Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (REFUTED)

On June 17, 2010, political analyst and author Jeremy R. Hammond posted an article entitled "Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" in which he attempts to dispel the myths surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a decisively Anti-Israel perspective. Since his article encompasses so many of the arguments and criticisms that are levied against Israel, it's the perfect piece in which to refute those allegations which are routinely used to demonize and delegtimize Israel. Feel free to share without my permission, just give proper credit.


#1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.

Claim: Jews and Arabs have not always been in conflict until Zionism.

Arab and Jew relations
Jews and Arabs have always had a contemptuous relationship.While Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace at various times with Jews, peaceful coexistence meant subordination and degradation. Under Islamic law Jews held dhimmi status, meaning that they were a protected group but were required to pay a yearly poll tax, and accept limitations and distinctive markings that emphasize the dhimmi's inferiority to Muslims. Basically they were forced to pay protection money. Jews were generally looked upon with contempt by their Muslim neighbors which the Koran refers to as “apes and pigs” (Surah 5:60).

Even when there was peace it was a tenuous peace that could change in an instant. For example, the Damascus affair in 1840, occurred when a French monk and his servant disappeared in Damascus. Immediately following, a charge of ritual murder was brought against a large number of Jews in the city including children who were tortured. The consuls of England, France and Germany as well as Ottoman authorities, Christians, Muslims and Jews all played a great role in this affair. Following the Damascus affair, Pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa. A pogrom is a violent riot aimed at massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews. Pogroms occurred in: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jerusalem (1847), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891), Istanbul (1870, 1874), Buyukdere (1864), Kuzguncuk (1866), Eyub (1868), Edirne (1872), Izmir (1872, 1874). There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828. There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867. In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. This is known as the Allahdad incident. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted. -(Persecution of Jews)

In 1929 Mobs attacked Jews in Jerusalem, Safed, Jaffa and Kfar Darom, a kibbutz in the Gaza Strip. The centuries-old Jewish community of Hebron was destroyed, and 67 Jews were slaughtered. British authorities reported incidents of rape, torture, beheadings of babies and mutilation. British High Commissioner John Chancellor wrote, “I do not think that history records many worse horrors in the last few hundred years.” In total, 135 Jews were killed, and 350 were maimed or wounded. Arab fears of a Zionist takeover of the land would not account for the savagery of these attacks.

The sudden uptick in conflict between the Jews and Arabs had less to do with Zionism and more to do with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire following World War 1. Jews had been a fairly well protected, if subservient, minority in the Ottoman Empire. Dhimmis means "the protected people", and while they were second class citizens they had the right to protection of life and property. Also, keep in mind there were no nation states during this time and thus no national aspirations or rivalries. These conditions rapidly changed following the defeat of the Ottoman Turks. And once the British Mandate expired on 1948 the Jews essentially had to fend for themselves.

Palestinian self-determination
To say that Zionists have rejected Palestinian self-determination is disingenuous and ignores the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1937 Peel Commission plan, the 1947 UN Partition, the Lausanne Conference of 1949, 1978 Camp David Accords, 1991 Madrid Conference, 1993 Oslo Accords, 1997 Hebron Agreement, 1998 Wye River Memorandum, 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, 2000 Camp David Summit, the December 23 Clinton Parameter plans, 2001 Taba Summit, 2003 Road map for peace, 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA), 2007 Annapolis Conference. All of which have been rejected or not fulfilled by the Palestinian leadership. Regardless, today Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are under self-rule.

Land allotted to the Jews
While Arabs were always the majority, the area the UN allotted for the Jewish state had a significant Jewish population. Over 70 percent of the land for the proposed Jewish portion was not privately owned, but was state land that belonged to the British Mandate. More importantly it was land that nobody wanted, such as arid wastelands or swamplands. By 1947 60% of the remaining land partitioned for the Jews was the Negev Desert. It was the Jews who were largely responsible for restoring the land and creating communities and villages where none existed before. In 1901 the Jewish National Fund was formed to help restore the land of Israel. Swamps were drained, deserts were irrigated, and trees were planted.

    “They (Jews) paid high prices for the land, and in addition, they paid to certain occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.” —Hope Simpson Report, 1930"

    “Of the total of 418,000 dunums (quarter-acres) acquired by Jews in Palestine [between 1878 and 1914], 58 percent was sold by non-Palestinian [Arab] absentee landlords and 36 percent by Palestinian absentee landlords, for a total of 94 percent.” —Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi

    “Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.” —Peel Commission Report, 1937

Israeli- Palestinian Conflict Part 2

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 2

#2 - The United Nations created Israel

Claim: The United Nations, under UNSCOP, did not create Israel because both parties did not accept Resolution 181.

The reason for the partition in the first place

The UNSCOP came to the conclusion that the conflicting national aspirations of the Arabs and Jews could not be reconciled. The only solution was to partition two states, one Jewish the other Arab. Despite that the Jews were not happy with the small allotment of territory and they would not have Jerusalem they accepted the compromise. This despite the land allotted to the Jews was only 13% of the original British Mandate for a purposed Jewish state. The Arabs rejected it, despite there being 22 Arab states and one Jewish state.

Why there were no Arab representatives

The reason UNSCOP contained no representatives from any Arab country was because the Arab Higher Committee boycotted the Commission. The Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha, speaking to Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz, said, "The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions." –(September 16, 1947)

Israel's legitimacy

Once the Ottoman Empire was defeated in World War 1, the land ceased belonging to the Turks and went to the Allied powers. The British and French in turn carved up the middle-east into nation states and turned it back to the Arabs to self-rule. The legitimacy of these Arab countries are never questioned. In the case of Palestine, the land essential became up for grabs once the British Mandate expired on May 14th 1948, the day Israel declared independence. Israel’s international “birth certificate” is validated by uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949; and the recognition of Israel by most other states.

Israeli- Palestinian Conflict Part 3

Israeli- Palestinian Conflict Part 3

#3 – The Arabs missed an opportunity to have their own state in 1947.

Claim: The Arabs are justified in rejecting the 1947 U.N. partition plan because the land was stolen from them in the first place and rightfully belonged to them.

Land Ownership
As previously noted, Jews were the majority in the land allotted to them under UN Resolution 181. While Jewish immigration increased from Europe, Jews never had a chance to reach majority in the region. Jewish immigration and land purchases under the British Mandate period were severely restricted, while Arabs were free to enter the country. And many Arabs did immigrate by the thousands, which had been in decline prior to the Mandate in 1922.

Jews would have been given 55 percent of the land for a state, and Arabs 45 percent. However this 45 percent was on top of the 77 percent of the original mandate which was intended for the Jewish state, but under Arab pressure was cut off and granted to the Hashemites. It was Jordan that was meant to absorb the recently displaced Palestinian Arabs, who today make up over 70% of Jordan. The Jewish state was left with a mere 13 percent of the land from the original British Mandate, most of which was land nobody wanted, such as the Negev desert.

David Ben-Gurion Quote
The accusation that the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, intended to take all of Palestine by force is completely untrue. His quote is taken out of context from a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive which was the pre-state representative body of the Jews in the Palestine Mandate. In proper context, Ben-Gurion actually says the opposite:

"Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.

Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?

Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us... And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state."

(From Efraim Karsh, “Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion, and the ‘Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, vol. 4, no. 2, winter 1997, at p. 52 ((found in Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America))

This misquote comes from Noam Chomsky’s book “Fateful Triangle”. Chomsky says, “This was, in fact, one of Ben-Gurion’s constant themes. In internal discussion in 1938, he stated that “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine... The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine by a Jewish-Arab agreement... The state will have to preserve order not only by preaching morality but by machine guns, if necessary.” -(pg. 289-290). Not only does Chomsky put words in Ben-Gurion’s mouth, but he cleverly substitutes “Palestine” for “Israel”. So now instead of Ben-Gurion talking about expanding throughout the “Land of Israel”, he is now talking about expanding through “the whole of Palestine”, which encompasses a much larger territory.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 4

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 5

#5 – The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973

Claim: Israel was the aggressor in 1967, there was no imminent threat.  The 1973 surprise attack by the Arabs was justified.

The 1956 Suez Canal Crisis
Egypt was never a victim. Under the Constantinople Convention of 1888, which Egypt signed, it ensured that, “The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.” However in 1949, continuing it's hostilities toward Israel, Egypt closed the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping and cargoes, illegally blocking the canal. The consequences not only affected Israel but the financial and strategic interests of the United Kingdom and France as well. UN negotiator Ralph Bunche said, “There should be free movement for legitimate shipping and no vestiges of the wartime blockade should be allowed to remain, as they are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the armistice agreements.”

 On September 1, 1951, the Security Council ordered Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping. Egypt refused to comply. The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, said early in 1954 that, “The Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East.” (Al-Misri, April 12, 1954). It was during the period that a new type of warfare began to emerge. Egypt had begun to train and equip the Fedayeen in terrorist attacks against Israel. In 1955 Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser said, “Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes (the Fedayeen), the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.” –August 31st, 1955.

In 1956 Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, repudiating the treaties concluded with Britain and France, and blockaded Israel's shipping land in the Straights of Tiran. Meanwhile the Fedayeen intensified their attacks.

By all accounts the blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased Fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of Arab statements was tantamount to an act of war. Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, attacked Egypt on October 29, 1956.
"During the six years during which this belligerency (Egypt) has operated in violation of the Armistice Agreement there have occurred 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with Egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from Egyptian controlled territory, 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by Egyptian military units and Fedayeen in Israel. As a result of these actions of Egyptian hostility within Israel, 364 Israelis were wounded and 101 killed. In 1956 alone, as a result of this aspect of Egyptian aggression, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded." -Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Abba Eban

The 1967 Six-Day War
Israel’s preemptive attacks was justifiable by the hostilities that began prior to the Six Day War. Syria used the Golan Heights to shell Israeli farms and villages, Egypt was threatening Israel, and Arab terrorists were increasingly attacking Israel. On May 15, 1967 Egyptian troops massed near the Israeli border. On May 18 Syrian troops massed along the Golan Heights. And on May 22 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran.

Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel. Blockading the Straights of Tiran cut off Israel's route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from it's main supplier Iran. Such provocations would not be tolerated by any other country and ensured that war was inevitable.

Following the six-day war Israel captured the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, and the West Bank. Israel was justified in keeping these territories not only as a buffer zone against future attacks, but to demonstrate to the Arabs that provocation would not come without consequences.

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." -Nassar May 1967

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence." –the Voice of the Arabs radio station proclaimed on May 18, 1967. Source:Isi Leibler, The Case For Israel, (Australia: The Globe Press, 1972), pp. 60–61.  

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. . . . I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." -Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20th 1967

Jewish quotes
The author purports several quotes that seem to portray Israel as the aggressor. These cherry picked quotes are often taken out of context and parroted on Anti-Israel sites as “proof” Israel was the aggressor. For instance, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin admits that, “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” While this quote is true it is also lacks proper context. What follows is what Menachem Begin said in full:

“In June, 1967 we again had a choice [as in 1956]. The Egyptian army concentration in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. [But] This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.”

…There is no decisive mandate to go to war only if there is no alternative. There is no moral imperative that a nation must, or is entitled to, fight only when its back is to the sea, or the abyss. Such a war may avert tragedy, if not a Holocaust, for any nation; but it causes it terrible loss of life .... A free, sovereign nation, which hates war and loves peace, and which is concerned about its security, must create the conditions under which war, if there is a need for it, will not be for lack of alternatives. The conditions must be such — and their creation depends upon man’s reason and his actions — that the price of victory will be few casualties, not many.” –Menachem Begin, Aug. 8, 1982 speech to Israel’s National Defense College, speaking of the Six-Day War. (Source:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America)

In full context Menachem Begin actually defends Israel’s actions as self-defense and not as an act of aggression. Next Yitzhak Rabin is quoted as saying, “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Again, context is everything. The quote is taken from an article entitled "General Rabin did not think Nasser wanted war":

“Question: Do you think Nasser pretended to believe your threats because he was trying to provoke a war?

Yitzhak Rabin: I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to trigger an offensive against Israel. He knew, and we knew it. This demonstrates, in my view, that Nasser did not believe that we would attack Syria. He was bluffing; he wanted to present a good price, as the savior of Syria and thus gain broad sympathy in the Arab world. We knew the scheme since he had already used in 1960 at the time of the Egyptian-Syrian union. Following a raid that we conducted in the DMZ, it had concentrated troops, believing that we were planning an attack. A month later, he withdrew ensuring that the Syrians had managed to scare us. But there eight years, he had not requested the withdrawal of UN forces. This time, he felt the need to give more credibility to his bluff. Indeed, propaganda Arab anti-Nasser prompted him to end the constantly accusing him of "hiding behind the international forces."

Question: Why did he do it because he does not want war and he knew, moreover, that your army was superior to his?

Yitzhak Rabin: This is where our logic does not match that of the Arabs. These rarely distinguish between reality and dreams. Nasser was intoxicated by the surge of popular enthusiasm in the Arab world, as well as its own propaganda. He came to believe that the Egyptian army was not defeated by Israel in 1956, but only by the Franco-British intervention. He then built a whole system of thought, that Israel would not take the initiative of hostilities in 1967 because he could not rely, as in 1956, on the support of foreign powers. Judging by the seven divisions he sent into Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, yet he knew that we would consider his actions as a casus belli.

Question: The partial blockade of Aqaba was not however a matter of life or death for the State of Israel, which could ensure its supplies through Haifa, as was the case before 1956. Moreover, President Nasser, you probably know, was willing to make concessions for the passage of oil, among others. Why have you started the war forty-eight hours before the arrival in Washington of Mr. Zakaria Mohyeddine who went there specifically to negotiate a settlement?

Yitzhak Rabin: The closure of the Gulf of Aqaba, in itself, I repeat, was for us a casus belli. However, fundamentally, the war was caused by a combination of local and international factors. The negative role of the Soviet Union has exacerbated the passions and hatred prevailing in the region.” -Source: Le Monde, 29 February 1968 (translated from French)

Yitzhak Rabin is saying here that Nassar may not have wanted a war, but he became overconfident and backed himself in a corner. Israel had been on alert for weeks and could not remain mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow the Gulf of Aqaba to be closed. Hammond's quote omits the May 14 date as do many, but not all, sources of this quote. However the date is important. Many things happened between May 14th and June 5th. Egypt ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave, Egypt blockaded Israel's Red Sea Port. Egypt moved another 5 divisions to the Israeli Border, 100,000 troops in all. And Israel was being threatened with genocide.

The author also quotes General Ezer Weizman (Ha' aretz, March 29), Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev (Ma’ariv, April 4, 1972), Mordecai Bentov (Al-Hamishmar, April 14, 1971), and General Chaim Herzog (Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972). I have not been able to confirm any of these quotes, but again without context it's meaningless.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 6

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 4

#4 – Israel has a “right to exist”

Claim: Israel is illegitimate because it stole land belonging to the Arab's


Israel's right to exist

In the words of Israeli diplomat and politician Abba Eban, “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.” Put simply, no nation has to try to prove it’s legitimacy or it’s right to exist. It exists for the same reason that any other nation exists, because it can and because it can occupy the land and defend it. This is true for any nation in history. 

The framework for a Jewish state began with the British Mandate which expired on May 14, 1948, the day Israel declared independence. To date 149 countries acknowledge Israel's legitimacy. The boundaries of this new Jewish state closely resembles the boundaries of the UN Resolution 181 proposed boundaries for a Jewish state. As previously noted the land allocated for the Jews held a Jewish majority. If this seems unreasonable consider this, there are 22 Arab countries and 400 million Arabs, and only one Jewish state the size of New Jersey, which is one fifth of one percent of the middle-east. The Jews had gone without a place to call their own for 1,800 years and have endured persecutions and genocides. The grave injustice here was not accepting the Jewish state. Today Israeli Palestinians, which make up 20% of the country, are not treated as second class citizens but have the same rights as Jews and can serve in the Israeli military and government. In many cases Israeli Palestinians have a higher standard of living than Arabs elsewhere in the middle-east. This is a contrast to the way Jews were treated under the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand Palestinian Authorities have said no Jews would be allowed within a Palestinian state. So whose really apartheid? 

No sooner had Israel declared independence when they were attacked by five Arab armies. It was this attack that created a refugee problem to begin with. The author makes the argument that the attack was justified because the Zionists stole land, however if land were the reason it ignores the Rhodes armistice talks of 1949 where Israel offered to return the lands it had conquered, that were originally meant for a Palestinian Arab state, in exchange for a peace treaty. If accepted this would have allowed displaced Palestinians to return to their homes. The Arabs rejected this offer and instead continued there aggression towards Israel, which ultimately led to the 1956 Suez crisis. Again in 1949, at the Lausanne conference, Israel offered to repatriate a hundred thousand refugees without even a peace treaty. Again the Arab stated rejected this offer because it would mean recognition of the state of Israel. One has to wonder if the surrounding Arab nations cared so much for their fellow Palestinian Arabs why did Egypt and Jordan annex lands meant for the Palestinians for themselves after the 1948 war? It is apparently not an issue when other Arabs take land that is intended for the Palestinians. 

Ethnic cleansing and the cause of the refuge problem

Even though Israel has never had a policy of ethnic cleansing, this accusation continues to rear it’s ugly head. Many Palestinian Arabs, in fact, left prior to the 1948 war on their own accord by the urging of Arab leaders.

  

“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.” —Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948-1949

“The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians… but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave.” —PA President Mahmoud Abbas, 1976

“We will smash the country. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.” —Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, 1948

There is no mention of the Jews who were forced to flee from Arab countries after 1948. In total it is estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were forced out or fled from their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s. Between 1948 and 2000, the Jewish population in Middle Eastern and North African countries dropped from around 900,000 to less than 50,000. 

Dier Yassin
In Dier Yassin Israel is accused of perpetuating a massacre. The events are contested but apparently a contingent of Iraqi troops entered the village on March 13, 1948. In response a contingent of Israeli paramilitary splinter group called the Irgun entered Dier Yassin to drive out the Iraqis. They tried to get the message out for the civilians to flee and left several routes open, to which more than two-thirds did flee. However the Iraqi soldiers disguised themselves as women, hid their weapons under their robes, and blended in with the remaining women and children in the village. When the Irgun did arrive they started taking fire from what they thought were women. Fire was returned by the Irgun and in the course of the battle many innocent women did die, along with 40% of the Irgun.

According to Arab scholars at Beir Zeit University in Ramallah there was no massacre but a confusing military conflict in which civilians were killed in the crossfire. According to these scholars the total Arabs dead, including Iraqi solders, were 107. The Arab sources have also acknowledge that the Arab spokesmen at the time exaggerated and made up stories of rape and murder of women and children. They also say the reason these stories were exaggerated was to shame the nations into attacking Israel. In the PBS documentary "The 50 years wars" survivors of Dier Yassin were interviewed and they recall begging Dr. Hussein Khalidi, director of Voice of Palestine (the Palestinian radio station in East Jerusalem) to edit out the lies and fabrications of atrocities that never happened. But he refused, telling them: "We must capitalize on this great opportunity!" -(David Meir-Levi - History Upside Down)

To add to this Yassir Arafat notes in his own authorized biography the Egyptians used the Dier Yassin "massacre" to terrorize the Palestinians of the South, so they could be more easily herded into makeshift concentration camps in Gaza. The Egyptians forcibly disarmed the Arabs and killed those who tried to escape the camps. Arafat blamed the Egyptians for the refugee problem in Gaza. (Alan Hart, Arafat: Terrorist or Peace Maker?)

"The fabricated atrocity stories about Deir Yassin were our biggest mistake...Palestinians fled in terror.” —Hazem Nusseibeh, editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service’s Arabic news in 1948.  

So to say that the Arabs have acknowledged Israel’s right to self-determination is a gross understatement and ignores the three major military attacks against Israel, the terrorist’s attacks, the propaganda campaigns, and the various economic boycotts including the Council of the Arab League’s economic boycott against the Jews of Mandatory Palestine and the modern BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions).

A Palestinian State
On the other hand Israel has been willing to acknowledge a Palestinian state, most notably at the 2000 Camp David Summit. The only major caveat was that the Palestinian Authorities recognize the Jewish state, which they refused to do. In more recent times Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated this sentiment, “The real reason is the persistent refusal to recognize a sovereign Jewish state in any boundary. That was and remains the core of this conflict. To solve this, the Palestinians will have to recognize the Jewish state just as we recognize a Palestinian state. Both peoples, both nations, deserve a nation-state of their own. Palestinians, if they wish so, will go to the Palestinian state; Jews, if they so wish, can go to the Jewish state. And we’ll have to have security and demilitarization agreements between us.” -Source. The bigger question is do the Palestinians currently deserve a state? First they must be willing to live in peaceful coexistence with their neighbors. The next question is a Palestinian state politically and economically even viable? As it stands the Palestinians are economically dependent on others to survive, including Israel who is a major employer of Palestinian labor and a main trading partner. Even with financial aid from UNRWA and other countries, about one-fifth of the Palestinian population lives in poverty and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world. -Source. Then there is the question of territory, even with Gaza and the West Bank combined it would not be able to absorb all the Palestinian Arabs from the surrounding countries. 

Self-Determination (again)
On the issue of self-determination, for 19 years from 1948 until the Six Day War, no Arab leader argued for the right of national self-determination. It wasn’t until Yasser Arafat turned the issue into a human rights struggle that it became about self-determination. David Meir, in his book History Upside Down, describes this shift in tactics:

"Arafat was particularly struck by Ho Chi Minh's success in mobilizing left-wing sympathizers in Europe and the United States, where activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the [propaganda] line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam war from a Communist assault on the south to a struggle for national liberation. Ho's chief strategist, General Giap, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their struggle. Giap's counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation:"Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.

At the same time that he was getting advice from General Giap, Arafat was also being tutored by Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962): wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.

To make sure that they followed this advice, the KGB put Arafat and his adjutants into the hands of a master of propaganda: Nicolai Ceausescu, president-for-life of Romania.

For the next few years, Ceausescu hosted Arafat frequently and gave him lessons on how to apply the advice of Giap, Yazid, and others in the Soviet orbit. Arafat's personal "handler," Ion Mihai Pacepa, the head of the Romanian military intelligence, had to work hard on his sometimes unruly protege. Pacepa later recorded a number of sessions during which Arafat railed against Ceausescu's injunctions that the PLO should present itself as a people's revolutionary army striving to right wrongs and free the oppressed: he wanted only to obliterate Israel. Gradually, though, Ceausescu's lessons in Machiavellian statecraft sank in. During his early Lebanon years, Arafat developed propaganda tactics that would allow him to create the image of a homeless people oppressed by a colonial power. This makeover would serve him well in the west for decades to come."

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 5

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 6

#6 – U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 called only for a partial Israeli withdrawal.

Claim:Under U.N. Resolution 242 Israel is required to fully withdraw from "all" territory captured in the Six-Day War.

Resolution 242
The first point addressed by the resolution is the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Some people read Resolution 242 as though it ends here and the case for requiring a total Israeli withdrawal from the territories is proven. On the contrary, this clause does no such thing, because the reference clearly applies only to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.

The ultimate goal of Resolution 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution's principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. Egypt had refused to enter direct talks with Israel and ultimately rejected Resolution 242.

Withdrawing from occupied territories
The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all" the territories occupied after the Six-Day war. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied.

If there are any doubts, the literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to further explain later Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution said, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."  Similarly, Ambassador Goldberg explained, "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."

Regardless Israel has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242. Since the Six-Day War Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979. Jordan and Egypt renounced their claims to Gaza and the West Bank Territories in 1979 and 1988. And Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Why these territories were captured
These territories were captured as a penalty to dissuade further aggression and to act as a buffer zone against future attacks.The Golan Heights in particular is important because it is the high ground. When Syria controlled the Golan Heights they used it shell Israel and snipe it's citizen's. Every time Israel has given up land, terrorists have used it to launch attacks against Israel as can been seen with Gaza and the Sinai peninsula today, which has become a terrorist hotbed.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 7

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 7

#7 – Israeli military action against its neighbors is only taken to defend itself against terrorism.

Claim: Israel is the aggressor, targets civilians. The PLO and HAMAS are the good guys.

The 1982 Lebanon War
The PLO is a terrorist organization. Their ranks included 15-18,000 members whose arsenal included mortars, Katyusha rockets, anti-aircraft networks, small arms, hundreds of T-34 tanks, and surface to air missiles. Lebanon was once regarded as “The Paris of the Middle East” until the PLO was kicked out of Jordan for starting a civil war and relocated to southern Lebanon only to start another civil war within Lebanon. The civil war was especially hard on the Lebanese Christians.


 On March 11, 1978 a squad of Palestinian terrorists from Lebanon hijacked a bus near Haifa. They drove south toward Tel Aviv, brutalizing the passengers and firing at passing cars. Dozens of Israel's were murdered and many more wounded. Israel had enough and launched Operation Litanti. This operation had two purposes, first to bring the incessant bombardments to Northern Israel to an end and second to relieve the beleaguered Christians of southern Lebanon and assist the Lebanese army leader Major Sa'ad Haddad to establish a security zone and keep the PLO from reoccupying the area.

Tired of the low-level war of attrition the PLO and Syrian proxy militias were waging from Southern Lebanon into Northern Israel, Operation Peace for Galilee began on June 6, 1982.  The goal was to push the PLO and Muslim forces toward Beirut, and out of artillery range of Northern Israel. The PLO repeatedly violated the July 1981 cease-fire agreement. In the ensuing 11 months, the PLO staged 270 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders.

“No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids.” -Henry Kissinger

Sabra and Shatila refugee camps
The claim that Israel bombed Sabra and Shatila killing 200 Palestinians seems to come solely from Noam Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle" (p.197), based upon an “eyewitness account” by an anti-Zionist propagandist in the PLO-sponsored Journal of Palestine Studies. There are no other sources to verify this claim. (Source:Ariel Center for Policy Research)

It was known that Sabra and Shatila were havens for terrorist activity. On September 14, 1982 Lebanese president Bashir Gemayel was assassinated. In retliation Israel had allowed Christian Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells. They did not know these Phalangists would massacre hundreds of people in the camp. Nevertheless Israel took responsibility for not anticipating the possibility of violence and dismissed the Army Chief of Staff. The Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon, also resigned.

 By contrast there was no outrage or responsibility taken when Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps and killed 635 people. Or Beit Mellat, Dier Achache, Damour Saadiyate, and many other peaceful cities and villages that were attacked by Palestinian and Syrian Muslims beginning in 1975. (Source:Jewish Virtual Library)

2008 Operation Cast Lead
In an effort for peace Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and resettled it's citizens, some of which by force, into Galilee or Negev.  Four settlements in the Northern West Bank were also dismantled. In yet another example of how land for peace doesn’t work, Israel was repaid with thousands of rockets fired out of Gaza over the next three years before Israel finally decided to respond. Operation Cast Lead began on December 27, 2008.

 Hamas agreed to a ceasefire on June 17, 2008. Despite the ceasefire rocket fire from Gaza never fully stopped and weapons smuggling was not halted by Hamas. On November 4 Israel destroyed a tunnel along the Gaza-Israeli border dug my militants to infiltrate Israel and abduct soldiers. This previously happened to Israeli solider Gilad Shalit in 2006. This was not an intent to break the ceasefire but deal with a specific and imminent threat.  On December 13, Israel announced that it favored extending the ceasefire as long as Hamas adhered to pre-conditions. However on December 18 Hamas declared an end of the ceasefire. (Source:The New York Times Nov 4th 2008)

“I say in all honesty, we made contact with leaders in Hamas in the Gaza Strip. We spoke with them in all honesty and directly, and after that we spoke with them indirectly, through more than one Arab and non-Arab side... We spoke with them on the telephone and we said: 'We beg of you, we hope that you won't break [the ceasefire.] As the [Egyptian foreign] Minister said: 'Don't break the ceasefire, the ceasefire must continue and not stop.' In order to avoid [violence] that has happened. If only we had avoided it.”  — PA President Mahmoud Abbas

The ceasefire was a temporary fix that was unstable.  Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel as outlined in their charter. This is the reason no amount of land or a Palestinian State will bring about peace. It’s the continual contesting of Israel's legitimacy that has led to wars and ensured there will be no peace.

 “The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war." -Benjamin Netanyahu

“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.” –Golda Mier

Civilian casualties
It has never been an Israeli policy to intentionally target civilians. Israel goes out of its way to warn civilians and minimize casualties.  In 2008’s Operation Cast Lead 81% of the bombs dropped were guided. Among the Israeli arsenal are inert bombs filled with cement or sand. While these bombs can still cause damage, they can’t explode and are specifically used in dense urban areas to reduce collateral damage. The Goldstone report admits that 99% of the Israeli bombs dropped during Operation Cast Lead hit their targets accurately. Israel also drops pamphlets, sends text messages, uses social media, and even calls people’s homes to warn them in advance of an attack, all at a strategic expense to Israel. This is far more than what any military does. While Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties it's priority is to protect it's own civilians first and foremost.


On the other hand Hamas does target innocent civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel. Hamas has intentionally launched attacks from densely populated areas including homes, schools, mosques, UN buildings, and hospitals. Hamas fired mortars near a UN-run shcool in Jabalya, which was being used as a shelter at the time. During Operation Cast Lead, the Hamas leadership was hiding in an underground bunker beneath the Shifa Hospital. Terrorist have consistently used civilians as human shields not only to deter Israeli attacks but as part of their propaganda campaign to demonize Israel. They have shown themselves to put their own people in harm’s way to achieve their objectives.

“We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be.” –(Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas), July 14, 2014) Source: The Right Scoop)


In 2014 during Operation Protective Edge, IDF forces discovered a Hamas manual on “Urban Warfare”, belonging to the Shuja’iya Brigade of Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades. The manual explains how to use civilians against the IDF and acknowledges the IDF tries to minimize civilian casualties. In a portion entitled “Limiting the Use of Weapons,” the manual explains that:

“The soldiers and commanders (of the IDF) must limit their use of weapons and tactics that lead to the harm and unnecessary loss of people and [destruction of] civilian facilities. It is difficult for them to get the most use out of their firearms, especially of supporting fire [e.g. artillery].”

Continuing on the manual explains that the “presence of civilians are pockets of resistance” cause three major problems for advancing troops: (1) Problems with opening fire, (2) Problems in controlling the civilian population during operations and afterward, (3) Assurance of supplying medical care to civilians who need it. Lastly it describes the benefits for Hamas of having civilian’s homes destroyed by the IDF:

“The destruction of civilian homes: This increases the hatred of the citizens towards the attackers [the IDF] and increases their gathering [support] around the city defenders (resistance forces[i.e. Hamas]).” (Source:IDF Blog)


The Goldstone Report
The Goldstone Report is often cited as documented evidence of Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the 2009 Goldstone Report contains many inaccuracies which are detailed in Alan Dershowitz’s article, "The Case Against The Goldstone Report". And in 2011 Richard Goldstone completely reversed the findings of his Goldstone report and now says, “That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying –  its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.” And of Israel he says, “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy”. Goldstone's mea culpa was published in a Washington Post article entitled “Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes - Apr 1 2011”.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 8

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 8

#8 – God gave the land to the Jews, so the Arabs are the occupiers.

Claim:Because the Jews didn't obey God's commandments they forfeit their rights to the land forever according to the Bible.

The most important verse, which Hammond left out, is Genesis 17:7-8 which says:

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you"

"Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."  (Gen 17:7-8)

The covenant that the God of Israel makes with Abraham and his decedents is an "everlasting" covenant, meaning it’s eternal. What needs to be understood is that there are seven "distinct" covenants in the bible, four of which relate to the nation of Israel. Three of those four are unconditional in nature. For instance in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 15:18-21, Gen 17:7-8), God gave the land to Abraham and his descendants with no preconditions. The Mosaic Covenant however, as the author points out, is conditional in nature and brings either blessings or cursing’s (Deu 11). Israel disobeyed the Mosaic Covenant and suffered the consequences, however it had no bearing on the Abrahamic covenant which is distinct and eternal. While continual possession of the land was dependent on their obedience, Deuteronomy 4:29-31, 30:1-10 makes it clear that if they turned back to God, He would not forget the covenant made with their ancestors. Moreover it was prophesied that:

*The Jews would be scattered from one end of the earth to the other (Deu 28:64-65). Jewish diaspora (or dispersion) began as early as the Babylonian exile in 597 BC. In 70 AD the Romans, under Titus, destroyed Jerusalem and the second temple. According to the 1st-century historian Josephus about 1.1 million Jews were killed. Jews would be scattered around the world for the next nearly 2000 years.

*They would be persecuted (Deu 28:64-65). Over the course of their diaspora the Jews endured numerous incidents of persecution and by many accounts are considered to be the most persecuted people in history. Miraculously, not only did they survive but managed to retain their unique cultural identities without having a homeland.

*The land would become desolate (Deu 29:21-24). In 1867 Mark Twain visiting Palestine wrote, "Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies. There is hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive and cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, have almost deserted the soil."

*The Jews would be re-gathered and become a nation again in one day (Eze 11:17, Isa 66:8). In centuries past this would have seemed inconceivable, yet on May 14th 1948 Israel was born in one day. This would come first as a physical restoration by unbelieving Jews through their human effort (Eze 36:8, Eze 36:24, Eze 37:8). A spiritual restoration would come later through the trials of the Great Tribulation (Eze 36:25-27, Hos 5:15, Zec 12:8-10, Dan 9:24).

On this point, although Israel is a secular nation it did not say they would be re-gathered in belief, that will come later. God says the he will not bring them back for their sake's- but for His great names sake (and His promises to Israel)- so that we will know that He is God. It's not that the Jews are righteous- but they are beloved- even though they kick against God. Consider David and Saul. Saul tried to kill David out of jealousy, but when David had a chance to kill Saul he didn't because he was God's anointed (even though Saul was clearly in the wrong). In the same way, even though many Jews might not even acknowledge God today and are doing wrong they are still God's anointed (or chosen) people.

*The land would flourish once again (Eze 36:35, Isa 27:6). Today Israel is one of two countries on earth that has more tree's today than it did 100 years ago.

*The Hebrew language would be revived (Zep 3:9). The Hebrew language began to decline in use as early as the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in the 6th century B.C. Even in the time of Jesus the predominant Semitic language was Aramaic. For thousands of years Hebrew was relegated to religious services and sacred texts. It wasn't until the late 1800's that Eliezer Ben-Yehudah became the driving force behind the revival of Hebrew as a common language. It was a rule in Ben-Yehudah's house to speak only Hebrew and he raised his son speaking Hebrew exclusively. From that one household Hebrew grew to became the official language of Israel. To this date Hebrew is the only successful instance of a complete language revival.

*Israel would be besieged with enemies (Ezekiel 38-39, Isaiah 17, Psalm 83, Zechariah 12, 14). This has been true since 1948. Every single neighboring country has attacked Israel at some point.

*Israel would survive against all odds (Amos 9:15).  All these things have happened.

Rather one believes this automatically entails that Israel has a right to the land is another debate altogether, but the theological argument that the disobedience of the Jews that led to their expulsion from the land forfeits their rights to it forever is not true.

There are at least three locations in Israel that should not be doubted as to who has ownership. Abraham made a land purchase of the Machpelah Cave and adjoining field in Hebron. (Gen 23). King David purchased Ornon's Threshing floor, which is the location of the Holy of Holies on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, (I Chronicles 21:18-30), and Jacob purchased Shechem from the sons of Hamor. (Gen 33:18-19)

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 9