayom, (November 16, 2015).
691 “Israel raps Sweden envoy after minister's remarks on Palestinian 'desperation',” Times of Israel, (November 16, 2015).
692 “Abbas Admits For the First Time That He Turned Down Peace Offer in 2008,” The Tower, (November 17, 2015).
693 Itamar Marcus. “Mahmoud Abbas: Murdering Israelis is "popular peaceful uprising",” Palestinian Media Watch, (December 1, 2015).
694Jake Wallis Simons, “Why even the Palestinian Authority opposes the boycott of Israel,” Daily Telegraph, (June 9, 2014).
695Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, (September 21, 2014) as translated by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “Palestinians working for Israelis are paid double those working in the West Bank and triple those in the Gaza Strip,” Palestine Media Watch, (February 26, 2015).
696 Marwan Asmar. “A trip into the heart of Palestine",” GulfNews, (June 17, 2015).
697 Happy Planet Index 2015.
698 William Booth. “U.S. ambassador's comments ignite diplomatic row with Israel,” Washington Post (January 19, 2016).
699 (Translated by Palestinian Media Watch) Marcus, Itamar. “Official PA daily lauds Israel's treatment of Palestinian workers,” Palestinian Media Watch (September 23, 2014).
700 (In 2011, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics reported the average daily wages for settlement workers were 150 shekels ($44) per day, compared to 76.9 ($22) in the West Bank and 46.2 ($13.50) in Gaza) “Settlement workers paid double average wage,” Ma'an News Agency, (April 20, 2011).
701 Amos Harel. “Israeli Army Arrests Palestinian Suspect in Otniel Mother's Murder,” Haaretz (January 19, 2016).
702 Israel Central Bureau of Statistics.
703 “BICOM Briefing: Changes to Israel's budget allocation to Arab communities,” BICOM, (January 8, 2016).
704 Uri Dromi, “Israel moves to help its Arab citizens,” Miami Herald, (January 14, 2016).
705 Steven J Rosen. “The EU's Israel Problem Goes Far Beyond Labels,” The Tower, (January 2016).
706 Jordan Schatchel. “Obama joins Israel boycott, labels West Bank goods,” Breitbart, (January 28, 2016).
707 Jennifer Rubin. “Why it's correct to label the Obama administration ‘anti-Israel’,” Washington Post, (January 20, 2016).
708 Danielle Pletka. “The EU leads boldly on Israeli-Palestinian peace,” American Enterprise Institute, (November 12, 2015).
709“West Bank country of origin marking requirements,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (January 23, 2016).
710 Patrick Goodenough. “Sen. Cotton introduces bill to rescind 'nonsensical' directive to Israel/West Bank product labelling,” CNS News, (January 14, 2016).
711 Bassam Tawil. “Palestinians: A World of Lies, Deception and Fabrications,” Gatestone Institute, (November 7, 2015)
712 “PA Documents Detail Payments to Terrorists” The Investigative Project on Terrorism, (January 15, 2015).
713 Edwin Black. “PA studies details of each terrorist act before issuing salaries,” Times of Israel, (February 6, 2015); Itamar Marcus/Nan Jaques Zilberdik. “PA allocates $46 million more for terrorists in 2014,” Palestinian Media Watch, (February 12, 2014).
714 Itamar Marcus/Nan Jaques Zilberdik.“Fatah Facebook: 'Sons of Zion, this is an oath to the Lord of the Heavens: Prepare all the bags you can for your body parts. We wish for the blood to become rivers'” Palestinian Media Watch, (July 7, 2014).
715Itamar Marcus/Nan Jaques Zilberdik.“Teams named after Rabbi Glick’s shooter and terrorists Abu Jihad, Khaled Nazzal and Abu Ali Mustafa participate in Palestinian football championship,” Palestinian Media Watch, (June 25, 2015); Itamar Marcus/Nan Jaques Zilberdik. “PA schools named after terrorists by PA Ministry of Education,” Palestinian Media Watch (September 10, 2015);Itamar Marcus/Nan Jaques Zilberdik. “Palestinian Authority education, a recipe for hate and terror,” pg 11, Palestinian Media Watch.
716 Itamar Marcus/Nan Jaques Zilberdik.“Abbas awards 'Military Star of Honor' to terrorist who attempted to blow up cinema in 1967” Palestinian Media Watch, (June 4, 2015).
717 Doug Murray. “The honey-trap of moral equivalance,” The Gatestone Institute, (April 24, 2013).
718 “Abbas meets families of terrorists just after deadly Jerusalem attack,” Times of Israel, (February 4, 2016).
719 “8 years, 8 Quotes by Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh,” IDF Blog, (February 19, 2014).
720 “PA: Palestinians to 'never' again negotiate directly with Israel,” Times of Israel, (February 15, 2016).
721 Maayan Groisman. “Survey: Most Palestinians oppose security coordination with Israel,” Jerusalem Post, (February 16, 2016).
722 “Wave of Terror 2015/16,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (February 24, 2016).
723 “Seventy-one percent of attackers are aged between 16 and 25, while 22 of them (10 percent) are 16 or younger,” I24 News, (February 10, 2016).
724 Samih Shaheen. “Four Palestinians killed in anti-Israeli knife attacks,” Yahoo News, (October 18, 2015).
725 Dan Williams. “Israeli troops kill three Palestinians in West Bank, Gaza,” Reuters, (December 11, 2015).
726 Herb Keinon. “Amid Israel protest, CBS amends 'biased and dishonest' terror attack headline,” Jerusalem Post, (February 3, 2016).
727 Gilead Ini. “How The New York Times whitewashes Palestinian terror,” New York Post, (November 23, 2015).
728 Tamar Sternthal. “Reuters' Jerusalem Bureau Chief Displays Anti-Israel Bias,” Algemeiner, (February 19, 2016).
729 Bill Carter. “CNN, Amid Criticism in Israel, Adopts Terror Report Policy,” New York Times, (June 1, 2002).
730 Omri Ceren. “What it means to engage Hezbollah,” Commentary Magazine, (July 11, 2001).
731 “1983 Beirut barracks bombings,” Encyclopaedia Britannica.
732 S. Tully McLaughlin/John Calhoun. “Hezbollah's history of violence,”ABC News, (June 19, 2008).
733 “Frontline: Terrorist attacks on Americans 1979-1988,” PBS Frontline.
734 Dexter Filkins. “Death of a Prosecutor,” New Yorker Magazine (July 20, 2015).
735 “Israel's London embassy bombed,” BBC (July 26, 1994).
736 Erica Pearson. “Khobar Towers bombing of 1996,” Encyclopaedia Britannica.
737 The Koby Mandell Foundation
738 Haroon Siddique. “Thailand arrests Hezbollah suspect after terror tipoff,” The Gaurdian (January 13, 2012).
739 “Hassan Nasrallah: In his own words” C.A.M.E.R.A. (July 26, 2006).
740 Daniel Flynn. “31 Years after Terrorists Murdered Malcolm Kerr, His Son Coaches on Brink of NBA Title,” Breitbart (June 16, 2015).
741 “Said Hassan Nasrallah Q&A: What Hezbollah Will Do,” Washington Post (February 20, 2000).
742 “Statement on the 61st Anniversary of Israel's Independence,” The White House (April 28, 2009).
743 Sue Surkes. “Abbas reportedly turns down visiting Biden's peace plan,” Times of Israel (March 10, 2016).
744 Khaled Abu Toameh, “The Secret Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians,” Gatestone Institute, (August 10, 2015).
745 Allen Z. Hertz, “Aboriginal Rights of the Jewish People,” American Thinker, (October 30, 2011).
746 Jon Greenberg, “War of words: The fight over 'radical Islamic terrorism,’” PolitiFact, (December 11, 2015).
747 David Frum, “Why Obama Won't Talk About Islamic Terrorism,” The Atlantic, (February 16, 2015).
748 Chris Perez, “White House censors French president for saying 'Islamist terrorism,'” New York Post, (April 2, 2016).
749 Adam Edelman, “Tony Blair: Radical Islam 'a poison' that 'must be eradicated,'” New York Daily News, (April 26, 2015).
750 See, for example, Robert Satloff, “Just Like Us! Really?” Weekly Standard, (May 12, 2008); John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, (New York: Gallup Press, 2007).
751 Transcript of a video of Saudi TV host Nadine Al-Budair on terrorism and Islam, translated by MEMRI, (April 3, 2016).
752 Itamar Marcus/Nan Jaques Zilberdik. “Abbas confirms main charge of PMW's new report - that the PA is still paying salaries to terrorists - in meeting today with Norwegian Foreign Minister,” PMW, (May 4, 2016).
753 “PMW presents 'PA's Billion Dollar Fraud' to Norwegian government,” PMW, (May 4, 2016).
754 Tovah Lazaroff. “Netanyahu: French initiative gives Palestinians 'escape hatch' to avoid negotiations,” Jerusalem Post, (May 15, 2016).
755 Tovah Lazaroff. “French FM was set to arrive in Israel to push new peace initiative,” Jerusalem Post, (May 14, 2016).
756 “Netanyahu rejects French peace initiative after meeting with Valls,” France24, (May 23, 2016).
757 “Palestinian PM dismisses Netanyahu's direct talks proposal,” Daily Star Lebanon, (May 24, 2016).
758 Yossi Beilin. “Dear Abbas, Answer Kerry, and Establish a Palestinian State Now,” Haaretz, (May 3, 2016).
759 Jacob Cornbluh, “Ross: U.S. distancing itself from Israel won't bring stability to Mideast,” Jewish Journal, (May 23, 2016).
760 Brianna Gurciullo, “Bill Clinton: ‘I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state,’” Politico, (May 13, 2016).
761Barak Ravid. “EU Warns Israel: Policy of Demolishing Palestinian Homes in Area C Will Harm Relations,” Haaretz, (May 31, 2016).
762 Ben Sales, “Humanitarian aid or political meddling? Israel, EU clash on Palestinian buildings,” Jweekly.com, (May 13, 2016).
763 United with Israel Staff, “Netanyahu Orders Demolition of EU-Funded Illegal Palestinian Homes,” United with Israel, (May 13, 2016).
764 The Peace Index, (June 2016).
765 “Palestinian Public Opinion Poll #60,” Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey, (June 2016).
766 “Iranian supreme leader: We ousted 'the Satan' and Israel 'will not see the coming 25 years',” Business Insider, (September 9, 2015).
767 Bozorgmehr Sharafedin, “Khamenei says missiles, not just talks, key to Iran's future,” Reuters, (March 30, 2016).
768 Mohammed Nuruzzaman, “The Iran Deal Is Already Falling Apart,” The National Interest, (July 25, 2016).
769 Ryan Browne, “German intelligence: Iran may have tried to violate nuclear deal,” CNN, (July 8, 2016).
770 George Jahn, “AP Exclusive: Document shows less limits on Iran nuke work,” AP, (July 18, 2016).
771 “Palestine at the Olympics,” Wikipedia.
772“NBC Primetime Opening Ceremony (Replay),” (at approximately 3 hours, 30 minutes) NBC Olympics.
773 Liel Liebovitz, “The Palestinian Olympic-Swimming-Pool Sized Lie,” Tablet, (August 6, 2016).
774 “Facilities,” Murad Tourist Resort.
775 Greg Myre, “Middle East: Sharon Sees More West Bank Pullouts,” New York Times, (August 30, 2005).
776Report of the Middle East Quartet,” (July 1, 2016).
777 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Address to the Likud Central Committee, (January 5, 2004).
778 Steven J. Rosen, “Abrams: Israel is right that there were settlement agreements,” Middle East Forum, (June 25, 2009).
779 Herb Keinon, “EU Officially Publishes Settlement Guidelines despite Israeli Objections,” Jerusalem Post, (July 19, 2013).
780 Malcolm Lowe, “The EU’s Embarrassing Little Secret in Labeling Israeli Products,” Gatestone Institute (November 19, 2015).
781 Douglas Murray, “‘Occupied Territories’: What about Cyprus, Kashmir, Tibet?” Gatestone Institute (July 23, 2013).
782 Speech to the American Jewish Committee (May 3, 2001).
783 Itamar Marcus, “Fatah quick to honor as 'Martyr' today’s terrorist murderer,” PMW, (Oct. 9, 2016).
784 The Supreme Muslim Council. “A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif, Jerusalem,” The Temple Institute, (1925).
785 “Statement by the Director-General of UNESCO on the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, a UNESCO World Heritage site,” UNESCO, (October 14, 2016).
786 “PM Netanyahu statement following today's UNESCO decision,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (October 13, 2016).
787 “Historical revisionism: UNESCO adopts PLO’s Islamist resolution denying Jewish, Christian ties to Jerusalem,” UN Watch, (October 13, 2016).
788 Max Bearak and Lazaro Gamio, “What you should know about U.S. foreign assistance,” Washington Post (October 18, 2016).
789 “The Peace Index,” Israel Democracy Institute (October 2016).
790 “Joint Israeli-Palestinian Poll 56,” PCPSR (June 2015).

 

Back to Top