Frequently Asked QuestionsConsular Services  Do Irish citizens need a visa to Israel? | Irish citizens do not require a visa if travelling as a tourist or as part of a business trip. A range of other visas are available for study and official purposes. Further information is available at our Consular Services page.
| | |
What are your working hours? What is the difference between an embassy and a consulate? Basically, both embassies and consulates are a government tool to interact with other countries, cultivate political alliances, maintain cultural and trade relationships, and facilitate travel between citizens of their territories.
An embassy is usually a country’s primary diplomatic representation to another; it is thus usually located in the capital city of the host territory. However, sometimes, as in Benin, the capital (Porto-Novo) is not the location of the seat of government (Cotonou). In others, a country may choose for political reasons to maintain its embassy in a city other than the host-country’s capital. Here, the ambassador serves as the chief spokesperson and representative for his/her country towards the host country, taking active part in the preparation of treaties, arranging state visits from high-ranking officials, and protecting the rights of their citizens who reside in the host country.
Consulates, on the other hand, undertake primarily administrative duties such as processing visas for citizens of their host territory providing information and guidance about immigration processes, replacing or renewing passports, and other general assistance for citizens of their country residing in the host state, and updating security advice about the local area.
Most embassies will also include a consular section, and – indeed, the local ambassador may, in fact, serve also as a consul. Moreover, whereas most governments establish only one embassy in a foreign country, they may have more than one consulate there, as in the United States, where Israel, for example, has consulates in several cities – primarily for convenience of service throughout a relatively large geo-political region. In fact, some consuls in such areas serve as consul generals – serving some ambassadorial functions towards the local governments of that state.
Sometimes, similar tasks – though not those of a consul – may be carried out by honorary consuls, who receive no salary but perhaps expense allowances to serve as an iconic representative for a country, organizing mainly cultural events and promoting cultural and economic relations.
| | |
| The Israeli- Arab ConflictHow can peace be achieved? Israel has always been willing to compromise and all Israeli governments have been willing to make major sacrifices for the sake of peace. However, peacemaking requires concessions as well as confidence-building measures on both sides. Just as Israel is willing to address the rights and interests of the Palestinians, Israel has legitimate rights and interests that need to be addressed. Peace can only be achieved through negotiations to bridge gaps and resolve all outstanding issues.
Israel believes that it can make peace with a moderate Palestinian leadership that rejects terrorism. When in the past, Israel met Arab leaders, like President Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, who spoke the language of peace and were willing to take concrete steps for coexistence, Israel reached agreements with them and peace was achieved. Israel is willing to stand in peace with all the moderate states of the region.
For negotiations to be possible and for them to have a chance to succeed, Palestinian terrorism and incitement, supported by countries such as Iran and Syria, must be brought to an end. Extremist Palestinian elements, such as Hamas, are unwilling to recognize Israel's very right to exist, and continue to violently act against Israel, against the moderate Palestinian leadership and against the peace process. As such, they have no place at the negotiating table.
Dismantling the terrorist infrastructure is not only the first step in the Roadmap, it is also at the foundation of any peace process. Peacemaking requires the creation of a positive atmosphere, one that is free of terrorism and incitement, and one that promotes efforts to achieve mutual understanding. Israel has on many occasions taken steps to help improve Palestinian living conditions and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian economy. Israel has made - and is willing to make in the future - goodwill gestures towards the moderate Palestinian camp - such as easing movement by removing road barriers, transferring tax revenues and releasing prisoners. Israel is ready to take many such steps provided that Israeli security is not harmed and that the Palestinians do not respond with terrorism.
Attempts by the Palestinians and the Arab countries to compel Israel to accept unreasonable Palestinian demands will not bring the parties any closer to peace. It is very important that the Arab states do not support hard-line Palestinian positions, making it ever more difficult for the Palestinians themselves to make the necessary compromises.
Positive steps taken by the Arab countries would help generate a constructive atmosphere, as would re-energizing the multilateral contacts which seek to promote regional cooperation. Forward movement and cooperation on issues that affect the lives of all who live in the region would contribute psychologically to tackling the difficult political issues that need to be addressed and resolved.
UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which all parties in the region have accepted, provide an important outline for conducting negotiations on a permanent settlement. Israel has also supported implementation of the measures of the Roadmap. But the Roadmap will work only if the Palestinians fulfill their obligations, something they have not truly begun to do, especially when it comes to dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and ending incitement, as required in the first phase of the Roadmap.
Finally, peace must mean the resolution of all claims and the end of the conflict. Once a peace agreement is reached, a new leaf must be turned and the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Israel's relationship with all its neighbors must be put on a new footing, one characterized by dialogue and cooperation, rather than by antagonism and confrontation.
| | |
What is Israel's position on a Palestinian state? Time after time, Israel has stated its desire to see two states - the State of Israel and a Palestinian state - living side by side in peace and security (as expressed in US President Bush's vision of 24 June 2002). Israel believes that a true resolution of the conflict will see two national states, a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people and a Jewish state for the Jewish people. Israel has no desire to rule over the Palestinians, and believes that a truly democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state.
Israel has no qualms regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state, per se. The only issue is what kind of Palestinian state should be established. Will it be a democratic state of law and order, which eschews terrorism, violence and incitement and therefore be a state with which Israel can live in peace? Or will it be an anarchic state that is continuing on the path of violence and terrorism, which will not only endanger Israel but the stability of the region as a whole?
Israel cannot abide the establishment of a terrorist state along its borders. Efforts towards establishing a Palestinian state must take Israel's rights and vital interests into account, especially on matters of security, so that there can be peace and stability in the region.
Israel’s goal of being a democratic Jewish state, living in harmony with its neighbors, led it to embrace the vision of two states for two peoples as resolved by the United Nations' partition plan in 1947. Israel realized that the peoples of the Middle East are neighbors whose futures are inevitably linked. No peace will last that fails to take this into account.
It has taken nearly 60 years, and far too many wars, for this vision to be recognized by Israel’s immediate neighbors, the Palestinians. Events following the Hamas takeover of Gaza suggest that the time has never been more appropriate to finally realize this vision.
The establishment of Israel answered the historic national aspirations of the Jewish people - whether those living in the Holy Land, fleeing the horrors of the Holocaust or expelled from Arab lands. The future Palestinian state must fill a similar purpose for Palestinians. It must be the embodiment of the national claims of all the Palestinian people - of those in the West Bank and Gaza, of those refugee camps in neighboring Arab states and of those living throughout the rest of the world.
Israel has a vested interest, shared by moderates throughout the region, in the creation of a stable, prosperous, and peaceful Palestinian state. As demonstrated by its disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Israel is ready to take painful steps to advance this goal. However, it must know that its partners are ready also for historic compromise that will bring lasting peace.
| | |
How does Israel view the Roadmap? The Roadmap is a performance-based plan that was formulated by the members of the Quartet - the United States, the European Union, Russia and the UN. On May 25, 2003 the Government of Israel accepted the steps set out in the Roadmap in the hopes that this initiative could help achieve a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. However, the Palestinians did not live up to their obligations under the first phase of the Roadmap, primarily the "unconditional cessation of violence."
Israel attaches importance to President Bush's June 24, 2002 vision for achieving peace, as expressed also in the Roadmap. In that speech, President Bush emphasized that achieving the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace requires, as a critical first stage, Palestinian reform and an end to Palestinian terrorism.
Israel's acceptance of the steps of the Roadmap is yet another expression of Israel's willingness to extend its hand toward peace. Indeed the Government's decision reflects a readiness to make profound compromises in order to end the conflict, provided these compromises did not endanger Israel's security in any manner. Furthermore, subject to security conditions, Israel wants to contribute to the improvement of Palestinian life and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian economy.
However, the Roadmap itself and Israel's willingness to move forward require that the Palestinians also live up to their obligations at each and every phase. Of critical significance is the requirement in the first phase of the Roadmap that the Palestinians undertake an "unconditional cessation of violence" by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, confiscating weapons, and arresting and disrupting those involved in conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere. The Palestinians also have to end incitement.
By its own acceptance of the Roadmap, the Palestinian Authority undertook an obligation to end terrorism and incitement in the manner required by the Roadmap.
However, Israel chose not to wait for the conclusion of the first phase of the Roadmap to begin a dialogue with the moderate Palestinian leadership. Still, the execution of any agreement reached between Israel and the Palestinians depends on implementation of the Roadmap.
| | |
What are the three circles of the peace process? In the political process, it is possible to recognize three distinct circles of actors, each one of which is designed to support the other. The first innermost circle contains the direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians; the second consists of the Arab world; while the third, the most external one, is that of the international community.
In the innermost circle of the Israeli and the Palestinians, which is the core of the conflict, the main obstacle to peace is the extremist elements that refuse to abandon the path of violence and commit to a peaceful resolution. On the other side stand the moderates, with whom it may be possible to reach an agreement if they are willing to compromise, but who also face a questionable ability to implement any agreement.
Israel's strategy is one of differentiation, i.e. dealing differently with Hamas-controlled Gaza than with the more moderate Palestinian Authority headed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. The new PA government has seemingly accepted the three conditions of the international community - the renunciation of violence, respect for previous agreements and acceptance of Israel's rights to exist - making it a potential partner for peace. Therefore, Israel is searching for tools for bolstering the moderate elements, which include financial assistance, security matters, the easing of living conditions and the creation of a "political horizon," a vision of what the Palestinians can achieve if they renounce violence and terrorism.
In the middle circle stands the Arab world, which now must take sides on this issue. However, it is no longer a matter of choosing between Israel and the Palestinians, rather the choice is between the side of the moderate Palestinian Authority and the side of extremist terrorist elements. The Arab world should support the pragmatic elements in the new Palestinian government and reject the extremist Hamas organization. If it does so, then the Arab world can play a significant role in the peace process.
In the past, there was a lack of involvement of constructive regional actors to assist in Israel-Palestinian peace-making. The Arab League proposal represents an opportunity for positive regional engagement.
The third circle - that of the international community - has already begun to play a positive role when the Quartet (the US, UN, Russia and the EU) adopted its three conditions for recognition: renunciation of violence, respect for previous agreements and acceptance of Israel's right to exist (Israel believes this should include Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state). It further showed its commitment by supporting the Annapolis meeting. The international community should choose to stay on the right side of the conflict between extremists and moderates, by maintaining the illegitimacy of Hamas, promoting relations with the new government formed by Mahmoud Abbas and also by giving the Palestinians an economic horizon, in addition to the political horizon that Israel can provide.
| | |
How has the Hamas takeover of Gaza affected the chances for a Palestinian State? Israel left Gaza in the summer of 2005 in order to create an opportunity for peace. It removed its armed forces, dismantled civilian settlements, yet left greenhouses for the Palestinian farmers in the hope this could be the beginning of a peaceful Palestinian state. But, instead of a flourishing peace, Israel received a hostile territory on its border: Israeli towns adjacent to Gaza are the targets of almost daily Kassam rocket attacks, terror attacks are frequently attempted and the terrorist infrastructure is growing at an alarming pace.
Despite this ongoing Hamas terrorism, Israel will maintain an ongoing dialogue with Palestinian moderates, in order to send the message to the Palestinians that if the moderates are the representatives of their national aspirations, they can achieve a state of their own.
Israel's guiding principle is that of differentiating between the moderates and the extremists, between those who are willing and ready to advance the peace process and those whose ideology is based on extremism and religious fanaticism and who treat even their own people with the utmost brutality. Israel hopes that the former will prevail, yet ultimately, the choice must be made by the Palestinians themselves.
While Hamas terrorists continue to target Israelis, they have also brought tragedy to Palestinians. As events in Gaza have shown, while the terrorists may claim to be advancing Palestinian rights, they have succeeded only in undermining them.
It is self-evident that the future Palestinian state cannot be a terrorist state. For this reason, the international community has insisted that the path to Palestinian statehood goes through acceptance of the Quartet principles, including the renunciation of terrorism, the implementation of the Roadmap obligations and recognition of Israel's right to exist. These are the foundational principles for lasting peace.
The role of the Arab world in this context is critical. In the past, the involvement of constructive regional actors in assisting the process of Israeli-Palestinian peace-making was lacking. The recent landmark Arab League peace initiative presents just such an opportunity for positive regional engagement.
Nevertheless, there should be no illusions. The enemies of coexistence, led by Iran and its sponsorship of Hizbullah and Hamas, are trying to do all in their power to sabotage any prospect for peace. The Teheran regime, in its declared intention to “wipe Israel off the map,” has perverted Islam into a totalitarian political manifesto merely masquerading as a religion. It is determined to perpetuate a resolvable conflict into a future of despair. Syria, as well, is undermining Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, through its support of terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whose operational headquarters are located in Damascus.
There is no insurmountable conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather, there is a common denominator in the desire for peace, supported by all moderate states in the region that understand that the real threat to peace comes from the extremist states that support terrorism.
There are moderates in the Palestinian Authority who could be Israel’s partners for peace, who believe a future Palestinian state should be based on democracy and understanding - as opposed to the extremists, whose basic totalitarian idea is to deprive others of their rights.
While Israel will continue to defend its population against Hamas terrorism, it is ultimately the role of the moderates among the Palestinians to confront Hamas.
| | |
Could a Hamas-Fatah unity government be a partner for peace? When the Hamas government first came into power, Hamas' statements advocating violence, opposing a two-state solution, and denying Israel's right to exist, as well as its direct involvement in terrorism, served to prompt the international Quartet (comprised of the US, Europe, Russia and the UN) to set three conditions for any Palestinian government to attain international legitimacy and cooperation. These basic conditions are: recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism and violence, and accepting previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap.
The international community has demanded that any Palestinian government must be committed to these three conditions and that "it should contain no member" who has not committed to them. Therefore, a unity government, which would include the extremists of Hamas, could not be a partner to peace.
The conditions set out by the Quartet, which Hamas continues to reject, are not obstacles to peace, but rather the basic tests by which the international community can determine whether a Palestinian government is capable of being a side to peace negotiations.
Were any government which refuses to meet these basic principles for peace to receive international legitimacy and support, this would be a grave setback for prospects of peace, and a betrayal of the genuine moderates, on both sides of the conflict, who truly believe in a two-state solution to the conflict and seek to make it a reality.
The goal of any peace process, i.e. 'two states living side by side in peace and security' can never come about if one side continues to advocate the use of terror. For this reason, the Quartet has repeatedly insisted that any Palestinian government renounce terrorism and violence.
| | |
What should be the role of the Arab world? Israel desires peace with all Arab countries. It does, however, differentiate between the moderate Arab states, which have the potential for peaceful relations with Israel and the extremist states, which have no interest in peace.
The moderate Arab states have the potential to make an important and positive contribution to the peace process as well as change the face of the region for the better.
Still, the policy of confrontation with Israel has to be replaced by a policy of dialogue. As progress is being made in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, the need for this change is ever more apparent.
While there are no illusions that the Arab states will agree with Israel on the specific issues in dispute, they should agree that resolving those issues will involve compromises from both sides. Israel cannot be expected to accept ultimatums or "take-it-or-leave-it" propositions. Israel will not abide by ultimatums which state that peace can be achieved only if Israel were to accede to all Arab demands and conditions; Israel's rights and interests cannot be totally ignored, nor can the need for compromise to resolve outstanding issues be neglected.
On the other hand, the extremist states of the Middle East must stop supporting terrorist activities. They must cease incitement and antisemitic propaganda against Israel which do nothing but generate further hatred and provide a fertile ground for terrorism.
Palestinian and other terrorist organizations in the Middle East receive support, including funds and arms, from the extremist Arab countries. Some Arab states, among them Syria and Iran, back the most violent and dangerous terrorist organizations, such as Hizbullah. Syria hosts the headquarters and training bases of several Palestinian terror organizations, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This support must stop so that terrorism can be brought to an end. Only then will peace efforts have the chance to succeed.
In recent years, the most extreme forms of anti-Israel incitement have been allowed to flourish in Arab countries, recalling earlier periods of the Arab-Israel conflict. There has been a proliferation of antisemitic propaganda in mosques and in schools, in the state media and in academia. This racist material, similar to that used in ages past against the Jewish people - such as blood-libels and the so-called "Elders of Zion" - generates further hatred and provides a fertile ground for terrorism.
International forums, like the United Nations, should not be misused, as they are year-after-year by the Arab countries who press for adoption of the same one-sided anti-Israel resolutions, instead of looking for a fresh and constructive manner to resolve differences.
President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan showed real leadership in making peace with Israel. The moderate countries of the Middle East, can contribute by leading the way to peace through cooperative relations with Israel.
| | |
Does Israel have partners for making peace in the Arab world? The Middle East is the scene of a struggle between extremists and more moderate elements. The continuous rise of extremist factions is having both a negative and a positive impact on the peace process.
On the one hand, the extremists (who often represent religion-based viewpoints), are a major source of destabilization in the Middle East as a whole, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. Iran, which supports terrorist organizations, is not only a threat to Israel, but to world peace. Groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad continue on the path of violence and reject all efforts towards resolving the conflict.
On the other hand, this rising extremist menace has caused more moderate Middle Eastern states to recognize the common threat the extremists, and especially Iran, pose. This has led to the creation of partnerships that would have been inconceivable only a few years ago and to the rejuvenation of the political process between Israel and much of the rest of the Middle East.
Israel is ready and able to work towards peace with the other moderate elements in the Middle East, in the hope that together we can keep the extremists in check and the political process on track.
| | |
How does incitement harm peace? There is a direct connection between anti-Israeli or antisemitic incitement and terrorism. The extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination that is so pervasive in Palestinian society nurtures a culture of hatred that, in turn, leads to terrorism.
The Palestinian education system, media, literature, songs, theater and cinema have been mobilized for extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination, which at times degenerates into blatant antisemitism. This incitement to hatred and violence is pervasive in Palestinian society, particularly in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. It exists in nursery schools and kindergartens, youth movements, schools, universities, mosque sermons, and street demonstrations. Incitement creates a culture of hatred and violence, which in turn provides fertile ground for terrorism and murder.
Incitement against Israel has many faces. It begins by totally ignoring the very existence of the State of Israel. Maps in schools and universities do not bear even the name of Israel, nor a large number of its cities and towns. Beyond that, inciters extol the names and deeds of the suicide bombers, name football teams after them, and hold the terrorists up as models to be emulated. Incitement includes antisemitic cartoons that use the same kind of motifs and imagery that were used against the Jews during the Nazi era.
This phenomenon bodes ill for the next generation, educated to worship symbols of death and destruction. Children, such as those in Hamas-controlled Gaza, who have been taught from the earliest age to hate, kill and destroy are a tragedy for their own people and a potential danger for others.
The question that must be asked is what kind of future does the industry of incitement offer the next generation, which is growing up learning to hate. Will that young generation be capable of thinking in terms of peace, of good neighborliness, of tolerance and compromise? Can Palestinian society create the new state of mind that is needed for peace, which is much more than just signing a peace treaty?
The many attempts to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict are known, not coincidentally, as the peace process. The transition from a state of war to a state of peace is not the result of just a one-time diplomatic act of signing an agreement. Rather it is a process that continues over time, a process that demands mutual efforts to change positions, values, and the perception of the former enemy. It requires a transition to a new paradigm, the creation of a new state of mind.
One cannot ignore the intensity of the emotions that exist on both sides of the conflict in the Middle East. Feelings of deep anger and frustration exist on Israel's side as well. But there is a huge difference between feeling anger and frustration, on the one hand, and promoting a culture of hatred, on the other.
Unlike a large part of Palestinian society, Israeli society sees peace as the noblest of goals, its highest of aspirations on both the individual and national level. The desire for peace, for calm and for the normalization of day-to-day life is at the very center of Israel's being and culture. The many thousands of songs, books, artistic works, and articles that have been written about peace in Israel, since the very establishment of the state, are too numerous to mention. Peace is an important core value, the greatest dream of every mother and father, the embodiment of the Zionist idea which envisages Israel living in peace and cooperation with all its neighbors.
There is no legitimate reason why Israeli children learn about peace and coexistence in their schools, while at the same time Palestinian children are learning to honor the suicide bombers and jihad. Those who desire peace should educate for peace, and not promote hatred and murder.
The Palestinians' vehement anti-Israel rhetoric has had a crippling impact throughout the region on efforts for peace. The intense coverage of the Palestinian perspective of events and incitement from Palestinian spokespersons have enflamed anti-Israeli sentiments in Arab countries, even influencing many pro-peace Arab states to downgrade their ties with Israel. Palestinian incitement causes violence in the short term, while in the long term it reduces the chances for peace and reconciliation between Israel and its neighbors.
| | |
Why is Israel a Jewish state? The State of Israel is a Jewish state, first and foremost, in view of the right of the Jewish people to a single independent state of their own, and by reason of the historic and biblical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel). There is no other land in which the Jewish people can lay claim to their own independent sovereign state. There is no other state in which the Jewish people can fully carry out their lives in accordance to their own customs and beliefs, language and culture, goals and plans for their future.
Although for 2000 years, the Jewish people yearned and prayed for the day when they could reestablish their own national home, this right could be fulfilled only following the modern national reawakening of the Jewish people towards the end of the nineteenth century. This revival of Jewish nationalism led to the establishment of the Zionist movement. It received important initial recognition in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which stated that the British Government viewed "with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." That recognition was officially endorsed by the League of Nations, the precursor of the United Nations, in 1922.
On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181 calling for the termination of the British Mandate in Palestine, and the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in that territory. The idea - still valid today - is that there should be two nation states for two peoples. While the Jewish population celebrated this landmark resolution, the Arab countries rejected the UN decision and started a war to destroy the Jewish state-to-be. On 14 May 1948, David Ben Gurion declared the "establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel." In this way, the Jewish people finally could exercise their right to self-determination in their own land.
Israel was founded to provide a much-needed homeland for the Jewish people, who had been persecuted in other lands over the ages. The Declaration of Independence states explicitly that "The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles."
In accordance with its Declaration of Independence, the State of Israel was founded as a democratic state based upon the principles of the separation of powers, freedom, and complete equality before the law for all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, gender or nationality. These principles apply today.
As Israel is self-defined as both a Jewish and a democratic state, it guarantees the rights of its non-Jewish citizens. There is a large Arab minority in the State of Israel, constituting nearly 20 percent of its population. The Arab population of Israel enjoys full civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, religion and worship. They vote in Israel's elections and Arab representatives are elected to Israel's parliament. Israeli Arabs serve as judges, mayors, and civil servants. Currently an Arab-Israeli citizens serves as a government minister, a second is Deputy Foreign Minister. In addition to Hebrew, Arabic is an official language of the state. Although problems still exist with regards to the full integration of the Arab minority, particularly in the economic sphere, these problems are equivalent to those faced in many Western democracies with large minority populations.
| | |
Do the Palestinians have a justifiable "claim of return"? At the same time that the Palestinians are calling for a state of their own, they also demand a "right to return" to land inside Israel's pre-1967 lines. However, no such claim exists under general international law, the relevant UN resolutions or the agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Under present demographic-geographic conditions, the influx of a large number of refugees into Israel is most certainly not practicable. Given that the present population of Israel is approximately 7 million (of whom about one-fifth are Arab Israelis), the influx of millions of Palestinians into the State of Israel would threaten the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, obliterating its basic identity as the homeland of the Jewish people and a refuge for persecuted Jews. Consequently, the demand to live in Israel is nothing more than a euphemism for the demographic destruction of the Jewish state.
Finally, the Palestinian claim of unlimited immigration to Israel is a political ploy made by those who do not want Israel to exist. It is disingenuous that the Palestinians are simultaneously appealing for a state of their own while calling for the right to freely immigrate to yet another state, Israel. By continuing to demand a right that would, in effect, negate the basic identity of Israel, the Palestinian leadership is undermining prospects for peace. The result of any peace process should be two nation states for two people, as envisioned by the United Nations in 1947, in the partition plan.
The Palestinian refugee problem has remained unsolved for approximately 60 years, causing suffering and instability throughout the Middle East. However, alongside the current social and humanitarian aspects of this issue, it is important to examine the causes of the problem and the reasons why it has been perpetuated for six decades.
The immediate source of the refugee problem was the Arabs' rejection in 1947 of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 - which would have partitioned the British Mandate area into an Arab state and a Jewish state - and the ensuing war they started in the hope of destroying Israel. Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request of Arab leaders, or due to fear of the fighting and the uncertainty of living under Jewish rule. A refugee problem would never have been created had this war not been forced upon Israel by the Arab countries and the local Palestinian leadership.
Israel does not bear responsibility for the creation or the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Thus it cannot declare, even as a gesture, responsibility for the problem.
Sadly, during this period there were innumerable refugees fleeing wars and conflict in many parts of the world. Almost all of these were resettled and their lives rehabilitated. The sole exception remains the Palestinians, deliberately kept as refugees for political aims.
The fate of the Palestinian refugees stands in sharp contrast to that of the many Jews who were forced to flee Arab countries in the wake of the establishment of Israel, leaving behind a great deal of property. Despite the difficulties, the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were absorbed as citizens of the State of Israel.
The Arab countries, with the sole exception of Jordan, have perpetuated the refugee problem in order to use it as a weapon in their struggle against Israel. The refugees continue to live in crowded camps, in poverty and despair. Few attempts have been made to integrate them into the numerous Arab countries in the region. These refugees, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren remain today in a number of Arab countries with no political, economic or social rights. This policy was pursued in order to gain international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, at the expense of the Palestinians themselves.
The international community also has played a role in perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem. It has averted efforts to resettle the refugees, as is the international norm. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, responsible for finding permanent homes for all refugee groups around the world, does not do so for the Palestinians. Instead, a special agency was set up to handle Palestinian refugees. This organization, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA), operates solely to maintain and support the Palestinians in refugee camps.
The international community has yielded to political pressure from Arab regimes and in effect granted the Palestinians an exception from the internationally accepted definition of a refugee under the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol which make no mention of descendants. According to this exception - which has never been granted to any other population - all the generations of descendants of the original Palestinian refugees are also considered refugees. This means that the vast majority of Palestinian refugees who demand to immigrate to Israel have never actually lived within the borders of Israel. Moreover, the exceptional definition of refugees in the Palestinian case includes any Arab who lived in the area that became Israel for just two years before leaving. These exemptions have inflated the number of Palestinian refugees and allowed it to expand over the years from the hundreds of thousands to the millions.
The Palestinians falsely assert that their claim is based on UN resolutions, most specifically paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194 (December 1948). Nonetheless, the General Assembly is not a law-making body and General Assembly resolutions on political matters do not create legally binding obligations.
When referring to General Assembly Resolution 194, a number of additional points are relevant:
The Arab states originally rejected Resolution 194, and therefore cannot base current claims on that discarded Resolution.
This Resolution was an attempt by the UN in 1948 to bring the sides to negotiations by making recommendations regarding a number of key issues (Jerusalem, borders, refugees, etc.), aimed at the achievement of a "final settlement of all questions outstanding" between the sides. Only one section of 194 (paragraph 11) discusses refugees. That paragraph does not contain a single reference to any rights, but rather merely recommends that refugees should be permitted to return. It is illogical to demand implementation of a single sentence independently of the rest of the resolution.
Additionally, the resolution sets specific preconditions and limits for return, foremost amongst them that the refugees must be willing to live in peace with their neighbors. The support among the Palestinian population for the wave of terrorism that began in September 2000, as well as at other times in the past, has so far precluded this possibility.
The resolution specifically uses the general term "refugees" and not "Arab refugees", thereby indicating that the resolution is aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. It should be remembered that following the establishment of Israel in 1948, at least an equal number of Jewish residents of Arab states and Arab residents of Israel were forced to become refugees
The resolution stipulates that compensation for refugees who chose not to return, or whose property was damaged or destroyed, should be provided "by the governments or authorities responsible". The demand for compensation does not specify Israel by name, and it is clear that the use of the plural (governments) precludes any Palestinian claim that implementation of the resolution should fall exclusively on Israel.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, supplemented 194 and reinforced Israel's position by again omitting any reference to a "right of return," or even to General Assembly Resolution 194. Instead, 242 confines itself to affirming the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem."
In summary, the Palestinians, after originally rejecting the resolution, have now selectively claimed elements of Resolution 194 that offer political and rhetorical benefits. At the same time, other material aspects of the issues involved have been ignored.
In international law, the principle of return is addressed in relevant human rights treaties. However, the principle only deals with individuals (not an entire people) and as a rule, governments have limited the right to reenter a state to nationals of that state.
None of the agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors mention a claim of return. In the course of the peace process, the Israelis and Palestinians themselves have agreed that the question of refugees, along with other issues, could be considered as part of a permanent settlement between the sides. Israel stands by this commitment.
| | |
What is the status of Jerusalem? Jerusalem is a holy city for the three monotheistic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is the religious status of Jerusalem which endows such great significance to this city and all that happens within it. Israel recognizes and guarantees the rights of all worshippers and protects their holy shrines in the city, as indeed it does in the country as a whole. At the same time that Jerusalem has a special status due to its religious import; Jerusalem is also the capital of the State of Israel.
Jerusalem is the "heart and soul" of the Jewish people's spiritual identity and national yearnings. On every occasion that the Jews have been an independent people in the Land of Israel, Jerusalem has been their capital. Jerusalem served as the Jewish people's historic capital since King David made it so in 1004 B.C.E. Jerusalem remained the capital until its destruction at the hands of the Romans in 70 CE and the subsequent loss of Jewish independence.
Jewish independence was renewed in 1948, with the establishment of the State of Israel. Shortly thereafter, the Knesset (Israel's parliament) determined that Jerusalem would be the capital of the State of Israel. Following this decision, government institutions were located in Jerusalem, including the President's Residence, the Government ministries, the Knesset and the Supreme Court. In 1980, the Knesset legislated the "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel", which enshrined its decision in law.
Most states have not respected Israel's sovereign right to determine its own capital city, and have refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The reasons for this are essentially political, and are contrary to principles of international law. Israel should enjoy the same basic right as any other country in determining the choice of its capital.
Throughout the centuries, no other nation, other than the Jewish people, made Jerusalem its capital. While important to other faiths, Judaism is the only religion which places Jerusalem at the center of its belief.
| | |
What is the status of the territories? Control over the West Bank and Gaza passed to Israel in 1967 in a war of self-defense. For nearly a quarter of a century afterwards, the Palestinians rejected every Israeli overture, missing opportunity after opportunity to peacefully resolve the dispute through negotiation. In 2005, Israel then decided to leave Gaza unilaterally, passing control over this territory to the Palestinians themselves in the hope that they would use it to establish the base of a peaceful future Palestinian state. Sadly, Israel's hopes were dashed.
As long as the future status of the West Bank is subject to negotiation, Israel's claim to this disputed territory is no less valid than that of the Palestinians. This territory held the cradle of Jewish civilization during biblical times and Jewish communities existed there over thousands of years. Modern-day Israel has deep ties to the many historical sites located in the West Bank. Yet Israel's claim to this territory is based not only on its ancient ties, religious beliefs and security needs; it is also firmly grounded in international law and custom.
Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip dated back to 1967 and the Six Day War. It is important to remember that Israel's control of the territories was the result of a war of self-defense, fought after Israel's very existence was threatened. It has continued due to the intransigence of Israel's Arab neighbors, who steadfastly rejected Israel's many offers of peace, including its post-Six Day War message that it would exchange most of the territory in return for peace. In 1979, Egypt and in 1994, Jordan both signed peace treaties with Israel. But the Palestinians have yet to do so.
It has been asserted that Israel's presence in the territories violated UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, one of the cornerstones of the peace process. This allegation ignores both the language and the original intent of 242. The framers of this resolution realized that the pre-1967 borders were indefensible, and deliberately chose to use the term withdrawal "from territories" (and not "from all the territories" as the Palestinians claim) in order to indicate the need to change any future borders.
Moreover, Resolution 242 (and Resolution 338 of 1973) places obligations on both sides. The Arab regimes cannot demand that Israel withdraw while they ignore their own responsibilities and the need for negotiations. They deliberately overlook the fact that 242 calls 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."
Israel's presence in the territory is often incorrectly referred to as an "occupation." However, under international law, occupation occurs in territories that have been taken from a recognized sovereign. The Jordanian rule over the West Bank and the Egyptian rule over the Gaza Strip following 1948 resulted from a war of aggression aimed at destroying the newly established Jewish State. Their attacks plainly violated UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan). Accordingly, the Egyptian and Jordanian seizures of the territories were never recognized by the international community. As neither territory had a prior legitimate sovereign, under international law these areas could not be considered as occupied and their most accurate description would be that of disputed territories.
Palestinian spokespersons not only claim that the territory is occupied, they also allege that occupation is - by definition - illegal. However, international law does not prohibit situations of occupation. Rather, it attempts to regulate such situations with international agreements and conventions. Therefore, claims that the so-called Israeli "occupation" is illegal - without regard either to its cause or the factors that have led to its continuation - are baseless allegations without foundation in international law.
Palestinian efforts to present Israel's presence in the territory as the primary cause of the conflict ignore history. Palestinian terrorism predates Israel's control of the territories (and even the existence of the State of Israel itself). The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964, three years before Israel's presence in the territories began. Moreover, Palestinian terrorism has often peaked during those periods when a negotiated settlement was closest at hand, whether at the height of the Oslo process in the mid-1990s or after Israel's unprecedented peace proposals at Camp David and Taba in 2000.
There are those that claim that if only the clock could be turned back to 1967 (i.e. a full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories) the conflict would be resolved, and no border issues would need to be resolved. It is important to remember that in 1967, there was no such entity as a Palestinian state and that there was no link between Gaza and the West Bank. Yet still its Arab neighbors threatened Israel with destruction. What Israel is now being asked to create a totally new construction, whose product must be the result of direct negotiations between the two parties.
The West Bank can best regarded as disputed territory over which there are competing claims that should be resolved in peace talks. The final status of this disputed territory can only be determined through negotiations between the parties. Attempts to force a solution through terrorism are ethically indefensible and only serve to encourage further violence and terrorism.
| | |
Are Israeli settlements legal? Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal both under international law and the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Claims to the contrary are mere attempts to distort the law for political purposes. Yet whatever the status of the settlements, their existence should never be used to justify terrorism.
The Palestinians often claim that settlement activity is illegal and call on Israel to dismantle every settlement. In effect, they are demanding that every Jew leave the West Bank, a form of ethnic cleansing. By contrast, within Israel, Arabs and Jews live side-by-side; indeed, Israeli Arabs, who account for approximately 20% of Israel's population, are citizens of Israel with equal rights.
The Palestinian call to remove all Jewish presence from the disputed territories is not only discriminatory and morally reprehensible; it has no basis either in law or in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.
It has been charged that the provision contained in the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement prohibiting unilateral steps that alter the status of the West Bank implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is disingenuous. The prohibition on unilateral measures was designed to ensure that neither side take steps that would change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or a unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status talks. The building of homes has no effect on the final permanent status of the area as a whole. Were this prohibition to be applied to building, it would lead to the unreasonable interpretation that neither side is permitted to build houses to accommodate the needs of their respective communities.
As the Israeli claim to these territories is legally valid, it is just as legitimate for Israelis to build their communities as it is for the Palestinians to build theirs. Yet in the spirit of compromise, successive Israeli governments have indicated their willingness to negotiate the issue and have adopted a voluntary freeze on the building of new settlements as a confidence-building measure.
Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the 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, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories.
Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. As there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either the West Bank or Gaza prior to the 1967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" when control passed into the hands of Israel.
Yet even if the Fourth Geneva Convention were to apply to the territories, Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War, against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurred during that period. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, Article 49 (entitled "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations") was intended to prevent the forcible transfer of civilians, thereby protecting the local population from displacement. Israel has not forcibly transferred its citizens to the territory and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence. Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the total territory of the West Bank.
Israel's use of land for settlements conforms to all rules and norms of international law. Privately owned lands are not requisitioned for the establishment of settlements. In addition, all settlement activity comes under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the High Court of Justice) and every aggrieved inhabitant of the territories, including Palestinian residents, can appeal directly to this Court
The Fourth Geneva Convention was certainly not intended to prevent individuals from living on their ancestral lands or on property that had been illegally taken from them. Many present-day Israeli settlements have been established on sites that were home to Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and religious connection with the land. Many of the most ancient and holy Jewish sites, including the Cave of the Patriarchs (the burial site of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and Rachel's Tomb, are located in these areas. Jewish communities, such as in Hebron (where Jews lived until they were massacred in 1929), existed throughout the centuries. Other communities, such as the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea, were founded before 1948 under the internationally endorsed British Mandate.
The right of Jews to settle in all parts of the Land of Israel was first recognized by the international community in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The purpose of the Mandate was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in the Jewish people's ancient homeland. Indeed, Article 6 of the Mandate provided for "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use."
For more than a thousand years, the only time that Jewish settlement was prohibited in the West Bank was under the Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) that resulted from an armed invasion. During this period of Jordanian rule, which was not internationally recognized, Jordan eliminated the Jewish presence in the West Bank (as Egypt did in the Gaza Strip) and declared that the sale of land to Jews was a capital offense. It is untenable that this outrage could invalidate the right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and accordingly, the legal titles to land that had already been acquired remain valid to this day.
In conclusion, the oft-repeated claim regarding the illegality' of Israeli settlements has no legal or factual basis under either international law or the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Such charges can only be regarded as politically motivated. Most importantly, any political claim - including the one regarding settlements - should never be used to justify terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. | | |
| IsraelWhat are Israel's primary goals? Israel's top priority is its continued existence as a state that is both a national home for the Jewish people and a democratic state for all its citizens, Arab and Jew alike. Israelis want to live in a secure country that exists in peace with its neighbors.
In order to supports Israel's identity as a Jewish and a democratic state, Israel realizes that it must promote a political process that will lead to two nation-states, one for Israelis, the other for Palestinians.
The State of Israel sees itself as a national home for Israeli citizens who live here and to Jews living elsewhere. Upon its establishment, Israel provided a full and comprehensive solution to the problem of Jewish refugees who were force to leave Arab countries and Europe.
Similarly, the future Palestinian state must provide a full and comprehensive solution for the Palestinians, including those who currently reside in the territories and those who left and have been kept deliberately as refugees to be exploited as bargaining chips during negotiations.
Israel's future as a democratic and a Jewish state is best secured by a peaceful resolution to the conflict. When that much hoped for resolution is finally reached, peace will bring benefits not only to Israel, but to all its neighbors.
| | |
What is Zionism? Zionism is the movement for the reestablishment of the Jewish people's self-determination in their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. In many ways, Zionism can be considered the national liberation movement of the Jewish people.
The desire of the Jews to return to their homeland began nearly 2000 years ago. In 70 CE, the Romans destroyed the holy Temple and razed the city of Jerusalem, the religious and administrative capital of the Jewish people. This act of horrific destruction brought Jewish independence to an end, and in the decades that followed, most of the Jews of Israel were exiled. Only a small number stayed, so that throughout history, there has always been a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.
Despite their exile, the vast majority of Jews never stopped hoping to return home, and these yearnings played an essential role in their prayer and literature. For example, at the end of the annual Passover meal, Jews all over the world repeat the vow "Next year in Jerusalem," and at Jewish weddings the groom recites "If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning" (Psalm 137).
The Jewish connection with the Land of Israel was not manifested in prayer alone. In the late nineteenth century, as national movements took shape in Europe and as antisemitism on that continent grew, an Austrian Jewish journalist, Theodor Herzl, began to organize the national movement of the Jewish people - the Zionist movement. The goal of Zionism was political: the establishment of an independent state for the Jewish people. The most natural place for this state was Zion, or the Land of Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people.
Herzl elaborated this vision in his book The Jewish State. He envisioned a developed, thriving country in which all inhabitants, Jews and non-Jews, would live in peace and tranquility. This vision and its fulfillment are Zionism.
| | |
What is the Law of Return and why does it exist? The State of Israel was established with the goal of providing a homeland for every Jew in which they could live as free and equal citizens without fear of discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs or ethnic background. The need for a homeland for the Jewish people was apparent after centuries of unequal treatment and persecution. It was recognized by the international community in 1922, when the League of Nations adopted the Mandate to Administer Palestine and in 1947, when the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan).
The Law of Return (1950), which states "every Jew has the right to immigrate to the country," thereby fulfilled both the will of the international community and the goal of the Zionist movement.
As the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel says, the Jewish state was to be founded by virtue of the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state." The Declaration also stated that the "State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles."
To apply the Law of Return to non-Jews or to persons without a Jewish relative would be illogical and stand in contrast to the primary purpose of establishing the only Jewish state in the world.
The Law of Return established the right of every Jew to settle in Israel, providing a refuge for any Jew fleeing persecution. According to the law, every Jew is entitled to return to his or her historical homeland and be naturalized in it. The Law of Return allows Jews the right to return to their homeland, much as many states, including Western European democracies, grant to those who have ethnic or historical ties to their countries.
In contrast to some claims, the Law of Return cannot be considered discriminatory. It does not prevent persons of non-Jewish origin from being naturalized in Israel; this possibility is available under other Israeli laws, much as in other Western democracies. The Law of Entry to Israel (1952) and the Law of Citizenship (1952) are naturalization laws similar to those that exist in other Western democracies.
Similarly, the question of the Palestinian refugees has no connection to the Law of Return. While this issue must be resolved in the framework of a peace agreement, it has no relationship to the right of Jews to return to the only Jewish State in the world.
| | |
What is Holocaust denial? The Holocaust was the deliberate and systematic attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish people. Modern attempts to deny or even diminish this tragedy, unique in its scale, desecrate the memory of its millions of victims.
In 1933, Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany and established a racist regime, in which Jews were deemed to be "Untermenschen" (sub-humans), not part of the human race.
After Germany instigated World War II in 1939, Hitler began implementing his "Final Solution" to annihilate the Jewish people. His forces concentrated the Jews in ghettos and established labor, concentration, and extermination camps to which the Jews were transported. Millions of Jews were exterminated, while most of the rest died of deliberate starvation and disease. Hitler's aim was to wipe off the face of the map every Jew in the world.
During the six years of the war, 6,000,000 Jews - including 1,500,000 children - were murdered by the Nazis. Hitler's deliberate annihilation of the Jews, carried out with chilling efficiency, killed one-third of the Jewish population of the world. This genocide was unique in scale, management and implementation. It sought to destroy an entire people, wherever they could be found, merely for being born Jewish. For these reasons it was given a name of its own: the Holocaust.
Now, little more than sixty years later, many antisemites deny that the Holocaust took place, or attempt to belittle the tragedy by claiming that its scale was much smaller. Some racists wish to cleanse Nazism of its evil stain. Others believe the State of Israel was established to compensate the Jews for the Holocaust; by denying that it took place, they seek to deprive Israel of its right to exist. This is why Holocaust deniers have much support in Arab countries. In fact, some Arab leaders during World War II supported the Nazi plans to annihilate the Jews, and some Arab voices have been heard complaining that Hitler did not finish the job.
In recent years, Holocaust denial has taken on a new facade. Malicious haters of Israel from both the left and the right wings of the political spectrum frequently equate Israelis with the Nazis and the Palestinians with the Jews. Not only is this an abhorrent blood libel aimed at delegitimizing the very existence of Israel, it is an attempt to minimize the Holocaust. By comparing the two situations, which absolutely share no common ground, Israel is both immorally condemned and the suffering of Holocaust victims is trivialized.
Holocaust denial, in all its forms, is a moral abomination and it should never be tolerated. Only by remembering, documenting and commemorating the Holocaust, can we ensure that nothing like it will ever happen again to Jews or to any other people on earth.
| | |
Was European guilt over the Holocaust responsible for the establishment of Israel? 'Holocaust' is the name given to the attempted extermination of the Jewish people by Nazi Germany and its sympathizers during WWII. By its end in 1945, six million Jews (one third of the world's Jewish population) had been annihilated.
While it is true that the horrors of the Holocaust caused many people to sympathize with the plight of the Jews, it would be wrong to say that European guilt was the principal reason for the establishment of a Jewish state. Rather, the Holocaust can be viewed as an accelerant to a process of state-building that was already well under way.
The Zionist movement began in the previous century, and already by the 1880s, Jews were beginning to settle in the Land of Israel. Over the years, they not only established farms, towns and cities, but began to lay the foundations of the state-to-be.
A flourishing society, with its own government-in-waiting, was actively striving to establish sovereignty over those parts of the country granted to it in the numerous peace plans of the pre-state era.
International support for the goal of the Zionist movement - the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people - began long before World War II. Indeed, the initial key step towards the Jewish state was taken in the aftermath of the first World War, when in July 1922, the League of Nations granted Great Britain the Mandate for Palestine/The Land of Israel. In a decision taken by the 52 governments of the League, the Mandate called upon Great Britain to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.
The next crucial step was the 1947 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which called for the partition of the Mandate territory into two states, one Jewish, the other Arab. Clearly this resolution was not aimed solely at providing the Jews with a homeland, but at rather the equitable resolution of the conflict between the two peoples.
Moreover, while most European members of the UN voted for the resolution, so too did most Eastern European, Latin American and African countries. It should be remembered that in 1947, the British Empire was already starting to crumble around the globe and the process of decolonialization was beginning in much of the developing world.
Given the abovementioned facts, the question should not be whether European guilt is responsible for the establishment of Israel, but rather how a state for the Arab residents of Palestine was not established at the same time. The answer lies in the Arab rejection of the partition plan, and their attacks on the nascent Jewish state. However, this issue is largely ignored by those clinging to the 'European guilt' fallacy, since this claim is part and parcel of the theories presented by those who try to delegitimize the very existence of Israel.
| | |
What is antisemitism? "Antisemitism" is the name given to the form of racism practiced against the Jewish people. Though the literal interpretation of antisemitism would appear to denote hostility to all Semitic peoples, this is an erroneous belief. The term was originally coined in Germany in 1879 to describe the European anti-Jewish campaigns of that era, and it soon came to define the persecution of or discrimination against Jews throughout the world. Therefore, Arabs who claim that they cannot be antisemites because they themselves are "Semites" are merely attempting to obfuscate the issue, and thereby sanitize their own racist attitudes. This attempt to absolve themselves from the charge of racism is particularly blatant as severe antisemitism exists in many Arab countries today.
Despite the relatively modern roots of the term antisemitism, hatred of the Jewish people is an age-old phenomenon. Antisemitism has taken different forms and used various motifs throughout history. In modern times, it has been promoted by extreme nationalistic and even racist ideologies. Antisemitism reached its peak in the Holocaust. Over six million Jews (one third of the world's Jewish population) were brutally and systematically murdered during World War II.
Modern antisemitism in Europe, after being repressed for decades following the Holocaust, has erupted with renewed fury in recent years in a new form: "anti-Zionism," or hatred of the State of Israel. This despite the fact that Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people - an expression of their legitimate aspiration to self-determination and national independence. The Zionist movement was founded to provide an ancient people with a sovereign state of its own, in its ancestral homeland. Israel is the modern political embodiment of this age-old dream.
The goal of anti-Zionism is to undermine the legitimacy of Israel, thereby denying the Jewish people their place in the community of nations. Denigration of Zionism is therefore an attack on Israel's basic right to exist as a nation equal to all other nations, in violation of one of the fundamental principles of international law.
Just as antisemitism denies Jews their rights as individuals in society, anti-Zionism attacks the Jewish people as a nation, on the international level. Similar to the use of "the Jew" as a scapegoat for many a society's problems, Israel has been singled out for disproportionate and one-sided condemnation in the international arena.
Anti-Zionism is often manifested as attacks on Israel in the United Nations and other international forums. Over the years, many an event of the international community has been exploited as an opportunity to condemn Israel - no matter what the subject matter, no matter how tenuous the tie to the conflict in the Middle East.
Moreover, it is no coincidence that the censure of Israel in international forums and the media often has been accompanied by a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents in many parts of the world.
While legitimate criticism of Israel is considered part and parcel of the democratic process, criticism that crosses the boundary into illegitimate - by demonization, the use of double standards or the delegitimization of Israel - should be considered an expression of the "new antisemitism." Both the traditional forms of antisemitism, as well as its new version (in which Israel is treated as the Jew of the international community) should be vigorously condemned.
| | |
| Palestinian TerrorismWhat caused the wave of terrorism that began in September 2000? Beginning in September 2000, Israel suffered from terrorist attacks on an almost unprecedented scale. Its citizens had to live with the day-to-day fear of being blown up by suicide bombers or shot to death by Palestinian gunmen. Over 1,100 Israeli lost their lives and many, many thousands more were maimed or psychologically scarred for life.
The wave of terrorism that began in September 2000 is the direct result of a strategic Palestinian decision to use violence - rather than negotiation - as the primary means to advance their agenda. Despite Palestinian claims to the contrary, Israel's so-called "occupation" of the territories is not the true cause of the terrorism, as negotiations could have peacefully resolved all aspects of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict well before the violence started.
When the wave of violence and terrorism began in September 2000, the Palestinians originally claimed that it was a spontaneous reaction to the visit of then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount. However, later statements by Palestinian leaders in the Arab-language media contradicted this assertion. Neither did the report issued by the Mitchell Committee, composed of American and European leaders, give support to the earlier Palestinian claim. Consequently, Palestinian spokespersons changed their tactics and instead began to assert that the violence was a response to Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza.
This claim ignores events both before and after 1967 (when Israel came into control of the territories during a war of self-defense) that prove that the "occupation" is not the true cause of Palestinian terrorism. Not only did Palestinian terrorism precede Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza; it has often hit brutally at those moments, as in 1994-1996, when the peace process was making the greatest progress.
Terrorism from Gaza continued even after Israel left that territory in 2005. The history of Palestinian terrorism makes it abundantly clear that the terrorists are not opposing Israel's presence in the territories; rather they are opposed to making any kind of peace with Israel.
Indeed, the current wave of terrorism began shortly after intense high-level negotiations were conducted to find a permanent resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In July 2000, a Middle East peace summit was held at Camp David, hosted by U.S. President Bill Clinton and attended by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak. During the summit, Israel expressed its willingness to make far-reaching and unprecedented compromises in order to arrive at a workable, enduring agreement. However, Yasser Arafat chose to break off the negotiations without even offering any proposals of his own. Consequently, the summit adjourned with President Clinton placing the blame for its failure squarely at Arafat's feet.
Nevertheless, Israel continued to pursue a negotiated peace. At the Taba talks in January 2001, the Israeli government made known to the Palestinians its willingness to make additional compromises in order to achieve peace. Inexplicably, the Palestinians again rejected a peaceful solution. Later Palestinian claims belittling the Camp David and Taba proposals were refuted by the most senior American officials involved in the negotiations. For example, in an April 22, 2002 television interview, former US Special Envoy Dennis Ross characterized the charge that the West Bank would be divided into cantons as "completely untrue," noting that the offered territory "was contiguous."
Israel had already demonstrated its willingness to take substantial risks for peace. In the framework of the peace treaty with Egypt, it returned the Sinai Peninsula, an area that had given Israel significant strategic depth. In the negotiations that had been conducted since September 1993, Israel had gone far in addressing Palestinian aspirations in the West Bank and Gaza. It negotiated the establishment of a governing Palestinian Authority (PA) in the territories, which gradually expanded its jurisdiction and powers. In fact, after extensive Israeli withdrawals, the PA administered a significant portion of territory and 98% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza.
It is clear that the wave of Palestinian terrorism, which began in the wake of the Camp David summit failure, has nothing to do with a spontaneous Palestinian action to "resist the occupation." The Palestinian leadership had taken a strategic decision to abandon the path to peace and to use violence as their primary tactic for advancing their agenda. This decision undermined the bedrock foundation of the peace process - the understanding that a solution can only be reached through compromise rather than inflexibility, and through negotiation rather than violence.
The Palestinian claim that Israel's presence in the territories caused the terrorism began as a desperate attempt to deflect criticism after Arafat rejected Israel's peace proposals. It quickly evolved into an excuse for the inexcusable - the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians.
Terrorist attacks can never be justified, and they are particularly tragic when the disputed issues could have been settled through negotiations. The Palestinian Authority had been given a real opportunity to end the conflict through negotiations. However, Israel's olive branch was met with a hail of gunfire and a barrage of suicide bombers. The greatest obstacle to peace is not the lack of a Palestinian state, rather it is the existence of Palestinian terrorism.
Despite fervent Palestinian claims to the contrary, the PA's deliberate decision to use violence as a political tool is the true and only source of the wave of terrorism that began in September 2000. It is that decision that has caused the death of over 1,100 Israelis and severely harmed Israel's dreams of peace with its Palestinian neighbors.
| | |
How can the terrorism be stopped? True and lasting peace can only be achieved by a negotiated settlement. However, for negotiations to have a chance to succeed, Palestinian terrorism must end.
Beginning in September 2000, Israel was subjugated to a wave of terrorism that killed over 1,100 and injured many thousands more. Israeli citizens lived in daily fear of being murdered by suicide bombers, car-bombs and gunmen. Jewish holy sites were desecrated and destroyed, while Jewish worshippers were blown up.
The government of Israel has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens. However, the fight against terrorism poses a difficult dilemma for Israel. As a democratic state, Israel must strive to find the proper balance between its imperative security needs and its desire to uphold the democratic values and freedoms its holds dear. Finding this balance is never an easy task for any democracy under fire. Israel's task is made all the more harder given that the Palestinian terrorists it faces have no respect either for human life or for the rule of law. They not only target Israeli citizens; they also hide behind the Palestinian civilian population, confident that any Palestinian casualties will be blamed on Israel, no matter which side is responsible.
In order to fight terrorism effectively, while attempting to minimize harm to the local Palestinian population, Israel has employed a variety of defensive methods. Passive security measures, which include roadblocks and curfews as well as the anti-terrorist fence, are aimed at limiting the free movement of terrorists.
Unfortunately, the daily lives of many Palestinians have also been affected by these measures. However, the difficulties caused by the anti-terrorist fence or roadblocks, as regrettable as they are, cannot compare to the irreversible harm to innocent lives caused by terrorism.
Active security measures against the terrorists are taken when more passive measures do not suffice. Even then, Israel makes every effort to minimize harm to bystanders. Israel has consistently attempted to limit its use of military force. For example, it waited 18 months before beginning any large-scale military operations against terrorism. That took place only after near daily suicide bombings in March 2002, culminating in the Passover eve massacre, left Israel with no choice.
It is never easy for a democratic country to fight terrorism. This mission is made more difficult when that state is subjected to international pressure to conform to impossible standards. Almost every defensive measure taken by Israel - whether it involves passive security measures, legal steps or proportionate and necessary military action - was met with international criticism. Israel will continue to uphold its democratic values; however, it must also protect the lives of its innocent civilians.
One-sided and unfair international criticism of Israel only encouraged more Palestinian terrorism. The chances of achieving peace are increased when the international community respects Israel's right to self-defense while simultaneously making clear to the Palestinians the futility of terrorism. International pressure on states that sponsor and assist Palestinian terrorism should be strongly applied and the funds to terrorist organizations should be cut off completely. Only when the Palestinians finally abandon terrorism and truly commit to solving political disputes by negotiation can peace be possible.
| | |
What do Palestinian ceasefires mean? At various times, it has been claimed in the international media that the Palestinians are observing a ceasefire with Israel. Indeed, the Palestinians make the ceasefire claim themselves in English language media outlets. In reality, these periods are not true ceasefires as understood in the Western world. The Arabic terms used to describe these phases have no direct correlation in English because they represent a different concept to that known in the West. The Palestinians consider these periods as time to regroup and rearm, and they only represent a reduction in the violence, not a cessation. Indeed, it has often been said that a Middle Eastern ceasefire is one in which Israel ceases and the Palestinians fire.
The two best-known "ceasefires" - the hudna that began in 2003 and the tahadiya initiative that was offered in 2006 - have much in common. Both began when the Palestinian side was under a great deal of pressure from Israeli defensive actions and both were only partially observed by the Palestinians, if at all.
The most recent phase, the tahadiya, was supposed to begin after the withdrawal from Gaza. The Palestinians offered to stop rocket and missile fire yet this period was characterized both by a constant barrage of Kassam rockets and mortar bombs fired on the Israeli city of Sderot and by the fact that the Palestinians took advantage of this period of relative calm to smuggle in enormous quantities of arms and ammunition, as well as to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure.
The earlier "ceasefire" began on June 29, 2003, when following talks with the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian terror organizations declared a "hudna" - a term that has been interpreted abroad as a ceasefire. However, a hudna is a temporary respite from fighting designed to gain time to regroup and rearm. About two months later, following a series of terror attacks, the Palestinian terror organizations declared the hudna was at an end.
Under the first phase of the Roadmap, the Palestinian Authority is obligated to end terrorism by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, confiscating illegal weapons and arresting those involved in planning and carrying out acts of terror. The hudna, however, was an internal Palestinian arrangement, which the Palestinian Authority used as a means for avoiding its obligations under the Roadmap to fight terrorism.
The hudna was used by the terrorist organizations themselves, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as a tactical ploy for gaining time to build up their strength for the next round of terrorist attacks. The hudna was a cover for the Palestinian terror organizations to plan new terror attacks, dig tunnels for smuggling in weapons, increase the range of the Kassam rockets, as well as to regroup and train their forces.
While interpreted abroad as a ceasefire, the term hudna was seen by the Palestinian terror groups and their supporters in the Arab world as a mere tactical truce in keeping with Islamic history. In the year 628, when the prophet Mohammed considered his forces to be too weak to overcome the rival Kuraysh tribes, he concluded with them a ten-year truce (hudna) referred to as the Hudaybiya accord. Less than two years later, having consolidated their power, the Muslim forces attacked the Kuraysh tribes and defeated them, thereby enabling Mohammed to conquer Mecca.
Since that time, Muslims have understood hudna to mean a tactical truce intended to allow a favorable shift in the balance of power. Once that occurred, the truce could be broken. It was, therefore, no coincidence that the Palestinian terror groups adopted the term hudna.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad declared that their hudna would last three months, while Fatah declared a six-month hudna. Yet, they did not wait even that long to renew terrorism. Since the hudna was declared in late June 2003, and even before the mid-August suicide bombing of a Jerusalem bus, six Israelis and one foreign national were murdered in terrorist attacks, 28 civilians were injured; 180 terror attacks in all took place, including 120 shootings; additionally 40 terror attacks were thwarted by Israel. The bus bombing in Jerusalem on August 19, 2003 claimed an additional 23 lives, 7 of them children, while 136 were injured, including 40 children. It was clear that the Palestinian terrorist organizations never had a real ceasefire in mind, let alone an end to terrorism.
Only by fulfilling the requirements of the Roadmap and the agreements signed by the Palestinians, i.e. dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and organizations as well as putting an end to incitement, will the Palestinians meet their obligations and commitments.
| | |
What is the Palestinians' humanitarian situation? The Palestinian leadership's decision in 2000 to employ violence as a political tool sabotaged Israeli-Palestinian economic cooperation, causing a sharp decline in the economic well-being of the Palestinian population.
Israel had made substantial efforts since the signing of the Oslo accords to facilitate Palestinian-Israeli economic cooperation in the context of the peace process. As a result, there had been a marked expansion of Palestinian trade and employment in Israel, as well as other forms of economic cooperation from 1994 until the outbreak of the violence in September 2000.
Israel, in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority, had undertaken a broad range of actions since 1994 in order to promote and improve the free movement of goods and workers from the Palestinian Authority areas into Israel. In addition, industrial parks had been set up in the Palestinian Authority, involving substantial Israeli investment and economic incentives. These measures had a significant, positive impact on the Palestinian economy.
Unfortunately, the violence and terrorism have led to a sharp decline in economic activity in the area, with economic repercussions for both the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
The government of Israel would like to stabilize the situation in the territories, and to ease conditions for those living there. Israel has no desire to burden the Palestinian civilian population not involved in terrorism and violence.
Nevertheless, the acute security threat presented by Palestinian terrorism makes some measures unavoidable, if Israel is to fulfill its duty as a sovereign state to safeguard the lives of its citizens. An anti-terrorist fence is being built along the West Bank to prevent terrorist infiltration. Travel restrictions have been put into effect to stop terrorists from reaching their targets. The passage of Palestinians from the PA areas into Israel has also been limited, so as to prevent the spillover of violence and terrorism into Israeli cities. These measures, and additional precautions such as roadblocks, are designed to hinder the movement of terrorists and explosives, thereby saving innocent lives.
Exceptions to the restrictions have been made for the movement of commercial goods, food, medicine, medical crews and ambulances, which continue to circulate as freely as possible (given Palestinian use of ambulances to transport wanted terrorists and weapons and the involvement of Palestinian medical workers in terrorism). Moreover, procedures have been simplified to enable speedy delivery of humanitarian goods, such as medical supplies, to the Palestinian Authority.
Unfortunately, terrorists have used every Israeli attempt to ease restrictions on Palestinian daily life as an opportunity to renew their attacks on Israeli citizens.
It is Israel's policy to differentiate as much as possible between those perpetrating, aiding and directing terrorist activities, and the civilian population which is uninvolved in terrorism.
It must be stressed that the purpose of the security precautions is not to unduly burden the Palestinian population, but rather to ensure the security of Israeli citizens facing daily threats to their very lives. The end to these restrictions, like peace itself, is dependent on an end to the violence and terrorism.
In the meanwhile, Israel is undertaking measures to ease the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, despite the security risks. This, in the framework of negotiations, and in the hope that confidence building measures will create a more positive atmosphere for peace.
| | |
Why have children been involved in the violence? Instead of educating for peace, as Israel does, the extremist Palestinians have encouraged their youth to take an active role in the violence. Instead of making every effort to protect children, as Israel does, the Palestinian terrorists have deliberately targeted Israeli young people.
Israel is devoted to educating its children for tolerance and coexistence, teaching them to respect all peoples in accordance with Israel's democratic values and ideals. Israeli children are taught in their schools and via the media that the pursuit of peace is the highest calling. Israel believes that the key to a true and lasting peace lies in educating the next generation of both Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side in peace.
In contrast, the Palestinian extremists have deliberately created a culture of hatred that encourages Palestinian children to take an active role in violent activities. They have trained young people in the use of weapons and created an atmosphere that prepares them to become suicide bombers. Most casualties among Palestinian youngsters have occurred due to their direct participation in the violence or as the result of Israel's confrontations with terrorists who hide among the Palestinian population. The Palestinians have not attempted to safeguard Palestinian children from harm, rather it has chosen to use them as a propaganda tool.
Palestinian schools, summer camps, mosques and official media have all participated in creating this culture of hate. The cynical use of children as pawns in the conflict begins in the education system. Instead of educating children for peace, as Israel does, Palestinian textbooks openly teach hatred of Israel and the Jewish people. Educational facilities are used to inspire hero-worship of suicide bombers, psychologically preparing Palestinian children to follow in their footsteps. Children are given weapons to carry in anti-Israel rallies or are dressed up as suicide bombers. Youth groups and terrorist summer camps teach young people to become holy warriors, actually training them in the use of firearms.
Palestinian television is a very effective media for spreading the message of hate, with programs that incite violence aimed at every age group, starting with toddlers. Hamas has put a strong emphasis on producing children's programs that incite even the youngest viewers.
This cult of martyrdom inspired Palestinian children to take an increasingly active role in the violence. The average age of suicide bombers dropped and attacks carried out by teenagers became more and more frequent. Younger children, some no more than toddlers, have been used to provide cover for the transportation of weapons and explosives. Others have been hurt and even killed when retrieving Kassam missile launchers.
The Palestinian manipulation of children, which has been extensively documented by the media, constitutes a reprehensible violation of every international treaty and convention meant to protect children in situations of armed conflict. This heinous exploitation of children is both profoundly immoral and fundamentally illegal.
Targeting children in terrorist attacks also violates international laws and norms. Hundreds of Israeli children have been killed or wounded in numerous terrorist attacks over the decades. They were not incidental victims of the violence, but were the intended and preferred victims of the Palestinian terrorists. Israeli children have been deliberately targeted by Palestinian snipers and roadside bombs. Youngsters were bludgeoned and stoned to death by terrorists while hiking near their homes.
Palestinian terrorists have murdered nearly 120 children since September 2000, choosing to strike at places where young people are known to congregate - discos, bus stops, fast-food restaurants and shopping malls. Suicide terrorists stood face-to-face with their young victims, including babies, before deciding to detonate their explosives. In one of the most horrendous terror attacks - the suicide bombing of a Jerusalem bus on August 19, 2003 - seven of the dead and 40 of the injured were children.
The suffering of any child is tragic and regretful, and Israel believes that every effort must be made to protect all children - Israeli and Palestinian - from the violence. Palestinian schools and media must stop preaching incitement to violence and hatred, and join Israel in teaching the next generation to live in peace.
| | |
Has the media been fair in covering the conflict? The international media's coverage of the conflict in the Middle East has in many cases been unfair and biased against Israel.
The electronic media, must by its nature, provide speedy and concise information. However, this can lead to a simplistic and superficial portrayal of realities that are actually complex and complicated, such as the one existing in the Middle East. The contradiction between the need to report about the intricate reality of the Middle East and the need to report as quickly and as simply as possible, often results in the distorted and unbalanced coverage of matters that pertain to Israel.
In many cases, the media tends to portray a complex situation through black-and-white stereotypes, in which Israel is perceived as playing the role of an "occupier" that is trampling on the rights of the "occupied." This in turn automatically leads to the distorted portrayal of Israel as the root of all evil in the Middle East.
However, the reality is much more complicated than that. Fairness requires that the reason why Israel came into control of the territories should be examined, as should the fact that ever since 1948, the Arab world has called for the destruction of Israel, by whatever means possible. Unfortunately, this set of circumstances, with its broad and profound ramifications, is difficult to convey in a television report that lasts mere seconds, or at most just a few minutes.
News coverage of the Middle East usually provides a momentary snapshot of current events. Visuals can provide dramatic pictures, but in most cases they provide little insight into the broader circumstances in which the image was shown, indeed often taking events out of their context.
The image of a Palestinian youth facing an Israeli tank is a news story that stirs the emotions of the television viewers, a story that sells well. But this imagery is a gross distortion of the reality. In the picture the tank is seen as representing the "cruel and powerful occupier," the embodiment of a wrong that is supposedly the source of the Middle East conflict. However, reality is much more complicated than an image that captures a single moment - its before and after unknown to the viewer. Furthermore, the picture and its accompanying report generally say very little or nothing about the ongoing Palestinian terrorism which is the sole reason for the tank's being there in the first place. The media says very little about the Palestinian terrorists intentionally operating from urban centers. Little is shown about how the terrorists mingle with the Palestinian civilian population, cynically using children and other civilians as their pawns and shields behind which they launch their attacks against innocent Israelis. Very little, if anything, is said about the fact that the Israel Defense Forces act to avoid harming innocent civilians, even at the expense of endangering the lives of Israeli soldiers.
The international media has severely criticized Israel for restricting the freedom of movement of the Palestinians and for the suffering of the Palestinians at roadblocks that were placed in the territories by the Israel Defense Forces since the outbreak of violence in September 2000. The scenes that appear on television screens are indeed hard-hitting. They show Palestinians waiting, often for long periods, for security checks at the roadblocks.
These reports illustrate a situation that is only part of the picture, for the most part ignoring the context; that the only reason for the roadblocks being there is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israeli civilian populations. Also ignored is the Israeli government's obligation to defend its citizens from those who are on their way to blow themselves up and murder innocent bystanders in cafes, buses, shopping malls and other public places in Israeli cities. Does the media's focus on the roadblocks give due consideration to the right of Israeli civilians to live free from the threat of terrorism and violent death? The answer generally is no.
One of the most prominent examples of the fundamentally biased and unfair approach taken by much of the international media was seen in its handling of the fierce battle between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists in Jenin in April 2002. A short time after the battle began, most of the international media swallowed the Palestinian propaganda version of what was happening hook, line and sinker. They hastily jumped to conclusions and described the battle as an Israeli "massacre" of Palestinians. Israel was also immediately accused of having destroyed the city of Jenin.
Israel was both tried and judged in the media, before even the most basic facts were known. Had the international press verified the facts the media would have known that what was described as a massacre was actually a battle in which 56 Palestinians (the vast majority of them armed terrorists) were killed, as were 23 Israeli soldiers. What was described as the "destruction of Jenin" turned out to be a battle zone in only a very small area (about 100 x 100 meters), a tiny fraction of the entire city.
Another reason for the imbalance in the media coverage is that on Israel's side reporters work in an open and democratic society, in which freedom of the press and freedom of expression are guaranteed. The international press in Israel has access to every news source and to every opinion in the democratic political spectrum, as it should be.
In contrast, Palestinian society and the societies in most of the Arab world have no freedom of expression, no freedom of the press. The opportunity in those societies to independently report events is virtually nonexistent, and, consequently, the ability of the foreign press to provide authentic, objective and credible reports is very limited. Reporting from these areas without noting this fact demonstrates a lack of moral clarity.
This situation was clearly seen in the coverage of the Second War in Lebanon. On the one side, the foreign press was provided with nearly unprecedented access to Israeli soldiers, while on the other, Hizbullah places severe limits on reporters. The result was that few, if any, pictures of Hizbullah terrorists appeared in the Western media, nor were there any interviews with anyone but a very small cadre of Hizbullah spokesman.
In the past, there have been a number of known cases in which the Palestinians threatened to harm foreign reporters who sought to report events that might damage Palestinian interests. The threat of kidnapping looms over the heads of all foreign correspondents in Palestinian controlled areas. Likewise, there have been cases in which the Palestinians agreed to allow the press some freedom in doing their work on the condition that the reports would correspond to the views and message that the Palestinians wanted to convey.
In the worst manifestations of media bias, particularly in some political cartoons and opinion columns, the language and content vis-a-vis Israel have gone to the extreme. The very legitimacy of Israel's existence is questioned and at times even antisemitic stereotypes and symbols, similar to those attacking the Jewish people in the past, have been used.
However, what has generally characterized the international media's bias is the double standard it uses towards Israel. While as a democracy, Israel welcomes legitimate scrutiny, the media relentlessly scrutinizes Israel, out of proportion to any other western democracy. Totally and unjustifiably ignored is the fact that Israel faces an existential threat from a significant portion of the countries in the region. These states, who have not yet reconciled themselves to Israel's existence as a Jewish state, are themselves very far from meeting even the most basic standards of democracy and freedom. Moreover, while criticizing almost everything Israel does in fighting terrorism, the international media has often ignored the fact that other western democracies have used similar or even harsher measures when confronting threats to their national security and the safety of their citizens. The criticism of Israel has reached such a level that any action taken by Israel - no matter how defensive in nature, no matter what the threat facing Israeli - is automatically condemned.
| | |
Is Palestinian terrorism part of international terrorism? With the passage of time, it is becoming more and more evident that Palestinian terrorism cannot be isolated from international terrorism. As it has become apparent that Palestinian terrorists are more interested in the destruction of Israel than in the establishment of a Palestinian state, and that many Palestinian terrorist organizations are interested in the establishment of an Islamist entity in its place, it is clear that Palestinian terrorism is closely connected to jihadist terrorist organizations.
Not only is there growing evidence that international jihadist organizations are seeking a foothold in the Palestinian territories, the methods used by the Palestinians are being imitated by terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Over several decades, Palestinian violence has played a major role in the development of ever more dangerous forms of terrorism. It was the Palestinians who pioneered the use of terrorist hijackings. Palestinians may not have invented suicide bombers, but they have refined the technique, creating a cult of martyrdom that promotes more suicide bombings. On the other hand, the Palestinians are adopting techniques used by other terrorist organizations, especially the Hizbullah.
Evidence of international involvement in the Palestinian cause can be found in Iran's role in the conflict. Iran's control of Hizbullah - its arming, training and financing of this terrorist organization that not only has attacked Israel, but threatens the stability of Lebanon - is but one aspect of its involvement in the conflict. Iran is also closely allied with Hamas, a terrorist organization that continues to attack Israel despite its political gains in the Palestinian arena.
The Arab-Israeli conflict has been used by many in the Middle East to excuse their anti-American, and ultimately anti-Western, activities. Terrorism, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, often targets democratic societies. Studies of suicide terrorism have shown that it is not motivated by despair - rather it is almost always conducted as part of an organized campaign to obtain political or military objectives. Al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. were an assault on the ideals of freedom that the United States represents. They were part of bin Laden's plans for a jihad aimed at reshaping the world in accordance with his extremist interpretation of Islam. Although bin Laden's basic goals are unrelated to Israel, attacks on the American people have been exploited by anti-Israeli elements to advance their agenda in the Middle East.
In the ideological sphere, Palestinian propaganda blurs the difference between acts of terror that target innocents and defensive countermeasures aimed at stopping terrorists. It is important to realize that justifying any terrorist attack harms the worldwide effort to delegitimize terror and its sponsors.
Palestinian terrorism must not be allowed to succeed. To do so would not only encourage further acts of violence against innocent civilians in Israel, but also increase the chances that the scourge of terrorism will continue to proliferate and increasingly endanger democratic states throughout the world. Denying suicide terrorists their goals is an important step towards stopping the phenomenon of terrorism as a whole.
Any political gains made by the Palestinians through the use of terrorist violence will contribute to the proliferation of terrorism across the globe. Rewarding terrorism serves only to invite others in the Middle East and elsewhere to use similar tactics. The success of Palestinian terrorism would also encourage the further radicalization of Arab and Muslim populations made all too vulnerable to extremism by failed socio-economic conditions within their own states and ideologies that encourage hatred and violence.
Rewarding Palestinian terrorism would not only endanger Israel, but would threaten the stability of the region and the safety of the democratic world. Rewarding terrorism only breeds more terrorism.
| | |
Were targeted operations justified? As long as the Palestinian leadership did nothing to stop the terrorist attacks, Israel had no choice but to act to prevent them, including by means of targeted counter-terrorism operations. Under international law, individuals who actively take part in hostilities are legitimate military targets.
In its signed agreements with Israel, the Palestinian Authority undertook to stop all violence, arrest terrorists, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, collect illegal weapons and end incitement to violence. Yet in the years after the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PA did nothing to fulfill its obligation, but instead actively encouraged and supported terrorism. This terrorism has deliberately targeted civilians for murder. The inaction of the Palestinian leadership in the face of widespread terrorist activity in the areas under its control, coupled with its active support of this violence, left Israel with no alternative but to take itself the necessary action to prevent terrorist attacks.
Still, over the past years, Israel's security forces have been faced with an untenable dilemma - how to uphold Israel's democratic values and the rules of armed warfare while fighting terrorists who are willing to violate every norm of civilized behavior. Israel has desperately searched for ways to effectively stop terrorists, who are hiding among the Palestinian population, without harming innocent Palestinians.
Whenever possible, Israeli operations are directed toward apprehending terrorists and their accomplices, and bringing them to justice. In a small minority of cases, arrests are impossible, primarily due to the fact that the terrorist operatives and their ringleaders are given refuge in the heart of Palestinian controlled areas. When this happens and when there is a clear terrorist threat, Israel has had to undertake preventive measures, including targeted counter-terrorism operations aimed at stopping terrorists from perpetrating attacks.
International law, in general, and the law of armed conflict, in particular, recognize that individuals who directly take part in hostilities cannot then claim immunity. By initiating and participating in armed attacks, such individuals have designated themselves as combatants and have forfeited such legal protection. In many terrorist organizations, there is no true division between the so-called political arm and the military arm - leaders from all parts of the organization are actively involved in ordering and planning terrorist attacks, and, therefore, can be considered legitimate military targets. By the same token, an individual who becomes a combatant is considered to remain a combatant until hostilities come to an end and not merely during that exact instant when they are carrying out an attack.
Since September 2000, Israeli civilians and soldiers alike have had to face thousands of organized, violent and life-threatening attacks, only a small percentage of which have been reported in the media. These attacks have included suicide bombings, shootings, violent riots, lynchings, fire-bombings, roadside ambushes, mortar barrages, and car bombs directed at civilian targets. The Palestinians have also attempted - but fortunately failed - to carry out acts of "mega-terrorism," including attempted attacks on the Pi Glilot gas and fuel storage facility near Tel Aviv and the truck bombing of Tel Aviv's largest skyscrapers. To date, over 1,100 Israelis have been killed and many thousands more wounded as a result of this violence.
Under these difficult conditions, the Israel Defense Forces have acted with the greatest possible restraint, taking action only when inaction by Israel would have resulted in the loss of innocent lives. Israel always strives to use the minimum force necessary to prevent terrorism, acting in compliance with the principles and practice of armed conflict. It takes care to target only those responsible for the violence, and makes every effort to avoid the involvement of innocent civilians.
In contrast, Palestinian terrorists deliberately target innocent civilians and use weapons designed to cause the greatest possible injury and death.
The Israeli government regrets the loss of any life, whether Jewish or Arab, in the present wave of violence. Terrorist attacks have both taken innocent lives and gravely wounded the peace process. Terrorism remains the primary obstacle to peace and it is imperative that the violence ends so that both parties can return to constructive negotiations. A just and sustainable solution can be found only through dialogue, not armed conflict. However, while the terrorism continues, Israel has an indisputable responsibility to act in self-defense and protect its citizens.
In the final analysis, responsibility for all the casualties lies with the Palestinian leadership, which has initiated the violence and refuses to bring it to an end. Were Palestinian violence and terrorism to end, Israel would have no reason to take preventive countermeasures.
| | |
| Anti-Terrorism FenceWhy is Israel building the anti-terrorist fence? More than 1,100 people have been murdered in attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists since September 2000. Thousands more Israelis have been injured, many maimed for life. The terrorists infiltrated Israeli cities and towns and carried out attacks - often in the form of suicide bombings - on buses, in restaurants, shopping malls, and even private homes. No other democracy in the world had before this time faced such an intense wave of terror, especially in the form of suicide bombings.
In almost all of the cases, the terrorists came from Palestinian areas in the West Bank. The absence of a barrier there had make infiltration into Israel communities a relatively easy task for terrorists. Often, Israeli communities are located only a short walking distance from Palestinian centers of terrorism. The Palestinian leadership was doing nothing to stop them and has even encouraged them.
Israel's decision to erect a physical barrier against terrorism was taken only after other options were tried, but failed to halt the deadly attacks. Public opinion in Israel pushed for building a fence that would block the terrorists from entering Israeli population centers. It should be noted that for many years, no terrorists infiltrated into Israel from the Gaza Strip, because an electronic anti-terrorist fence already existed there.
The Government of Israel has an obligation to defend its citizens against terrorism. This right of self-defense is anchored in international law. The anti-terrorist fence is an act of self-defense that saves lives. Until the Palestinians act to stop terrorism, Israel must take the necessary actions to protect itself.
| | |
How could the Palestinians have avoided the building of the anti-terrorist fence? The Palestinians have only themselves to blame for the anti-terrorist fence. The decision to build the anti-terrorist fence was taken only after other options were tried, but failed to stop the deadly terrorist attacks.
The Palestinian Authority had not fulfilled the commitments it made to fight terrorism. Those obligations were contained in the Oslo Accords and subsequent agreements, as well as in the Roadmap that was presented to the sides in May 2003. While terrorism is not allowed under these agreements and is outlawed under international law, the use of defensive measures, such as the fence, is permitted.
The Palestinians seek to blame Israel, the victim of terrorism that is taking a purely defensive measure. The Palestinians ignore the innocent victims murdered by Palestinian terrorism emanating from the West Bank.
Had there been no terrorism, Israel would not have been compelled to build a fence to protect its citizens. The Palestinians need to dismantle the terrorist organizations, confiscate weapons, arrest the planners and perpetrators of terrorist acts, stop incitement and resume security cooperation with Israel - all these steps are required by the commitments undertaken by the Palestinians.
| | |
Is it a "wall" or a "fence"? Despite the many pictures being shown in the international media of a tall concrete wall, more than 92% of the currently built anti-terrorist fence consists of a chain-link fence system.
Most of the anti-terrorist fence consists of a strip approximately the width of a four-lane highway. At its center is the chain-link fence that supports an intrusion detection system. This technologically advanced system is designed to warn against infiltrations, as are the dirt "tracking" path and other observation tools.
Less than 8% of the fence will be constructed of concrete. The short concrete sections are intended not only to stop terrorists from infiltrating, but also to block them from shooting at Israeli vehicles traveling on main highways alongside the pre-1967 line, at nearby Jewish residential areas, and at other targets. In a few cases, because of topographical considerations or the density of housing and other construction in the area, the building of a fence is impossible and, therefore, a concrete barrier becomes necessary.
| | |
Is the fence taking into proper consideration the needs of the Palestinian population? In addition to its efforts to ensure the security of its citizens, Israel attaches considerable importance to the interests of the local Palestinian residents. Israel recognizes the necessity of finding an appropriate balance between the imperative need to defend its citizens, and the humanitarian needs of local Palestinian residents.
Israel has made the use of public lands a priority in building the anti-terrorist fence, in order to avoid, as much as possible, the use of private lands. If this is not possible, then private land is requisitioned, not confiscated, and it remains the property of the owner. Legal procedures allow every owner to file an objection to the use of their land. When private lands are used, owners are offered full compensation, in accordance with the law; this compensation is given both as a lump sum and also on a monthly basis.
Most Palestinians will be on the eastern (West Bank) side of the fence. They will have access to their commercial and urban centers. No Palestinians will have to relocate. Israel will make every effort to avoid causing hardship and interference with their daily lives. In fact, once completed, the fence will enable Israel to remove a number of the roadblocks currently in place to prevent terrorists from getting through.
Dozens of crossing points have been set up to enable the movement of people and goods. The anti-terrorist fence was located, to the greatest possible degree, on unused land to avoid harming agriculture. Palestinian farmers will have access to their fields and will reach them through special gates that are being built into the fence. Trees affected by the construction will be replanted.
There would have been no need for an anti-terrorist fence had there not been an orchestrated campaign of terrorism that targets Israeli men, women and children for death. Death is permanent. It is irreversible. The inconvenience caused to Palestinians by the anti-terrorist fence is temporary. It is reversible, once terrorism stops and peace is achieved.
Freedom of movement is important. But it is not more important than the right to live. Having said this, Israel will do all it can to reduce hardship and inconvenience for the Palestinians who are affected by the fence.
| | |
Is the anti-terrorist fence not establishing permanent facts on the ground? | The route of the fence has been determined on the basis of security needs and topographical considerations.
The anti-terrorist fence will not annex Palestinian lands nor change the legal status of Palestinians residents. The anti-terrorist fence is a temporary, defensive measure - not a border: the border is to be determined by direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians
The fence is being built in such a way that, if necessary, the relevant parts can be moved to different locations. In this context, it will be remembered that when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, in fulfillment of UN Security Council Resolution 425, the UN delineated the border between Israel and Lebanon. Israel moved its anti-terrorist fence, sometimes only a meter or less, to comply with the new border. Similarly, Israel's experience with Egypt and Jordan has shown that fences have never blocked political agreements and peace treaties; where necessary, the fences were moved.
| | |
Why is the anti-terrorist fence not being built only along the pre-June 1967 lines? The sole purpose for the fence is security and it is being built wherever this is needed to prevent terrorists from infiltrating into Israeli population centers. Building the fence only along the pre-June 1967 lines (the former "Green Line") would be a purely political act, having nothing to do with the security needs of Israel's citizens.
The former "Green Line" was the armistice line between Israel and Jordan during the years 1949-1967. It was not the final border, which was to be determined in peace negotiations. The "Green Line" ceased to exist following the Arab threat to Israel's existence in the spring of 1967 which led to the Six Day War in June of that year. The drafters of UN Security Council Resolution 242 in November 1967 recognized that the pre-June 1967 lines were not secure and would have to be re-delineated.
While the final border between Israel and the Palestinians has to be determined in negotiations, the route of the anti-terrorism fence is determined solely by the immediate and pressing need to save Israeli lives by preventing Palestinian terrorists from reaching the Israeli populations. Thus, the fence is being built wherever this can be achieved most effectively. To put it arbitrarily anywhere else, such as along the pre-June 1967 lines, would have nothing to do with security and, therefore, nothing to do with the purpose of the fence.
In those cases where the route of the fence meets Israel's security needs within the former "Green Line," it is being built there. Indeed parts of the fence are being built within the pre-1967 lines, in keeping with the required security requirements on the ground.
| | |
Is the anti-terrorist fence not an obstacle to peace? Terrorism is a deadly obstacle to peace. The fence is a defensive obstacle to terrorism.
The purpose of the fence is to keep the terrorists out and, thereby, save the lives of Israel's citizens, Jews and Arabs alike.
By serving as a temporary, passive and effective barrier to terrorism, the fence will help restore calm to the region and thereby increase the chances of achieving peace. The wave of terrorism which has murdered over 1,100 Israelis since September 2000 has undermined the peace process and led to deadlock. Reducing terrorism, including by the anti-terrorist fence, will make an important contribution to the renewal of peace efforts.
Already, the as yet uncompleted anti-terrorist fence has shown initial successes in thwarting terrorist efforts and reducing the overall number of successful terrorist attacks. Some planned terror attacks were stopped because the terrorists were unable to bypass the fence. Once the fence will be completed, the terrorists will find conditions much more difficult for carrying out their murderous intentions. This can only help the cause of peace.
Once terrorism ends and peace is achieved, the fence can be moved.
| | |
Is the anti-terrorist fence not intensifying hostility and hatred towards Israel? Incitement from the Palestinians and the Arab world is the cause of hostility and hatred towards Israel. The intensification of this hostility and hatred is due to the continuation of the incitement, and not due to the anti-terrorist fence which is designed to prevent terrorist attacks - a deadly product of the hate campaign against Israel.
In a number of Arab countries and in Palestinian society the struggle against Israel takes center stage, and the call to destroy Israel has been at the core of their social-cultural-political ethos. In some Arab societies, this situation prevails to this very day. The Palestinians' vehement anti-Israel rhetoric has had a crippling impact throughout the region on efforts for peace.
The intense coverage of the Palestinian perspective of events and incitement from Palestinian spokespersons have enflamed anti-Israeli sentiments in Arab countries, even influencing many pro-peace Arab states to downgrade their ties with Israel. Palestinian incitement causes violence in the short term, while in the long term it reduces the chances for peace and reconciliation between Israel and its neighbors.
| | |
Has the partially completed anti-terrorist fence succeeded in reducing the number of terrorist attacks? Data reveals a clear correlation between the construction of the fence and a drop in the number of terrorist attacks from those areas adjacent to the parts of the fence that have been completed.
In the early stages of the building, statistical data indicated a 30% drop in the number of terrorist attacks that took place in 2003 compared to 2002. Similarly, there has been a 50% decrease in the number of victims murdered by terrorists in 2003 compared to the previous year.
There were 17 suicide bomber attacks inside Israel that emanated from the northern part (Samaria) of the West Bank during the months April-December 2002. In contrast, since construction began on the anti-terrorist fence, throughout all of 2003 only 5 suicide bomber attacks emanated from the same area. From that area where construction of the anti-terrorist fence had not yet begun, namely the southern part (Judea) of the West Bank, no decrease in the number of terrorist attacks was noted. As More of the fence has been completed, there has been an almost total reduction in the number of successful terrorist attacks emanating from the West Bank.
Once the construction of the anti-terrorist fence will be completed, the overall number of terrorist attacks against Israeli population centers is expected to decrease immensely.
| | |
Is the anti-terrorist fence not a manifestation of apartheid and racism? Almost every Palestinian claim attaches the term "apartheid" to the fence. But the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is nothing like the situation that existed in South Africa, and Israel's anti-terrorist fence has nothing to do with racial separation, but with the need to prevent terrorism.
Apartheid was a system of racial segregation, designed to preserve the status quo and oppress black South Africans, who were denied all rights, while mingling between the ethnic groups was strictly forbidden.
Palestinian propaganda utterly ignores the fact that the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is not a racial one, but, in fact, a national-territorial conflict between two distinct peoples. The fence was not designed to separate the peoples according to their race or religion, but rather to separate the perpetrators of terrorism from their victims. It will allow both Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side in peace, free from the conflict caused by terrorism.
Israel is basically interested in contacts between Israelis and Palestinians. The only reason that Palestinians have in recent years been restricted from entering into Israel is because of their terrorist attacks against Israelis, attacks that escalated every time Israel tried to relax restrictions.
Despite Israel's desires for peaceful contacts with their neighbors, the Palestinians have no legal right to enter the State of Israel. They are not citizens of Israel. At the same time, Israeli Arabs (who constitute nearly 20% of Israel's population) are citizens, and they have equal rights under Israeli law.
The attempt to depict the building of the anti-terrorist fence by Israel as somehow related to "apartheid" is ridiculous. What Palestinian propaganda purposefully omits is that the sole reason for the building of the fence by Israel is Palestinian terrorism.
| | |
Is the anti-terrorist fence not another "Berlin Wall"? The Palestinian attempt to draw a parallel between Israel's anti-terrorist fence and the Berlin Wall that was built by the Communist East German regime is nothing more than cheap propaganda that plays fast and loose with historical facts.
The Berlin Wall was designed by the Communist regime of East Germany to solidify and perpetuate the division of the city by keeping the citizens of East Germany - who sought only freedom and contacts with their brethren in West Germany - locked in. The Berlin Wall was built during the height of the Cold War by a totalitarian regime in its struggle against the democracy that thrived in the western sections of the city and in the Federal Republic of Germany.
In stark contrast, Israel is building the anti-terrorist fence for only one purpose - to keep Palestinian terrorists, who wish to murder and maim Israeli citizens, out. Israel, a democratic society, is building the fence to protect its citizens from deadly attack, not from peaceful contacts with the other side. It is Palestinian terrorism - backed by an authoritarian regime and supported by the most dangerous terrorist organizations and terrorist-sponsoring states in the Middle East - that is the threat and the instigator of conflict. Terrorism has forced Israel to take the defensive step of building an anti-terrorist fence.
| | |
Is the anti-terrorist fence not creating "ghettos"? In referring to the building of the anti-terrorist fence by misusing the term "ghettos", Palestinian propaganda is cynically manipulating history and reality. Anti-terrorist measures, such as the fence, have no connection whatsoever with "ghettos".
In misusing the term "ghetto" the Palestinians choose to manipulate a word linked to the darkest, most painful periods of Jewish history, especially the Holocaust. In this manner, the Palestinians are seeking another means to once again smear the name of Israel. This is a classic example of the new antisemitism, which uses an outright lie for the purpose of rewriting and falsifying history and transforming the victim into the perpetrator.
The Jews were forced into ghettos to persecute them, to discriminate against them, and to isolate them, and ultimately, during the Holocaust, to kill them. Israel is not forcing the Palestinians to live where they are, but is being forced to build the security fence to keep the Palestinians terrorists away from Israeli communities.
Israel is not seeking to isolate the Palestinians. Israel would like nothing more than to see contacts and cooperation flourish with its Palestinian neighbors and the Arab world. This, however, cannot be said about the Palestinian and Arab world's approach to Israel.
The Palestinians and the Arab states have systematically over the decades tried every means imaginable to isolate Israel, in effect building a "wall' around Israel in order to eventually destroy it. They have tried to do this through economic boycott and diplomatic assaults in the international arena. They have taken action in order to prevent Israel from participating in cultural and sports events. They have kept Israel from participating in Middle Eastern and Asian related events, even though Israel is part of the Middle East and the Asian continent. They have used the same kind of antisemitic diatribes against Israel that were used against the Jewish people during the times in history when Jews were forced into ghettos.
If anyone is trying to build ghettos, it is the Palestinians and the Arab world that are guilty of trying to do this against Israel.
| | |
| Disengagement from GazaWhy did Israel disengage from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria? In August 2005 Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria (the northern West Bank), ending its 38-year civilian presence and military rule there. Israel hoped this move would lead to a more stable, less violent reality with its Palestinian neighbors, and ultimately to a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement. Israel viewed this goal as so vital, that it was willing to take big risks, make major concessions, and even face a national trauma to pursue it.
This withdrawal was supposed to be only the first phase of what could have been a new era of progress toward peace, as the focus shifted from Israel's presence to what the Palestinians were willing and able to do with the territory that came under their full control.
Both sides shared a common interest in ending the violence, improving their peoples' security and living standards, and living peacefully side-by-side in two democratic states. Israel was confident that, when faced with the new reality in Gaza, the logic of cooperation would be self-evident to the Palestinian leadership.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians again chose to pursue the path of violence. Instead of using the Gaza Strip as a jumping off point for their goal of a state, they used it as a launching pad for terrorist attacks, particularly Kassam attacks on the Israeli town of Sderot.
| | |
What was the human cost to Israel of the disengagement from Gaza and northern Samaria? Reaching a democratic decision to implement disengagement - even one overwhelmingly supported by national public opinion - demanded finding answers to some extremely difficult questions.
Could Israel leave Gaza without seeming to signal this was a victory for terrorism? Was the country ready to uproot citizens who had lived in the area for decades? Did redeployment mean giving up a negotiating asset without getting anything in return?
Despite the highly emotional issues involved, the public debate was predominately peaceful, even with demonstrations involving tens of thousands of Israelis on both sides of the issue.
Israel's watershed disengagement initiative was a demonstration of faith in the eventual attainment of peace. With reciprocation from the Palestinians, it could have served as a breakthrough toward this goal.
The disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria (northern West Bank) clearly demonstrated that Israel backs its words with action and is willing to pay a major price for peace.
Establishing peace is a fundamental goal of Jewish tradition and the declared policy of the State of Israel. Israel has long sought peace with its Arab neighbors and particularly with the Palestinians. The great challenge in making peace is that it is a process that hopefully does not end just with the cessation of hostilities between former enemies, but with the beginning of a new relationship of coexistence. Israel's ultimate goal is to establish good neighborly relations with a Palestinian state.
Against the background of more than four years of terrorist bloodshed, Israel initiated its Disengagement Plan in the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria, both to enhance its security and to put the peace process with the Palestinians back in motion. For it to have a chance to work, the plan requires a considerable sacrifice on the part of some 1,700 settlers and their families, or about 8,000 people who had to leave the homes and livelihoods they have built over the course of decades.
In the short term, it is these settlers who are paying the greatest part of the price for peace. It is they who were encouraged by previous governments to settle barren land and turn it into homes, gardens, and farms, in the same pioneering spirit that built the State of Israel. They were then asked to relinquish these accomplishments for the greater good.
Many of these pioneers came to the Gaza Strip, for example, as young couples - and then had to face the trauma of leaving their homes with their children and grandchildren, for whom Gaza has been their only home. The communities that they had nurtured were broken up, at great personal loss and great national cost.
Removing the Jewish communities from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria meant that:
- 42 day-care centers, 36 kindergartens, seven elementary schools, and three high schools were closed;
- 5,000 schoolchildren had to find new schools;
- 38 synagogues were closed;
- 166 Israeli farmers lost their livelihoods - plus some 5,000 of their Palestinian workers;
- 48 graves in the Gush Katif Cemetery, including those of six residents murdered by terrorists, were exhumed and moved to Israel.
Disengagement was estimated to cost Israel billions of dollars. The cost of family relocation alone is estimated at the time of the disengagement to be nearly $1 billion. In addition, the IDF had to spend hundreds of millions to remove military bases and equipment from the Gaza Strip.
Despite all these monies and efforts, many families from Gaza have still not found their permanent homes.
| | |
What is the post-disengagement situation in Gaza? Following disengagement, four critical issues had to be addressed: diplomacy, security, economic development, and international assistance.
In the diplomatic process: A key element of the Roadmap to Peace is the Palestinian commitment to end terrorism, including dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and ending the incitement that encourages violence. As the Palestinian Authority assumed full responsibility for the Gaza Strip, it had the chance to demonstrate its ability to govern and fulfill its commitments. If it had done so, rapid progress and a bright future for all people of the area would have been achievable.
Regarding security: If the Palestinians had fulfilled their commitments under the Roadmap plan to stop terrorist attacks on Israel, then peace would have prevailed.
As for economic development: Israel recognizes that it has a vested interest in showing the Palestinians they are better off under conditions of peace rather than continued violence. For this reason, Israel made every effort to facilitate aid, economic cooperation, and the free movement of goods, services, and labor.
Finally, the international community had a role to play by providing vital assistance to ensure the success of disengagement by empowering moderate forces and weakening extremists. Israel also hoped its neighbors in the region would seize this opportunity to build with it a region of peace, stability, and cooperation. Achieving comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world is no less vital than doing so between Israelis and Palestinians.
Israel hoped that the Palestinians would use the incredible opportunity presented by the disengagement to embark on the path towards peace were quickly dashed. Instead of building the foundations of a peaceful society, the Palestinians allowed Gaza to slide into anarchy. Kassam rockets continued to be fired into Israel; weapons, ammunitions and monies were smuggled into the Gaza Strip in enormous amounts; terrorist activities of every variety were allowed to be carried out freely; and Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction, was elected to lead the Palestinian government.
These activities peaked on 25 June 2006 with the unprovoked attack on Israeli soil in which two IDF soldiers were killed and a third, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, was kidnapped. This was followed by Hamas violent takeover of the Gaza Strip.
Even though most of the rockets aimed at Israel's civilians have fortunately not resulted in loss of life or serious property damage, no country in the world could tolerate any such attacks on its civilian population forever.
The inaccuracy of the Kassam rockets has somehow resulted in their being under-reported in the international media and thereby having little impact on public opinion. As a result, some global decision-makers have come to treat the issue with an undeserved lack of seriousness. For this reason, if Israel is forced to respond, it is liable to find itself accused of "aggressiveness" or of using "disproportionate force" to meet a very real threat that few have heard about.
When Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005, it did so with no intention of returning. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have continued to use the Gaza Strip to launch attacks upon Israel.
| | |
How have Israeli citizens been endangered since the withdrawal from Gaza? Since Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, Palestinian terrorist organizations based there have increased their rocket attacks on Israeli communities in the Western Negev. In addition, the terrorists have stepped up their arms smuggling operations via tunnels in the southern Gaza Strip, bringing in tens of tons of high explosives. This wholesale smuggling has only intensified since Hamas' violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in June 2007.
Between Israel's disengagement from Gaza August 2005 and the Annapolis Conference in November 2007, over 1,800 Kassam artillery rockets have hit Israel from the Gaza Strip. These rockets include improved, long-range weapons which can reach the Israeli port city of Ashkelon, more than 13 km. (8 miles) from the Gaza border. The firing of these deadly missiles grew more prevalent since the Hamas June 2007 takeover of Gaza, when from that time until Annapolis, more than 300 Kassams and nearly 500 mortar bombs were launched.
Following Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Palestinian terrorist groups continued their attempts to carry out large-scale attacks against Israeli population centers. One tactic used is to exploit Israel's humanitarianism by infiltrating terrorists pretending to be Palestinians entering Israel to receive medical treatment. Another tactic being used is the exploitation of the peaceful border between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai in order to infiltrate terrorists from Gaza into Israel for suicide attacks.
In addition to their cynical tactic of using Palestinian civilians as human shields by firing rockets from densely populated areas, Palestinian terrorists are now increasingly mobilizing civilians in order to protect themselves from Israeli counterterrorist operations.
One such event occurred on November 18, 2006, after the IDF warned residents of Beit Lahiya that a counterterrorist strike was about to be carried out against the home of Muhammad Baroud, commander of the PRC's Kassam rocket operations. The IDF issued the warning to prevent civilian casualties during the impending operation. Baroud quickly summoned hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children, and had them surround the building.
The IDF counterterrorist operation had to be cancelled due to the proximity of the civilians - demonstrating vividly that the Palestinians know that Israel values their lives more than the Palestinian terrorists do.
| | |
|
|
|