/"palestine?"israel
the
factsbehind the
mythsby Frank D. Ranucci
Introduction
Throughout my study of the Arab-Israeli conflict over the course of several years I have found that there are many questions and misconceptions that are raised due to myths propagated through the media, and all too quickly believed to be facts. In more than one conversation I have had, the term "Israel/Palestine" was used when referring to Israel. Each time I was compelled to ask, "why do you add ‘Palestine,’ instead of just saying ‘Israel’?"
We are constantly hearing about the "Palestinians." Well, who are these people? And why is this region always referred to as "Palestine?" Why are Judea and Samaria always called the "West Bank?" Do we believe the media when they tell us that Israel is illegally occupying this land? Whose land is it, anyway? What is this unjust "Palestinian refugee problem" we are told about; and why is Israel always held responsible?
These are some of the issues we will address in this discussion, exposing the truth surrounding this conflict. As we examine these supposed "facts" we will prove them, in actuality, to be myths.
Before proceeding, I would like to clarify that while I hold the strong opinion that the Arab regimes are intent on destroying Israel, this does not mean that I have contempt for the Arab individual. We are dealing with leaders, regimes, and nations—not well-meaning individuals, whether living in the Middle East or here in the United States.
Even if the Arab people we personally know have no malice toward Israel, Yassar Arafat and other prominent leaders certainly do. This is evident through the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), as well as other Arab groups and nations. Yet Arafat is treated as a statesman, instead of the terrorist that he is. The Fatah wing of the PLO and the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, which we sometimes hear euphemistically referred to as "militia," are nothing more than terrorist groups.
As the US engages in its war against terrorism, Israel needs to be afforded the freedom to defend itself against these same terrorists, who are in fact their surrounding neighbors. All too often we hear how Israel is the aggressor...how Israel keeps causing the violence to escalate. We need to peel away the layers of anti-Semitic propaganda, thus revealing the facts behind the myths.
Just who exactly are these "Palestinians," anyway? And, what is "Palestine?"
After the Romans destroyed Israel in AD 70 they named the region Syria Palaestina, which encompassed present-day Israel and Jordan. The purpose of that label was to wipe away any Jewish connection while at the same time adding insult to injury, as this name was from Israel's arch enemy of old, the Philistines. Thus Palestine is nothing more then a region—not a nation. The "Palestinians" are Arabs, living along with Jews, in this region that the Romans dubbed "Palestine."
Originally all people living there, on both sides of the Jordan River—whether Jewish, Arab, or otherwise—were referred to as "Palestinians." Ironically, the Arabs hated it. They never liked to be associated with the term "Palestinian." Not until after the birth of Israel in 1948 did they desire to be called "Palestinians" and push this notion that they are a separate "Palestinian" people group. The international community has bought into this and is actually creating a new nation— a "Palestinian" state.
Accordingly, this people group in question is an Arab one even if society continues to call them "Palestinians." Many scholars, including Arab journalists, refute the notion of a "Palestinian" people. They point out that there are four elements that define a people group: culture, language, religion, and cuisine, all of which the "Palestinians" commonly share with other Arabs.
Even if one might find among the "Palestinians" some minor differences from other Arab populations, one can also find a similar situation with the Mexican-American population living in California. The fact is that they are still Mexicans living in the United States. Imagine if this Mexican-American population, which incidentally includes more people than the "Palestinians" living in the "West Bank," were to claim that the US was occupying their land and that they wanted their own Mexican state. That, of course, would be ludicrous. Now what if, after the US were to say, "No. You can live here but you can not have sovereignty," they started sending missiles, suicide bombers and snipers into the rest of the country?
These "Palestinians," then, are Arabs living in a region called "Palestine." Think of Siberia. It is not a country, nor is there a Siberian people group. Siberia is a region. The Sahara also is a region, thus there is no Saharan nation, nor a Saharan people.
The very fact that "Palestine" is a region, and not a country, enabled Britain to give the entire portion on the east side of the Jordan River to the Arabs in 1922. It is also the reason "Palestinian" self-determination was not permitted in the "West Bank" or Gaza when conquered by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. None of the Arab nations ever thought of the "Palestinians" as a separate people group, or considered that they should become their own distinct nation.
Emir Feisal of Syria signed an agreement in 1919 renouncing all claims to the area known as "Palestine." He said it "should be the territory of the Jews." In 1946 Professor Hitti, an Arab historian, stated that "there is absolutely no mention of a Palestine anywhere in Arab history." Zuhair Mohsen, a leader of the PLO in 1977, said that the "Palestinian" people did not exist as a separate entity, but that all belonged to the Arab people. He said the establishment of a "Palestinian" state was just a ploy to continue the struggle against Israel in the cause of Arab unity. This sentiment can also be found on Arafat’s official Fatah website: "A legitimate Palestinian entity forms the most important weapon that Arabs have against Israel."
There has never been in history any suggestion of a "Palestinian" state. Not until 1967, that is. Consider: during the entire time the Jordanians controlled the "West Bank," from 1948 to 1967, there was never the slightest mention of such a concept. The idea was not conceived yet. But once Israel regained control during the Six Day War in 1967, immediately there arose an outcry for a "Palestinian" state.
It should be noted that the Arabs already do have a "Palestinian" state. Of their 22 nations, one of them is in the region of "Palestine"— Jordan.
Dating back to 1917 the region came under British rule, and through the Balfour Declaration, Britain committed this land as a national Jewish homeland. They were then granted the British Mandate in 1920 at the San Remo Conference, again encouraging the establishment of a homeland. Then in 1922, the League of Nations officially ratified this agreement, granting this region as a homeland for the Jews. However, they ended up giving the portion which falls to the east of the Jordan River (77%) to the Arabs, calling it "Transjordan." The remaining 23% to the west of the river went to the Jews. Interestingly, no Jews were allowed to live in Transjordan even though the Jews did welcome Arabs to settle in their portion.
In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, also known as the Partition Plan, calling for the end of the British Mandate and the creation of a Jewish state. This resolution would have also awarded the Arabs some land on the west side - and they had already been given a far larger portion on the east side of the Jordan in 1922. The Jews accepted the Partition Plan, but the Arabs flatly rejected it. Consequently, when the state of Israel declared their independence in 1948, they were immediately invaded by five Arab states, leaving Judea and Samaria in the hands of Jordan (annexed as the "West Bank") and Gaza in the hands of Egypt.
Here is an interesting comment from a former legal adviser to the US State Department, Dr. Steven M. Schwebel. In the American Journal of International Law (Vol. 64, 1970), he writes: "The facts of the June 1967 Six Day War demonstrate that Israel acted defensively against the threat and use of force against her Arab neighbors. The facts of the 1948 hostilities between the Arab invaders of Palestine and the nascent state of Israel further demonstrate that Egypt's seizure of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan's seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem were unlawful."
Haven’t they lived on this land - the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel - for centuries?
Interestingly enough, most major news outlets—such as CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC—have pages on their websites devoted to supporting this Arab indigenous claim over the land. However, their earliest references do not, and in fact cannot, go back much farther than the early 1900's. This is even the case on the Palestinian Authority's own website.
The truth is there are scores of historical records that attest to the fact that this region, up until the 20th century, was practically empty. After visiting the land in 1835, Alphonse de Lamartine writes in Recollections of the East, "Outside the gates of Jerusalem we saw no living object, heard no living sound." Mark Twain, who visited the land in 1867, also stated in his book, The Innocents Abroad, "A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely. We never saw a human being on the whole journey." In 1857, the British Consul in Palestine reported, "The country is, in a considerable degree, empty of inhabitants, and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population."
According to the figures of the official Ottoman Turk census in 1882 there were only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab, in the entire land. By 1922, it skyrocketed to 650,000 Arabs—a 450% increase in only 40 years. By 1938, this shot up to over 1,000,000—an 800% increase in only 56 years! Where did all these Arabs come from? Clearly, it was not due to natural births; a natural growth rate such as this would be impossible. The historical answer is that the empirical evidence shows that they came from the neighboring states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.
The British Governor of the Sinai stated in 1922 that "illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria." In 1930, the British Mandate-sponsored Hope-Simpson Report noted that "unemployment lists are being swollen by immigrants from Trans-Jordania" and that "illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material." The Governor of the Syrian district Hauran, Tewfik Bey el Hurani, himself admitted in 1934 that in one instance 30,000 Syrians moved to the land of Israel in a span of only a few months. Winston Churchill said in 1939, "...far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied." Malcolm MacDonald, a contemporary of Churchill, and one of the chief authors of the British White Paper—a document which actually restricted Jewish immigration into the land— admitted that if it weren't for the presence of the Jews, the Arab population would have been about half of what it was.
A better description of what transpired, then, is that this land had become a desolate wasteland through the course of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 to 1917. At that time the Jezreel Valley was a swampland infested with mosquitoes, rampant with Malaria. Trees were very sparse in the land, as foretold ages ago by the prophet Ezekiel. While describing the desolation of the land, Ezekiel also spoke of its restoration—the beginning of the Zionist Movement, pioneered in the late 1800's by Theodore Herzl. He and many other Jews purchased enormous amounts of land from absentee Arab landowners, who gladly sold it—that seemingly "worthless" wasteland—thinking they were taking advantage of the Jews. Through the Jews' hard work over the years to follow however, the land was transformed from desolation to a flourishing, fertile, productive land, just as Ezekiel had prophesied. And this transformation is what precipitated the massive influx of Arab immigration into the land of Israel.
The Arabs are certainly not indigenous to the land of Israel. Arafat himself, this self-declared leader of the "Palestinian" people, has always claimed to have been born and raised in "Palestine." However, we now know that he was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt. Another example is Edward Said, an Ivy League Professor of Literature, and a major Palestinian propagandist, who has always claimed to have been raised in Jerusalem. But Justus Reid Weiner revealed in the Sept. 1999 issue of Commentary Magazine that he also grew up in Cairo, which Edward later admitted to be true.
Isn’t it true that it is not the intent of the Israelis to destroy the Palestinians, nor the intent of the Palestinians to destroy the Israelis?
While it is true that it is not the intent of the Israelis to destroy the "Palestinians," the "Palestinians" certainly do intend to destroy Israel. This is a well-established goal of the Arab regimes and of Islam. In Arafat's own words, "we will drive them [the Jews] into the sea like rats." The PLO Charter contains language which calls for the destruction of Israel. Such phraseology, in clear violation of the Oslo Accords, has still not been revoked. The PA-controlled radio and television are constantly airing hateful, anti-Semitic broadcasts, inciting violence against Jews. This is also done via sermons at the mosques, and taught throughout Arabic school textbooks, found in the classrooms of young children. A common practice during elementary school graduations is the parading of children dressed up as suicide bombers. One can also find posters of suicide bombers, who are honored and emulated as martyrs, adorning the walls of school hallways and classrooms. The fact is that there is much violent, anti-Semitic, sentiment inculcating the Arab population, which also grossly violates their obligation under the Oslo Accords.
Arafat and other PLO officials have made it clear that they have no intentions of a two-state solution. Their goal is that there be only one state on the west side of the Jordan River—a "Palestinian" one— and no Israel. The very presence of a Jewish state is an affront to Islam. They must eradicate it.
In 1974, Arafat presented to his council what is known as the Phased Plan, which means "plan of stages." The idea is to take a small piece of land, then use it as a foothold to in turn launch further attacks, eventually seizing all the land. Even when Arafat signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, it was understood to be a trojan horse. In fact, in a speech on Jordanian television later that very day, Arafat told his people, "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." Just as Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia was merely an initial step toward the goal of conquering all of Czechoslovakia, the procurement of the "West Bank" is viewed by Arafat and his Palestinian Authority (PA) with the same insidious intent.
Former US ambassador Malcolm Toon said, "If you want to know what leaders of non-democratic regimes really believe, don't listen to their declarations to western statesmen and journalists, but to what they say among themselves." At a meeting with the leaders of Fatah and members of the security apparatus in July 2001, Arafat said, "Do not pay attention to what I say to the media, on television, or in public appearances. Pay attention only to the written instructions that you receive from me."
Consider the maxim which says that if you repeat a lie often enough and long enough, people will accept it as truth. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler built upon this to set forth the "Big Lie" concept : "In the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts, which prove this to be so, may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waiver and will continue to think there is some other explanation."
What about the refugees? Aren’t they mistreated? And shouldn’t they be awarded the "right of return?"
When we hear how the "Palestinians" were allegedly driven from their homes by the Israelis during the War of Independence, we are not getting the whole story. The so-called refugee problem among the "Palestinians" should not even be an issue, nor the notion that Israel is the cause of it.
Even before Israel officially became a state in 1948, "Palestinian" Arabs were fleeing their homes voluntarily. Approximately 30,000 wealthy Arabs left because they did not want to get caught in the crossfire. Many had other homes in Tunisia, Egypt, or Morocco. Less affluent Arabs went to all-Arab villages to stay with relatives. They left in droves because leaders of the surrounding Arab states warned them of the approaching carnage, which would occur as their invading armies slaughtered the Jews. They were assured that after a quick victory they could return to their homes.
By January of 1948, so many Arabs were fleeing the region that the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee stopped issuing visas to the refugees, and sealed their borders. While their own Arab leaders were urging their people to leave, the Israelis were actually encouraging them to remain in the land, and peacefully co-exist. They drove through the streets of Arab neighborhoods with loudspeakers, urging them to "remain in your homes, live in peace, and become productive citizens of the new state of Israel." They were warned that if they left, they might lose their homes—contrary to what the Arab leaders were telling them.
On October 7, 1947, the Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued an appeal which stated, "We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both, Jews and Arabs. It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish state, and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals."
On November 29, 1947, the UN voted to partition the land into two independent states—one Jewish, and one Palestinian (Resolution 181). The "Palestinians" were actually going to get their own state. However, refusing to accept the existence of a Jewish state, the Arab leaders rejected the plan. Despite this rejection, soon to be Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion told his Labor party on December 3, 1947, "In our state there will be non-Jews as well—and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is, the state will be their state as well."
In Israel’s Proclamation of Independence, issued on May 14, 1948, it states: "In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the state of Israel to preserve the ways of peace, and play their part in the development of the state, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions… We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all."
So, for one to say that the Arab refugee situation is Israel’s fault would be incorrect. Culpability for its immediate cause would more accurately fall on the Arabs than the Jews; when the Arabs rejected the Partition Plan and subsequently invaded the nascent Jewish state, intent on destroying it—all the while encouraging their fellow Arabs to leave—they created their own refugees. As for the perpetuation of the "refugee problem," we will see that this too was, and still is, due to the Arabs—not the Jews.
There were roughly 650,000 Arabs who fled the land during 1948. Today we hear this figure as an exploded 5,000,000! The Arab nations are actually redefining what constitutes a "refugee." They are including the children and grandchildren of the original 650,000. This clearly is opposed to the internationally accepted definition of "refugee," according to both the 1951 UN Convention regarding the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol, neither of which make any mention of descendents. Thus, the international community is granting this exception to the "Palestinians"—never before granted to any other population—an exception which would allow millions of Arabs to "return" to a land on which they have never set foot. The figure was also inflated by including any Arab who had lived there for only two years before leaving, which again falls outside of the accepted definition of "refugee."
A fact we hear nothing about is the estimated 800,000 Jewish refugees who fled Arab lands during this same time period. Every one of them was accepted and assimilated into either the newly established Jewish state or other nations. This is in stark contrast to the refusal of the wealthy, oil-rich Arab nations to take in their fellow Arabs.
Additionally, one should consider that refugee situations and population transfers have been very common in history—e.g., the resettlement of 800,000 Turks and 2,000,000 Greeks by Turkey and Greece in 1923. In 1945, Poland and Czechoslovakia arranged the resettlement of 3,000,000 Germans.
Also, from Encyclopaedia Britannica: "The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the post-revolutionary civil war (1917-21) caused the exodus of 1,500,000 opponents of communism. Between 1915 and 1923 over 1,000,000 Armenians left Turkish Asia Minor, and several hundred thousand Spanish Loyalists fled to France in the wake of the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War. When the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, more than 2,000,000 Chinese fled to Taiwan and to the British crown colony of Hong Kong. Between 1945 and 1961, the year that the communist regime erected the Berlin Wall (opened 1989), over 3,700,000 refugees from East Germany found asylum in West Germany… The partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 resulted in the exchange of 18,000,000 Hindus from Pakistan and Muslims from India —the greatest population transfer in history… During the 1980’s and early ‘90s, the principal source of the world’s refugees was Afghanistan, where the Afghan War (1978-92) caused more than 6,000,000 refugees to flee to the neighboring countries of Pakistan and Iran. Iran also provided asylum for 1,400,000 Iraqi refugees who had been uprooted as a result of the Persian Gulf War (1990-91)."
There is no reason for this ongoing "Palestinian" refugee problem, other than its perpetuation by their own affluent leaders. The "refugees" are merely pawns used by the Arab regimes to help garner international sympathy in their effort to destroy Israel. These regimes have complete disregard for the impoverished lives of the "refugees." While the unscrupulous leaders amass enormous personal wealth, their own people are left to fall deeper and deeper into squalor.
The international community has also helped perpetuate the "refugee" problem. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which normally finds homes for refugee groups around the world, does nothing for the "Palestinians." In fact, a special agency—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)—was established to handle this group. This agency’s purpose is essentially to keep the "Palestinians" in the refugee camps! With all their wealth, all the Arab nations combined contribute a scant 5% of the agency’s budget. If that weren’t astounding enough, it is not really known just how much of this money— millions, in fact—ever reaches the refugees, since these funds conveniently fall under the Palestinian Authority, which does not allow any independent auditing. And all of this notwithstanding mention of all the corruption among the leaders, the siphoning of funds, the awarding of thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers, the usage of the camps for terrorist training grounds and weapons manufacturing, etc., all of which are ongoing events.
In a further show of fairness to the "Palestinian" people, Israel has spent millions of dollars piping fresh water into their villages throughout the "West Bank" and have assisted with farming, irrigation and sanitation—all free of charge. They have also set up a checkpoint on the Lebanese border, which for years has allowed Arabs to enter Israel and receive treatment at the local government hospital, again with no charge. The undeniable fact is that the "Palestinian" people have actually suffered more—and still do—at the hands of their fellow Arabs than they have from the Israelis.
As for the "right of return" they also claim to have, here too is an absurd demand, for which there is no justification. Their unwarranted claim for yet another Arab (Palestinian) state aside, the Arab leaders also seem to think that these "refugees" should be allowed to crowd into the tiny state of Israel, instead of being assimilated into any or all of the other 22 Arab nations! Clearly, this is an unreasonable demand, at very least.
During the Camp David Summit in July of 2000, Yassar Arafat again turned down another overly generous offer by then Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He offered to give these "Palestinians" an astounding 97% of the "West Bank" (the Jewish heartland) along with the eastern part of Jerusalem as their capital, and Gaza. But once again, this was not enough for Arafat, who would only have been satisfied with permission granted to flood the Jewish state of Israel with the 5 million so-called "refugees"—hence, the "right of return." When Barak refused this ludicrous demand, Arafat broke off negotiations and began the still-ongoing intifada (uprising)—his war against Israel.
Since the Arabs have had no success with their attempts to destroy the nation of Israel through military means, they have adopted more insidious tactics which include the "right of return," as described above. This strategy would completely subvert the demographics of the Jewish state of Israel. As author and peace advocate Amos Oz astutely noted, "Implementing the ‘right of return’ means eradicating Israel." This is one demand to which Israel must never capitulate; it would be demographic suicide.
Some will appeal to UN Resolution 194, which was passed in the midst of the War of Independence on December 11, 1948, in an attempt to buttress their claim to the "right of return." However, there are several points needing to be addressed, which prove this claim to be unfounded. Resolution 194 was passed by the UN General Assembly which, unlike a Security Council Resolution, is not legally binding. Its primary purpose was not that of assisting the refugees but rather one of achieving peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Only one paragraph speaks of refugees in general, whether Jews or Arabs—not exclusively Arabs. The hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees driven from the Arab states would then be deemed eligible for the same benefits received by the Arabs.
At the time, because the language of the Resolution placed some of the burden for achieving a solution on the Arab states, they actually voted unanimously against it. It also equated the resolution of the refugee issue with the attainment of Arab-Israeli peace, a status they cannot accept; they cannot accept the very existence of Israel. In addition, it presented "resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees" as another viable option, in lieu of "return," which the Arabs did not view as palpable. Resolution 194 makes no mention of "rights," but merely gives recommendations. It does, however, set forth one stipulation for any would-be refugee who returns, namely, that they be "willing to live in peace with their neighbors." In light of the overwhelming support of terrorism among the "Palestinian" population through its many faces: the anti-Semitic incitements, the daily inculcation of hateful sentiment toward Israel, and the emulation of suicide bombers, we can conclude with confidence that this would not be a possibility.
Later came UN Resolution 242, in the wake of the Six Day War of 1967, which again makes no reference to any "rights" of return. Nor does it even refer to Resolution 194, but merely affirms the need "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem."
The fact is that the Arab states engaged in an illegal war of aggression against the fledgling state of Israel in 1948. Ever since, they have been clamoring and demanding that they be compensated for their consequential misfortune which, through their own aggression, they brought upon themselves in the first place. Imagine if the defeated Nazi Germany had demanded reparations from the United States or Britain after WWII.
Since the Arab leadership today, while demanding their own "Palestinian" state, continuous also to claim the right for unlimited immigration into the Jewish state of Israel—which would undermine the very identity of Israel as the Jewish homeland—they are in effect derailing any prospects for peace.
Concerning the refugees and the "right of return," one can provide a summation of the situation in the following comment made in October of 1949 by the Egyptian politician, Muhammad Salah al-Din. Soon to become foreign minister, he stated in the Egyptian daily Al-Misri, "...in demanding the restoration of the refugees to Palestine, the Arabs intend that they shall return as the masters of the homeland and not as slaves. More specifically, they intend to annihilate the state of Israel."
Aren’t the Israelis "occupying" Arab territory with "illegal settlements?"
Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and in Gaza is often erroneously referred to as an "occupation." This claim, however, has no basis in either international law or in any agreements between Israel and the "Palestinians."
Occupation occurs in territories that have been taken from a recognized sovereign. From 1948 to 1967, the Jordanian rule and Egyptian rule over the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively, were the results of a war of aggression, in which they seized these lands from the newly established state of Israel. These invasions violated UN Resolution 181 thereby rendering them illegitimate—never recognized by the international community. Since these territories had no prior legitimate sovereigns, they therefore can not be considered "occupied," but merely "disputed" at best.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 is often cited to support this claim of "occupation." However, when we analyze the language and the context of the Resolution, again we find this to be faulty. The architects of Resolution 242 realized—and rightly so—that the pre-1967 borders of Israel were indefensible. They deliberately chose such wording as "withdrawal from territories," and not "from all territories," or even "from the territories," leaving open the possible need to change any future borders. Actually, Israel has withdrawn from some territory: they handed over the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979, when the Egyptians signed a peace treaty with Israel.
While the Arab regimes continue to demand that Israel unilaterally withdraw from more territory, they also ignore such injunctions of Resolution 242 calling for the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency," and the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." As seen through the course of this discussion, the "Palestinians" clearly do not meet the requirements of the former, which in turn makes it impossible for Israel to experience the latter.
Another claim is that Israel’s presence in these territories is the cause of the present conflict. Once again, this completely ignores the historical facts. "Palestinian" violence against Israel was present long before Israel’s control of the "West Bank" and Gaza began in 1967. In fact, it even predated the birth of the state of Israel itself in 1948.
While these occurrences are far too numerous to mention in entirety, a few examples are as follows: the anti-Jewish riots in 1920-1921; the massacre in Hebron in 1929; the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939; the joint invasion in 1948. Then in 1952, there were about 3,000 incidents of cross-border violence. From 1951-1955, 503 Israelis were killed by Arab terrorists from Jordan, 358 were killed in attacks originating from Egypt, and 61 were killed through attacks coming from Syria and Lebanon. On April 11, 1956, terrorists opened fire on a synagogue filled with children in Shafrir, killing 4 and wounding 5 others. Terrorists from Jordan killed 4 archeologists and wounded 16 others near Kibbutz Ramat Rachel, on Sept. 23, 1956. And on May 26, 1958, 4 Israeli police officers were killed by terrorists from Jordan on Mt. Scopus in Jerusalem.
As for the Israeli settlements, which are basically communities, the claim that they are illegal and should therefore be removed is absolutely reprehensible. This is merely another tactic in the attempt to make the area judenrein (free from Jews) following the Nazi model—as Jordan tried to accomplish between 1948 and 1967. During those years, the Jordanian Arabs profaned and destroyed Jewish holy places, while at the same time making it a capitol offense to sell any land to Jews. It should be noted that despite the mistreatment and murder of the Jews, and the desecration and destruction of Jewish property that took place at the hands of the Jordanians during that time period—after the Israelis regained control of the area in 1967, their treatment of the Arabs proved to be the very antithesis of the treatment they received. They afford the Arab population local autonomy, access to higher education, full citizenship, and a higher standard of living than any of their neighboring Arab states!
Some people allege that the Jewish settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." However, as we have seen above, the Fourth Geneva Convention technically does not apply to the "West Bank" or Gaza since these territories can not be considered "occupied." Moreover, the Convention was framed following WWII, during which there were enormous forced population transfers taking place. The intention of Article 49, which was entitled "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations," was to protect the local population from displacement by prohibiting forced transfers of civilians. Yet Israel has not forced any civilian transfers to these territories, nor does the Convention prohibit individuals from voluntarily choosing where to reside. Furthermore, these controversial settlements do not displace any Arab population.
The Jewish settlements are also said to violate the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, which prohibits unilateral steps that would alter the status of the "West Bank" and Gaza. However, this prohibition on such unilateral action was intended to prevent either side from making any change in the legal status of this territory. If the construction of homes were to fall into this prohibition, then either side would be restricted from building to accommodate the needs of their growing community. This was clearly not the intent.
As we have already seen, the right for Jews to settle in all parts of the land of Israel was recognized by the international community in 1917 with the beginning of the British Mandate, as stated in the Balfour Declaration. This right is again apparent in 1922 in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, whose express purpose was one of providing the ancient heartland of the Jews as a national Jewish homeland. Article 6 of the Mandate specifically calls for "close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands not required for public use." It should be noted that the "West Bank," which should more accurately be regarded as Judea and Samaria, is the very same area referred to by the prophet Ezekiel as the "mountains of Israel;" it was, and needs to remain, the very heartland of the Jewish nation of Israel.
In conclusion, as we consider the issues surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict we need to be cognizant of the enormity of the "Palestinian" propaganda machine, which is alive and intent on turning the world against Israel—and ultimately eradicating it. The mainstream media, together with much of the international community, have bought into this "big lie" regarding the phantom "Palestinians."
At the time of this writing, the nations are actually lending credence to the idea of awarding this non-existent people group their own nation. There is much concern put forth today—and effort expended—in the hopes of creating a "Palestinian" state. The US, UN, EU, and Russia (the Quartet) have been attempting to bring this about through their "Road Map" to peace. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is currently planning to unilaterally withdraw—evacuate the Jewish population—from Gaza and parts of the "West Bank" in yet another desperate attempt to end the terrorist attacks against Israel. This would only give their enemy a stronger foothold from which to continue their zealous efforts to destroy them.
Perhaps world leaders today who persist in forcing this formula of "land for peace" upon Israel need to be reminded of God’s thoughts regarding this matter, as He declared through His prophet Joel:
I will gather all the nations…I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance,
Israel, whom they have scattered among the Nations; and they have divided up My land
. (Joel 3:2)
Bibliography
Archbold, Norma Parrish. The Mountains of Israel: the Bible and the West Bank. Zola Levitt Ministries, 2002.
Bar-Illan, David; Helprin, Mark; Pipes, Daniel; Steinitz, Yuval. The Middle East Peace Process: an Autopsy. Encounter Books, 2002.
Hunt, Dave. A Cup of Trembling: Jerusalem and Bible Prophecy. Harvest House Publishers. 1995.
Kitson, Hugh. Jerusalem: the Covenant City. Hatikvah Ltd., 2000.
Netanyahu, Benjamin. A Durable Peace: Israel and its Place Among the Nations. Warner Books, 2000.
Peters, Joan. From Time Immemorial: the Origin of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine. JKAP Publications, 2001.
Price, Dr. Randall. Fast Facts on the Middle East Conflict. Harvest House Publishers, 2002.
Twain, Mark. The Innocents Abroad. Literary Classics of the United States, New York, 1984.
The American Jewish Committee
; www.ajc.orgThe Christian Jew Foundation; www.cjf.org
Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME); www.factsandlogic.org
International Christian Embassy Jerusalem; www.icej.org
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs; www.mfa.gov.il
Maoz Israel Ministries; www.maozisrael.org
Senate Floor Statement by US Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Ok), March 4, 2002; www.senate.gov/~inhofe
September, 2004