Myths and Facts - The Peace Process

MYTH

"Anwar Sadat deserves all of the credit for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty."

FACT

The peace drive did not begin with President Anwar Sadat's November 1977 visit to Jerusalem. Sadat's visit was unquestionably a courageous act of statesmanship. But it came only after more than a half-century of efforts by early Zionist and Israeli leaders to negotiate peace with the Arabs.

"For Israel to equal the drama," said former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Simcha Dinitz, "we would have had to declare war on Egypt, maintain belligerent relations for years, refuse to talk to them, call for their annihilation, suggest throwing them into the sea, conduct military operations and terrorism against them, declare economic boycotts, close the Strait of Tiran to their ships, close the Suez Canal to their traffic, and say they are outcasts of humanity. Then Mr. Begin would go to Cairo, and his trip would be equally dramatic. Obviously, we could not do this, because it has been our policy to negotiate all along."1

Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin proved that, like Sadat, he was willing to go the extra mile to achieve peace. Although he faced intense opposition from within his Likud Party, Begin froze Israeli settlements in the West Bank to facilitate the progress of negotiations. Despite the Carter Administration's tilt toward Egypt during the talks, Begin remained determined to continue the peace process. In the end, he agreed to give the strategically critical Sinai — 91 percent of the territory won by Israel during the Six-Day War — back to Egypt in exchange for Sadat's promise to make peace.

In recognition of his willingness to join Sadat in making compromises for peace, Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize with the Egyptian leader.

MYTH

"Egypt made all the concessions for peace."

FACT

Israel made tangible concessions to Egypt in exchange only for promises.

Israel — which had repeatedly been the target of shipping blockades, military assaults and terrorist attacks staged from the area — made far greater economic and strategic sacrifices in giving up the Sinai than Egypt did in normalizing relations with Israel. While it received additional U.S. aid for withdrawing, Israel gave up much of its strategic depth in the Sinai, returning the area to a neighbor that had repeatedly used it as a launching point for attacks. Israel also relinquished direct control of its shipping lanes to and from Eilat, 1,000 miles of roadways, homes, factories, hotels, health facilities and agricultural villages.

Because Egypt insisted that Jewish civilians leave the Sinai, 7,000 Israelis were uprooted from their homes and businesses, which they had spent years building in the desert. This was a physically and emotionally wrenching experience, particularly for the residents of Yamit, who had to be forcibly removed from their homes by soldiers.

Israel also lost electronic early-warning stations situated on Sinai mountaintops that provided data on military movement on the western side of the Suez Canal, as well as the areas near the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Eilat, which were vital to defending against an attack from the east. Israel was forced to relocate more than 170 military installations, airfields and army bases after it withdrew.

By turning over the Sinai to Egypt, Israel may have given up its only chance to become energy-independent. The Alma oil field in the southern Sinai, discovered and developed by Israel, was transferred to Egypt in November 1979. When Israel gave up this field, it had become the country's largest single source of energy, supplying half the country's energy needs. Israel, which estimated the value of untapped reserves in the Alma field at $100 billion, had projected that continued development there would make the country self-sufficient in energy by 1990.

Israel also agreed to end military rule in the West Bank and Gaza, withdraw its troops from certain parts of the territories and work toward Palestinian autonomy. The Begin government did this though no Palestinian Arab willing to recognize Israel came forward to speak on behalf of residents of the territories.

In 1988, the Jewish State relinquished Taba — a resort built by Israel in what had been a barren desert area near Eilat — to Egypt. Taba's status had not been resolved by the Camp David Accords. When an international arbitration panel ruled in Cairo's favor on September 29, 1988, Israel turned the town over to Egypt.

MYTH

"At Camp David, during the Carter Administration, Israel agreed to halt the construction of settlements for five years. Within months, Israel had violated the accords by establishing new settlements on the West Bank."

FACT

The five-year period agreed to at Camp David was the time allotted to Palestinian self-government in the territories. The Israeli moratorium on West Bank settlements agreed to by Prime Minister Menachem Begin was only for three months. Begin kept this agreement.

Israel's position on the matter received support from an unexpected source: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who said: "We agreed to put a freeze on the establishment of settlements for the coming three months, the time necessary in our estimation for signing the peace treaty."2

MYTH

"The Palestinian question is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict."

FACT

In reality, the Palestinian Arab question is the result of the conflict, which stems from Arab unwillingness to accept a Jewish State in the Middle East.

Had Arab governments not gone to war in 1948 to block the UN partition plan, a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Galilee and the Negev would be celebrating the 54th anniversary of its independence. Had the Arab states not supported terrorism directed at Israeli civilians and provoked six subsequent Arab-Israeli wars, the conflict could have been settled long ago, and the Palestinian problem resolved.

From 1948-67, the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab rule, and no Jewish settlements existed there, but the Arabs never set up a Palestinian state. Instead, Gaza was occupied by Egypt, and the West Bank by Jordan. No demands for a West Bank/Gaza independent state were heard until Israel took control of these areas in the Six-Day War.

The Arab states have always held the key to solving the Palestinian problem. The Palestinian refugees could long ago have been resettled among their people in Arab lands, which extend over five million square miles. These nations have the land and money to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees; Israel, with a fraction of Arab land and wealth, absorbed 820,000 Jews driven from Arab countries in the 1950's. The Arabs' refusal to do the same with the Palestinians shows they are more interested in using the refugees as a political weapon against Israel than they are in truly solving the problem.
“Israel is a malignant tumor in the region. It must be cut off. It must be eradicated.”

— Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
statement to armed forces staff, July 31, 1991

MYTH

"If the Palestinian problem was solved, the Middle East would be at peace."

FACT

The Palestinian problem is but one of many simmering ethnic, religious and nationalistic feuds plaguing the region. Here is but a partial list of other conflicts from the end of the 20th century: the 1991 Gulf War; the Iran-Iraq War; the Lebanese Civil War; Libya's interference in Chad; the Sudanese Civil War; the Syria-Iraq conflict and the war between the Polisario Front and Morocco.

"Almost every border in that part of the world, from Libya to Pakistan, from Turkey to Yemen, is either ill-defined or in dispute," scholar Daniel Pipes noted. "But Americans tend to know only about Israel's border problems, and do not realize that these fit into a pattern that recurs across the Middle East."3

If the Palestinian problem was solved, it would have negligible impact on the many inter-Arab rivalries that have spawned numerous wars in the region. Nor would it eliminate Arab opposition to Israel. Syria, for example, has a territorial dispute with Israel unrelated to the Palestinians. Other countries, such as Iran and Iraq, maintain a state of war with Israel despite having no territorial disputes.

MYTH

"A secular, democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the solution to the conflict."

FACT

There is no such thing as a secular or democratic state in the Arab world. Islam is the official state religion in nearly every Arab country. The only place where mention is made of a "secular, democratic Palestinian state" is in the West, where the slogan is used to generate sympathy.

The PLO has never been democratic. Leadership in the PLO is determined by bullets — not ballots. Representation is determined by the size of each faction's militia. Opponents are not voted out of power; they are murdered. Moreover, if anything, the PLO has become less secular in recent years, in part to counter the growing influence of Islamic groups such as Hamas, which would never countenance mention of such a state.

In 1947, the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan, which would have created a Palestinian state. From 1948-67, when the West Bank and Gaza were ruled by Arabs, no thought was given to forming such a state. It is therefore ironic that the Arabs demand that Israel do for the West Bank and Gaza what they were unwilling to do when they occupied the area.

While Israel long opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, today Israelis recognize this will be the outcome of negotiations and that the Palestinian Authority is already a state in all but name. Israel would feel more comfortable with a democratic neighbor, but it has not imposed any conditions on the type of government the Palestinians adopt in the territories they control.

If the Palestinians were content to have a state in the West Bank and Gaza, the prospects for a final settlement would be very good; however, they have consistently held out for much more. Prior to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians laid claim to all of Israel, but they have subsequently recognized Israel's right to exist (though their rhetoric often suggests the dream of returning to their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and elsewhere has not died). Still, today they want not only the entire West Bank and Gaza but Jerusalem, which they demand as their capital.
“Israel wants to give the Palestinians what no one else gave them — a state. Not the Turks, the British, the Egyptians, or the Jordanians gave them this possibility...All Israel asks is that Arafat commit himself to stopping the terror, to live in peace.”

— Prime Minister Ariel Sharon4



MYTH

"A Palestinian state will pose no danger to Israel."

FACT

Though reconciled to the creation of a Palestinian state, and hopeful that it will coexist peacefully, Israelis still see such an entity as a threat to their security. Even after returning much of the West Bank and Gaza and allowing the Palestinians to govern themselves, terrorism against Israelis has continued. So far, no amount of concessions by Israel has been sufficient to prompt Arafat to end the violence. This has not reassured Israelis; on the contrary, it has made them more reluctant to give up additional territory for a Palestinian state.

Israelis also fear that a Palestinian state will become dominated by Islamic extremists and serve as a staging area for terrorists. The greatest danger, however, would be that a Palestinian state could serve as a forward base in a future war for Arab nations that have refused to make peace with Israel.

"In Israeli hands, the West Bank represents a tremendous defensive asset whose possession by Israel deters Arab foes from even considering attack along an 'eastern front,'" a report by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies notes. Today, an Arab coalition attacking from east of the Jordan "would face very difficult fighting conditions" because "it would be fighting uphill from the lowest point on the face of the earth: the Dead Sea and the Rift Valley that runs below it." The mountain ranges in the West Bank constitute "Israel's main line of defense against Arab armies from the east."5

MYTH

"Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are illegal, and an obstacle to peace."

FACT

Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are "illegal." International legal scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.6

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote. During the debate on the resolution, he added, "speaker after speaker made it clear that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile' and 'vulnerable' [1949] Armistice Demarcation Lines."7

Settlements have never been an obstacle to peace. From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel. From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs showed no interest in making peace with Israel.

In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem. One year later, Israel froze settlements, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would.

In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.

Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar length of time to do the same to the Zionists. The growth in the Jewish population in the territories forced the Arabs to question this tenet. "The Palestinians now realize," said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, "that time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face negotiations."8 Consequently, the Arabs went to Madrid and Washington for peace talks despite continued settlement activity. And all of the agreements signed with the Palestinians as part of the "Oslo process" have been negotiated without any change in Israel's settlement policy.

MYTH

"Israel is provocatively settling Jews in predominantly Arab towns, and has established so many facts on the ground that territorial compromise is no longer possible."

FACT

Close to 90 percent of the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population believe Israel must retain to ensure its security.

Strategic concerns have led both Labor and Likud governments to establish settlements. The objective is to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank, such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, the scene of heavy fighting in several Arab-Israeli wars. Still, when Arab-Israeli peace talks began in late 1991, more than 80 percent of the West Bank contained no settlements or only sparsely populated ones.9

Today, approximately 175,000 Jews live in roughly 150 communities in the West Bank. The overwhelming majority of these settlements have fewer than 1,000 citizens. Analysts have noted that 70-80 percent of the Jews could be brought within Israel's borders with minor modifications of the "Green Line" (the unofficial boundary after 1967).

MYTH

"Israel must evacuate all Jewish settlements before a final peace agreement can be achieved with the Palestinians."

FACT

The implication of many settlement critics is that it would be better for peace if the West Bank were Judenrein. This idea would be called anti-Semitic if Jews were barred from living in New York, Paris or London; barring them from living in the West Bank, the cradle of Jewish civilization, would be no less objectionable.

Any peace settlement would inevitably permit Jews to live in the West Bank — just as Arabs today live in Israel. No Israeli government would be expected to enforce the kind of policies instituted by the British by which large areas of Palestine were declared off-limits to Jews.

MYTH

"Israel has not acknowledged Palestinian claims to Jerusalem."

FACT

Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab entity. Palestinians have no special claim to the city, they simply demand it as their capital.

Israel has recognized that the city has a large Palestinian population, that the city is important to Muslims and that making concessions on the sovereignty of the city might help resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. The problem has been that Palestinians have shown no reciprocal appreciation for the Jewish majority in the city, the significance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people or the fact that it is already the nation's capital.

The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles (DoP) signed in 1993 leaves open the status of Jerusalem. Article V says only that Jerusalem is one of the issues to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations. The agreed minutes also mention Jerusalem, stipulating that the Palestinian Council's jurisdiction does not extend to the city. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that Jerusalem will "not be included in any sphere of the prerogatives of whatever body will conduct Palestinian affairs in the territories. Jerusalem will remain under Israeli sovereignty."

The agreement also says that the final status will be based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, neither of which mentions Jerusalem.

Other than agreeing to discuss Jerusalem during the final negotiating period, Israel conceded nothing else regarding the status of the city during the interim period. Israel retains the right to build anywhere it chooses in Jerusalem and continues to exercise sovereignty over the undivided city. Nothing in the agreements that Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have concluded so far changes those conditions.

The two sides agreed on interim autonomy for the Palestinians, the creation of a Palestinian Authority, the election of a Palestinian Council and the redeployment of Israeli military forces in the West Bank and Gaza. Jerusalem, however, was specifically excluded from all these arrangements. It was also decided that during the interim period, the Palestinian Council would have no jurisdiction over issues to be determined in the final status negotiations, including Jerusalem. It was explicitly agreed that the authority of the Palestinian Authority would extend only over those parts of the West Bank and Gaza that were transferred to its jurisdiction, to the exclusion of those areas to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations, including Jerusalem and Israeli settlements.
“Anyone who relinquishes a single inch of Jerusalem is neither an Arab nor a Muslim.”

— Yasser Arafat10

The overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose any division of Jerusalem. Still, efforts have been made to find some compromise that could satisfy Palestinian interests. For example, while the Labor Party was in power under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, Knesset Member Yossi Beilin reportedly reached a tentative agreement that would allow the Palestinians to claim the city as their capital without Israel sacrificing sovereignty over its capital. Beilin's idea was to allow the Palestinians to set up their capital in a West Bank suburb of Jerusalem — Abu Dis.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered dramatic concessions that would have allowed the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state, and given the Palestinians control over the Muslim holy places on the Temple Mount. These ideas were discussed at the White House Summit in December 2000, but rejected by Yasser Arafat.

Barak's proposals were controversial. Giving up sovereignty over the Temple Mount would place potentially hostile Arabs literally over the heads of Jews praying at their holiest site. Other suggested of compromises involving a division of sovereignty over the Old City run into practical complications created by the labyrinthine nature of the city, and the intertwining of the Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Armenian quarters.

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon ran for Prime Minister against Barak — and was overwhelming elected — on a platform specifically repudiating the concessions Barak offered on Jerusalem. The prospect for a compromise now depends in large measure on whether the Palestinians will recognize Jewish claims to Jerusalem and offer their own concessions



“I'll urge the Muslims to launch jihad and to use all their capabilities to restore Muslim Palestine and the holy al-Aqsa mosque from the Zionist usurpers and aggressors. The Muslims must be united in the confrontation of the Jews and those who support them.”

— Saudi King Fahd11



MYTH

"Any agreement on Jerusalem would require Israel to give up sovereignty over the Temple Mount."

FACT

The Jewish connection to the Temple Mount dates back more than 3,000 years and is rooted in tradition and history. When Abraham bound his son Isaac upon an altar as a sacrifice to God, he did so atop Mount Moriah, today’s Temple Mount. It also is the site of both the First and Second Temples. The First Temple’s Holy of Holies contained the original Ark of the Covenant, and both the First and Second Temples were the centers of Jewish religious and social life until the Second Temple’s destruction by the Romans. After the destruction of the Second Temple, control of the Temple Mount passed through several conquering powers. It was during the early period of Muslim control that the gold-topped Dome of the Rock was built on the site of the ancient Temples.

Israel has shared the Temple Mount since 1967, when Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, upon reuniting Jerusalem, permitted the Islamic authority, the Waqf, to continue its civil authority on the Temple Mount. The Waqf oversees all day-to-day activity there. An Israeli presence is in place at the entrance to the Temple Mount to ensure access for people of all religions.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak raised the possibility of some concessions regarding control of the Temple Mount, but these were rejected by the Palestinians and subsequently repudiated by the Israeli electorate when Ariel Sharon was elected to succeed Barak. Giving up sovereignty over the Temple Mount would literally place potentially hostile Arabs over the heads of Jews praying at their holiest site. Other suggestions of compromises involving division of sovereignty over the Old City also run into practical complications created by the labyrinthine nature of the city and the intertwining of the Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Armenian quarters.

MYTH

"All the Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes; this is a prerequisite for a final settlement."

FACT

After the 1948 war, no more than 650,000 Palestinians (and probably considerably fewer) were refugees. Today, the number has swelled to 3.9 million. Does Israel have any obligation to accept all of those? Where would they live?

The current Israeli population is 6 million. If every Palestinian was allowed to move to Israel, the population would be nearly 10 million and more than 40 percent Arab. Given the Arabs' significantly higher birth rate, the Jews would soon be a minority in their own country, the very situation they fought to avoid in 1948, and which the UN expressly ruled out in deciding on a partition of Palestine.

Israel has consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. David Ben-Gurion said as early as August 1, 1948, that the refugee issue would be part of the general settlement "when the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty."12

The implied danger of repatriating Arabs opposed to its existence did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return and agreed to repatriate 100,000 refugees.13

The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps.

The United Nations took up the refugee issue and adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948, which states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation..." (emphasis added).

The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The solution to the problem, like all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Palestinians to be resettled in Arab lands.

The Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert the "right" of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and were unwilling to accept anything less until after their defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the refugees the absolute right of repatriation and have demanded that Israel accept this interpretation ever since.

Current peace talks are based on UN Resolution 242. The Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." The use of the generic term "refugee" was a deliberate acknowledgment that two refugee problems were products of the conflict — one Arab and another Jewish.

Furthermore, most Palestinians now live in historic Palestine, which is an area including the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. When Palestinians speak of the right to return, however, they don't mean just to Palestine, but to the exact houses they lived in prior to 1948. These homes are either gone or inhabited now.

Even respected Palestinian leaders have begun to acknowledge that it is a mistake to insist that millions of refugees return to Israel. The Palestinian representative in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh, for example, said the refugees should be resettled in a future Palestinian state, "not in a way that would undermine the existence of the State of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state. Otherwise, what does a two-state solution mean?"14

In the context of a peace settlement, Israel could be expected to accept some refugees, as Ben-Gurion said he would do more than 50 years ago. If and when a Palestinian state is created, many of the refugees should be allowed to move there, though it is hard to imagine how the territory envisioned for that state could accommodate so many people, and the Palestinian leadership has expressed no great interest in absorbing these people.

“...if there were a Palestinian state, why would its leaders want their potential citizens to be repatriated to another state? From a nation-building perspective it makes no sense. In fact, the original discussions about repatriation took place at a time that there was no hope of a Palestinian state. With the possibility of that state emerging, the Palestinians must decide if they want to view themselves as a legitimate state or if it is more important for them to keep their self-defined status as oppressed, stateless refugees. They really can't be both.”

— Fredelle Spiegel15



Paradoxically, just as PA negotiators are demanding the right of refugees to return, tens of thousands of Palestinians are bolting the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the fi rst part of 2002, an estimated 80,000 Palestinians left and another 50,000 were trying to enter Jordan. This time the Palestinians cannot repeat their old charges that they are being expelled. These Palestinians are fl eeing, much as the majority did in 1947-1948, because they do not want to be in the middle of a confl ict, and because their ties to the land are tenuous.

The Jordanians are only reluctantly accepting a handful of these new "refugees," and only after they deposit 1,000 dinars ($1,400) to ensure they will not stay in the kingdom. "We have a national duty to Jordan, fi rst, and to Palestine, second, to block gradual transfer and prevent the Palestinian state from being relocated outside Palestine, specifi cally to Jordan," wrote Jordanian columnist Fahed Fanek.15a

MYTH

"Peace with Syria has been prevented only by Israel's obstinate refusal to withdraw from the Golan Heights."

FACT

For Israel, relinquishing the Golan to a hostile Syria could jeopardize its early-warning system against surprise attack. Israel has built radar systems on Mt. Hermon, the highest point in the region. If Israel withdrew from the Golan and had to relocate these facilities to the lowlands of the Galilee, they would lose much of their strategic effectiveness.

One possible compromise might be a partial Israeli withdrawal, along the lines of its 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria. Another would be a complete withdrawal, with the Golan becoming a demilitarized zone.

After losing the 1999 election, Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed reports that he had engaged in secret talks with Syrian President Hafez Assad to withdraw from the Golan and maintain a strategic early-warning station on Mount Hermon. Publicly, Assad continued to insist on a total withdrawal with no compromises and indicated no willingness to go beyond agreeing to a far more limited "non-belligerency" deal with Israel than the full peace treaty Israel has demanded.



The election of Ehud Barak stimulated new movement in the peace process, with intensive negotiations held in the United States in January 2000 between Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa. These talks raised new hope for the conclusion of a peace treaty, but the discussions did not bear fruit. Hafez Assad died in June 2000 and no further talks have been held as Assad's son and successor, Bashar has moved to consolidate his power. Rhetorically, Bashar has not indicated any shift in Syria's position on the Golan.

Israel has made clear it is prepared to compromise on the Golan and make significant territorial concessions. The only obstacle is Assad's unwillingness to say yes to peace with Israel.



“Palestine is not only a part of our Arab homeland, but a basic part of southern Syria.”

— Syrian President Hafez Assad16



MYTH

"Israel's continued occupation of Lebanese territory is the only impediment to the conclusion of a peace treaty."

FACT

Israel has never had any hostile intentions toward Lebanon, but has been forced to fight as a result of the chaotic conditions in southern Lebanon that have allowed terrorists, first the PLO, and now Hizballah, to menace citizens living in northern Israel. In 1983, Israel did sign a peace treaty with Lebanon, but Syria forced President Amin Gemayel to renege on the agreement.

Israel pulled all its troops out of southern Lebanon on May 24, 2000. The Israeli withdrawal was conducted in coordination with the UN, and, according to the UN, constituted an Israeli fulfillment of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 425. Still, Hizballah and the Lebanese government insist that Israel holds Lebanese territory in a largely uninhabited patch called Shebaa Farms. This claim provides Hizballah with a pretext to continue its attacks against Israel. The Israelis maintain, however, that the land was captured from Syria.

Given Syria's de facto control over Lebanon, Syria will not allow the Lebanese government to negotiate peace with Israel until its claims on the Golan Heights are resolved. Once Israel and Syria reach an agreement, the expectation is that Lebanon would quickly do so afterward.



“Palestine is not only a part of our Arab homeland, but a basic part of southern Syria.”

— Syrian President Hafez Assad16

MYTH

“Following the Oslo accords, the Palestinians have been educating their children about Israel and a future of coexistence with Israeli Jews.”

FACT

Rather than use education to promote peace with their Jewish neighbors, the Palestinians have persistently indoctrinated their children with anti-Semitic stereotypes, anti-Israel propaganda and other materials designed more to promote hostility and intolerance than coexistence.

For example, a Palestinian children's television show called the "Children's Club" uses a "Sesame Street" formula involving interaction between children, puppets and fictional characters to encourage a hatred for Jews and the perpetration of violence against them in a jihad (holy war). In one song, young children are shown singing about wanting to become "suicide warriors" and taking up machine guns against Israelis. Another song features young children singing a refrain,"When I wander into Jerusalem, I will become a suicide bomber." Children on the show also say, "We will settle our claims with stones and bullets," and call for a "jihad against Israel."


Photo of Palestinian child dressed as a suicide bomber

Palestinians are also calling on their youth to join the battle against Israel in commercials on Palestinian TV that tell children to drop their toys, pick up rocks, and do battle with Israel. In one commercial, actors recreate the incident where a child was killed in the crossfire of a confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians. The commercial shows the child in paradise urging other children to “follow him.”17

Similar messages are conveyed in Palestinian textbooks, many of which were prepared by the Palestinian Ministry of Education. The 5th grade textbook Muqarar al-Tilawa Wa'ahkam Al-Tajwid describes Jews as cowards for whom Allah has prepared fires of hell. In a text for 8th graders, Al-Mutala'ah Wa'alnussus al-Adabia, Israelis are referred to as the butchers in Jerusalem. Stories glorifying those who throw stones at soldiers are found in various texts. A 9th grade text, Al-Mutala'ah Wa'alnussus al-Adabia, refers to the bacteria of Zionism that has to be uprooted out of the Arab nation.

“We have found books with passages that are so anti-Semitic, that if they were published in Europe, their publishers would be brought up on anti-racism charges.”

— French lawyer and European Parliament member Francois Zimeray18

Newer textbooks are less strident, but still problematic. For example, they describe the Palestinian nation as one comprised of Muslims and Christians. No mention is made of Jews or the centuries-old Jewish communities of Palestine that predated Zionism. The State of Israel also is not mentioned, though many problems of Palestinian society are attributed to the Arab-Israeli conflict. References to Jews are usually stereotypical and are often related in a negative way to their opposition to Muhammad and refusal to convert to Islam. A lesson on architecture describes prominent mosques and churches, but makes no mention of Jewish holy places.18a A recent study concludes:

Despite the evident reduction in anti-Semitic references, compared to the old textbooks, the history of the relationship between Muslims, Christians and Jews in the new textbooks strengthen classical stereotypes of Jews in both Islamic and Christian cultures. The linkage of present conflicts with ancient disputes of the time of Jesus or Muhammad implies that nothing has really changed.

The lessons don't end in school. Summer camp teaches Palestinian children how to resist the Israelis and that the greatest glory is to be a martyr. Campers stage mock kidnappings and learning how to slit the throats of Israelis. Four "Paradise Camps" run by Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip offer 8-12 year-olds military training and encourage them to become suicide bombers. The BBC filmed children marching in formation and practicing martial arts.19

The Palestinian authorities also try to convince children that Israel is out to kill them by all sort of devious methods. For example, the Palestinian daily newspaper, Al Hayat Jadida, reported that Israeli aircraft were dropping poisonous candy over elementary and junior high schools in the Gaza Strip.20

These teachings violate the letter and spirit of the peace agreements.



“We are teaching the children that suicide bombs make Israeli people frightened and we are allowed to do it....We teach them that after a person becomes a suicide bomber he reaches the highest level of paradise.”

— Palestinian “Paradise Camp” counselor speaking to BBC interviewer21



MYTH

“Israeli textbooks are no better than those of the Palestinians. Jewish children are not taught tolerance toward Arabs and Muslims and they are told Palestinians do not exist.”

FACT

The best hope for the future is that Israeli and Arab children will grow up with a greater understanding and tolerance of one another. Unfortunately, the textbooks in Arab countries, and the Palestinian Authority, in particular, do not promote coexistence. By contrast, Israeli textbooks are oriented toward peace and tolerance. The Palestinians are accepted as Palestinians. Islam and Arab culture are referred to with respect. Islamic holy places are discussed along with Jewish ones. Stereotypes are avoided to educate against prejudice.

In addition, the Arab-Israeli conflict is factually described as an ongoing conflict between two national entities over the same territory. Both the Arab and Israeli sides are presented. The content of the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan is detailed, along with the implications of those agreements. Agreements with the Palestinians are discussed as well, and the atlas used in Israeli schools shows the Palestinian Authority.21a

MYTH

“The Interim Agreement called for the creation of a Palestinian police force and that is precisely what the Palestinian Authority created.”

FACT

Israel was wary of allowing the Palestinian Authority to create a police force because of the threat to Israeli security armed Palestinians might create. Israel understood, however, that the Palestinians required a means of keeping order and the Interim Agreement therefore allowed for up to 12,000 police officers to be deployed in the West Bank and up to 18,000 in the Gaza Strip.

Contrary to the agreement, however, the Palestinians have not only created a much larger police force (the Palestinian Authority submitted a list of 39,899 names), but also a variety of other security organizations, most of which are designed less for maintenance of public order than the guarantee of Yasser Arafat's political control.

Israel would probably overlook the violation of the agreed limit on the number of police officers if they were carrying out their responsibility to maintain order. It is clear from the violence that has persisted in 2000-2002, however, that the police are not doing their jobs. Worse, in many instances the police have participated in attacks against Israelis.

President Bush observed that the "Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism" and made clear "the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." He added that this necessitated "an externally supervised effort to rebuild and reform the Palestinian security services. The security system must have clear lines of authority and accountability, and a unified chain of command."21b

MYTH

“The Palestinians have fulfilled their commitment to arrest and prosecute terrorists.”

FACT

Israel viewed the Palestinian obligation to prevent terror as crucial to providing the security its citizens needed to make territorial concessions. The Palestinians have arrested suspected terrorists from time to time; however, they have had a revolving door whereby most of them are subsequently released. In the period following the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations on July 25, 2000, and the start of the violence in late September 2000, more than 50 members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were released from prison.

To give one example of the failure to act against the terrorists, the head of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, was not arrested until the end of June 2002, and then he was only placed under house arrest. Shortly thereafter he attended a rally in the Gaza Strip.21c Despite leading the organization most responsible for the suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians, Yassin is still not in jail.
The Palestinian Authority's treatment of Palestinians suspected of terrorism against Israel is in stark contrast to how it handles Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel or threatening the political domination of Yasser Arafat. Palestinians who commit "crimes" against the Palestinian people are usually arrested and, in several instances, quickly executed.22

The unwarranted release of those accused of violence against Israel sends the message to the Palestinian public that terrorism is acceptable. It also allows the terrorists themselves to continue their campaign of violence against Israel.

“We will not arrest the sons of our people in order to appease Israel. Let our people rest assured that this won't happen.”

— Chief of the PA Preventive Security in the West Bank, Jebril Rajoub23

MYTH

“Palestinians are justified in using violence because the peace process has not allowed them to achieve their national aspirations.”

FACT

The premise from the beginning of the Oslo peace process was that disputes would be resolved by talking, not shooting. The Palestinians have never accepted this most basic of principles for coexistence. The answer to complaints that Israel is not withdrawing far enough or fast enough should be more negotiations, more confidence-building measures and more demonstrations of a desire to live together without using violence.

To understand why the Oslo process has not succeeded, and why Palestinians and Israelis are not living peacefully beside each other, it is useful to look at the first Arab-Israeli peace process that did work, the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations. Though the peace agreement was hammered out in intensive negotiations at Camp David, the route to peace was a long, tortuous one that took years to navigate. What made it possible, however, was the commitment both nations made to peace and the actions they took to insure it.

Egypt maintained a state of war with Israel for more than 25 years before Anwar Sadat seriously talked about peace. Bloody conflicts were fought in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968-70 and 1973. The anger, heartache and distrust of a quarter century did not dissipate overnight. The process began after the 1973 war when Henry Kissinger facilitated the negotiation of a disengagement agreement in which both sides made significant concessions.

Egypt had demanded that Israel make a substantial withdrawal from Sinai and commit to abandon all its territorial gains from 1967, but Israel gave up only a tiny area of the Sinai. Rather than resort to violence, the Egyptians engaged in more negotiations.

The first agreement was signed in January 1974. It took about a year and a half before a second agreement was reached. It wasn't easy. Israel was criticized for "inflexibility," and the Egyptians were no less difficult. Anwar Sadat agreed to limit anti-Israel propaganda in the Egyptian press and to end his country's participation in the Arab boycott. Yitzhak Rabin also made difficult territorial concessions, giving up oil fields and two critical Sinai passes.

After "Sinai II," Egypt still had not recovered all of its territory. Sadat was dissatisfied and was pilloried by the other Arabs for going as far as he did toward peace with Israel. Nevertheless, he did not resort to violence. There was no unleashing of fedayeen, as Nasser had done in the 1950s. Instead, he continued talking.

It took three more years before the Camp David Accords were signed and another six months after that before the final peace treaty was negotiated. It took five years to work out issues that were as complex as those in the current impasse.

In return for its tangible concessions, Israel received a promise of a new future of peaceful relations. Israel could take this risk because Egypt had demonstrated over the previous five years that it would resolve disputes with Israel peacefully, and that it no longer wished to destroy its neighbor.

Egypt still wasn't completely satisfied. Sadat demanded a small sliver of land that Israel retained in the Sinai. It took another nine years before international arbitration led Israel to give up Taba. Rather than using this dispute as a pretext for violating the peace treaty, Egypt negotiated.
“If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't, I should go home. You have been here 14 days and said no to everything. These things will have consequences. Failure will end the peace process.....”

— President Clinton to Yasser Arafat24



MYTH

“Israel has a surplus of water and its refusal to share with its neighbors could provoke the next war.”

FACT

The supply of water is a matter of life and death, war and peace for the peoples of the Middle East. A Jerusalem Post headline concisely stated the security threat for Israel, "The hand that controls the faucet rules the country."25

King Hussein said in 1990 the one issue that could bring Jordan to war again is water, so it is not surprising that an agreement on water supplies was critical to the negotiation of the peace treaty with Israel. Jordan now receives an annual allotment of water from Israel.26

Israel has had an ongoing water deficit for a number of years. Simply put, the amount of water consumed is greater than the amount of water collected from rainfall. In a drought year, the situation worsens, because the amount of water in reservoirs and the amount of water flowing in rivers and streams is significantly decreased.

“In Old Testament times, there were two ways of solving disputes over water, which has always been scarce in our region. One was to fight over it. The other was to jointly place, over the mouth of the well, a stone so large that five shepherds were needed to lift it, creating the need for cooperation.”

— Former Israeli Agriculture Minister Yaacov Tzur

The situation is growing more dangerous each year as the population of the region continues to grow exponentially, tens of thousands of immigrants arrive in Israel, political disputes over existing water supplies become more pronounced and Israel and the Palestinians negotiate rights to the water in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israel has three main water sources: the coastal and mountain aquifers and Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). Each supply approximately 25 percent of the total consumed. Roughly 20 percent is derived from smaller aquifers. The remaining 5 percent comes from the Shafdan project that recycles sewage in metropolitan Tel Aviv.

The coastal aquifer's water quality is deteriorating because of over-pumping and contamination from sewage. Lake Kinneret requires a delicate water level balance. If the level is too low, salty water from neighboring springs seeps in. If the level rises too high, it can flood. The mountain aquifer is in the best condition.

The mountain aquifer is also the most politically contentious. Prior to 1967, Israel used 95 percent of this water, the Arabs only 5 percent. Since then, the Arab share has more than tripled, but the Palestinians are still demanding that these proportions be reversed. They argue that since the aquifer lies under the West Bank, it should come under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Palestinians maintain that Israel is "stealing" their water, but Israel wants to retain control over the lion's share of the water.



The water issue clearly affects Israel's economy and security. One danger, for example, is that pumping of water in Judea and Samaria by Palestinians could increase to a degree that would completely eliminate pumping in Israel. The Palestinians have also demanded the right to expand their agricultural sector, using the same limited water resources that Israel's State Comptroller said were inadequate to expand Israel's agricultural production. Meanwhile, Palestinian water authorities have said as much as 50 percent of domestic water is lost because of old, inefficient supply systems. The PA's dilemma is even worse in Gaza, where the sole aquifer is already virtually unusable because of contamination and salinity.

The amount of water to be supplied to the territories by Israel was determined in negotiations between the two sides, and Israel has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Interim Agreement.

In response to the threat to water supplies posed by the "al-Aksa Intifada," Palestinian and Israeli water officials issued a joint statement in January 2001 opposing any damage to water and wastewater infrastructure and expressing the intent to ensure the water supply to the Palestinian and Israeli cities, towns and villages in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.27

Israel could secure its water future by maintaining control over three West Bank regions comprising 20 percent of the land; however, pressure from the international community and the momentum of the peace process may force Israel to give up some or all of these territories.

“Israel has no right even to a single drop of water in this region.”

— Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Sharaa28

Water is also an issue in negotiations with the Syrians. Syria demands the full return of the Golan Heights in return for peace with Israel. According to water expert Joyce Starr, an Israeli government that concedes territory on the Golan without a guaranteed supply of Yarmuk waters, or some alternative source of water, would be putting the nation in "grave jeopardy."29

Israel is taking steps to ameliorate the water issue by beginning construction of major desalination plants that are scheduled to provide, by 2006, nearly one-fourth of Israel's needs. An agreement has also been reached that will allow Israel to import water from Turkey. Israel has offered to build a desalination plant in Hadera for the Palestinians in the West Bank, but they have rejected the idea.

MYTH

“The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) is a force for moderation in the territories. It advocates Muslim-Jewish harmony and reconciliation.”

FACT

Hamas is opposed to Israel's existence in any form. Its platform states that "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad (holy war)." The group warns that any Muslim who leaves "the circle of struggle with Zionism" is guilty of "high treason." Hamas' platform calls for the creation of an Islamic republic in Palestine that would replace Israel. Muslims should "raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine," it says.30

MYTH

“Israel withdrew from all of the Sinai to achieve peace with Egypt, withdrew to the international border with Lebanon and has offered to withdraw from the entire Golan Heights in a peace agreement with Syria; therefore, Israel should withdraw from 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to make peace with the Palestinians.”

FACT

Israel has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to withdraw from the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, those territories are very different than the others that were the subject of negotiations. Israel did not have a claim to either the Sinai or the security zone in Lebanon. Those territories were held as defensive measures to protect Israel after hostile forces had used them to stage attacks. In the case of Sinai, even after the withdrawal, a series of security measures were put into place, including the introduction of U.S. observers to monitor compliance with the peace treaty terms. Israel has not formally offered to withdraw from the entire Golan though it has hinted at a willingness to give up much or all of that territory in exchange for peace with Syria. Such an agreement would also include terms for monitoring compliance and maintaining Israeli security.

The situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is very different. Unlike the Sinai, for example, no buffer zone would exist to separate hostile Palestinian forces from Israel if it were to withdraw completely from the territories. Every Israeli government, and most nonpartisan observers, agree that Israel's security requires a presence in the Jordan Valley. Furthermore, Israel has a historic connection to Judea and Samaria, which have been home to Jews for centuries and have imporant religious significance to the Jewish people. Finally, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria could legitimately argue the territories in dispute belonged to them; this is not true of the Palestinians. The West Bank was never part of any country and the Palestinian claim to the territory is no better than that of Israel.

Israel has acknowledged that it will be necessary to withdraw from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, and has already withdrawn from large swaths of both, but its security needs are such that it cannot withdraw from 100 percent of those lands.

MYTH

“The Palestinians have never been offered a state of their own.”

FACT

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

*

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
* In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of an Arab state alone, but the Arabs rejected the plan.
*

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
*

From 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians.
*

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
*

The Oslo process that began in 1993 was leading toward the creation of a Palestinian state before the Palestinians violated their commitments and scuttled the agreements.
*

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected the deal.

A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban's words, "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that "Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it." The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. "They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders." The Palestinians also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel. "Why should they accept a compromise that is perceived by them as unjust today?"30a

“Barak made a proposal that was as forthcoming as anyone in the world could imagine, and Arafat turned it down. If you have a country that's a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you've got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it.”

— U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld30b

MYTH

“Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's proposals at Camp David and the White House in 2000 because they did not offer the Palestinians a viable state. Palestine would have been denied water, control of its holy places, and would have been divided into cantons surrounded by Israelis. Israel would have also retained control of Jerusalem and denied refugees the right to return.”

FACT

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.

“[Prime Minister Barak] was prepared to make decisions; Arafat was not. I believe he is capable of launching the process, but he is not capable of concluding it.”

— U.S. mediator Dennis Ross on the failure of the Camp David Summit31

The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.

Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations – that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 – prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was "a great man." Clinton responded, "The hell I am. I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one.”31a

MYTH

“The members of the Arab League signed an antiterrorism pact and oppose any form of terrorism.”

FACT

The Arab League, a moribund institution that usually convenes only when it feels the need to publicly flay Israel, made headlines on April 22, 1998, for adopting the first Arab antiterrorism agreement. The agreement calls on Arab countries to deny refuge, training and financial or military support to groups that launch attacks on other Arab nations. It says attacks on ruling Arab regimes or the families of rulers should be considered terrorism and that Islam rejects "all forms of violence and terror." The signatories also promised to exchange information on terrorist groups.

Arab countries and organizations have typically defined terrorism in such a way that groups attacking Israel are excluded. The new agreement does the same thing by exempting "resistance movements" because efforts to secure "liberation and self-determination" are not considered terrorism by the League (unless it is a liberation effort directed at an Arab government). Not surprisingly, Syria and Lebanon were the countries maintaining that individuals "resisting occupation" in Southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the West Bank should not be labeled as terrorists. For the members of the Arab League, the objective of "national liberation" justifies attacks against civilians, including women and children.

The agreement did not signal a change in Arab morality or a newfound concern over terrorism. It was merely an act of self-preservation taken by autocrats who recognized that Israel was not as great a threat to them as their own disaffected citizens.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran all have continued to fund, organize and harbor terrorist organizations, and heinous acts have been perpetrated by Arab terrorists against innocent men, women and children in Israel and elsewhere around the world.

MYTH

“Israel illegally took over the District Governor's Compound and the Palestinians' offices in Orient House, and has reoccupied territory in Jerusalem that was given to the Palestinians.”

FACT
Following a series of terrorist attacks, including the bombing of a Jerusalem pizza restaurant that killed 15 and injured more than 130, children, men, and women, Israel took a series of defensive measures in the Jerusalem area.

One of these steps was to take over the District Governor's Compound and several adjacent buildings that were being used by Palestinian security forces to organize and instigate terrorist activities. A second measure was to close Palestinian Authority offices in the Orient House in Jerusalem. This latter move was especially controversial because Orient House had become a popular place for foreign journalists to meet Palestinians, and was viewed by Palestinians as their unofficial capital, where they frequently scheduled meetings with foreign dignitaries.

Under the Israel-Palestinian agreements, security responsibilities in Jerusalem are the exclusive province of Israel (Interim Agreement). In addition to acting according to the well established principal of self-defense under international law, Israel's actions have been consistent with the terms of the Israel-Palestinian agreements. By using these areas as bases to instigate terror, the Palestinians violated their commitment to combat terrorism and violence (Interim Agreement Annex I, Article IV.1.f) and to implement a policy of zero tolerance for terror and violence (Wye River Memorandum II.A.1). Moreover, they have violated the promise to "renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" (letter from Yasser Arafat to Yitzhak Rabin) that was the basis for the entire Oslo process. Finally, the decision of the Palestinian leadership to reject negotiations and to adopt a strategy of terrorism, flouts the first recommendation of the Mitchell Commission Report, calling on the parties to "immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence."

The Palestinians may be angry that they can no longer carry out their political activities at Orient House, but the truth is the agreements with Israel barred them from doing so in the first place. The Interim Agreement states that all PA offices can only be located in areas under Palestinian territorial jurisdiction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Interim Agreement Article I.7). Furthermore, the frequent meetings held at the Orient House between Palestinian officials and foreign diplomats violated the general prohibition on the exercise of foreign relations contained in Article IX of the Interim Agreement.

Israel has agreed to allow the Palestinians to set up economic, social, educational, and cultural institutions to serve the needs of the population in Jerusalem; however, no political activity is permitted under any of the agreements signed by the two sides. And, of course, Israel cannot be expected to permit terrorist operations in its capital.

MYTH

“The Palestinians joined the rest of the world in condemning the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.”

FACT

Having learned his lesson from allying himself and the Palestinian people with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, Yasser Arafat did condemn the attack against the United States. Palestinians throughout the West Bank, Gaza Strip and refugee camps in Lebanon, however, celebrated the attacks. In one rally in Gaza, for example, demonstrators carried posters supporting Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden. After the U.S. coalition attacked Afghanistan, Hamas organized another rally in the Gaza Strip in which thousands of Palestinians marched in support of bin Laden. Among those celebrating at these events were members of the Palestinian Authority police force, who fired their guns in the air. Others chanted, "God is Great," and handed out sweets.



“[The United States] should press [Yasser Arafat] to do what it is asking of other governments — to break, once and for all, links with Islamic extremist groups that are engaged in terrorism. Unless Mr. Arafat takes that step — unless he arrests those in the West Bank and Gaza who are involved in such acts — the violence will not end and negotiations will not progress; he will never regain credibility as a negotiating partner with Israel.”

— Washington Post Editorial34

MYTH

“The Palestinian Authority has seized illegal weapons and fulfilled its other obligations under the Oslo agreements to restrict the possession of arms to the authorized police force.”

FACT

According to the Interim Agreement signed by Israel and the Palestinians, "no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment" except the Palestinian police. The agreement's annex further specifies that the police are only permitted a limited number of pistols, rifles and machine guns and that all weapons must be registered.

During the "al-Aksa intifada" it has become clear that the Palestinians have abandoned all pretense of fulfilling what Israel viewed as a crucial security requirement in the Oslo accords. A number of militias have formed that are not allowed to exist or possess weapons according to the peace agreements. They have used rifles, machine guns, mortars, grenades and other explosive to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel. Every time a photo is shown of a Palestinian holding a weapon — and they appear in the press all the time — it is evidence the Palestinians have broken their promises.

In June, when they agreed to the Tenet Cease-Fire Plan, the Palestinians committed themselves, again, to "make a concerted effort to locate and confiscate illegal weapons, including mortars, rockets, and explosives" and "to prevent smuggling and illegal production of weapons." They have failed to do either. This is a serious violation of the agreement signed by the Palestinians, one that provokes mistrust and threatens Israeli security.

MYTH

“Palestinian terrorists only attack Israelis; they never assault Americans.”

FACT

The PLO has a long history of brutal violence against innocent civilians of many nations, including the United States. Palestinian Muslim terrorist groups are a more recent phenomenon, but they have not spared Americans either. Here are a few examples of Palestinian terrorist incidents involving American citizens (click here for the complete list)::

*

More than three dozen Americans were among the passengers who were held hostage when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked four jets in September 1970.
*

In 1972, the PLO attempted to mail letter bombs to President Nixon, former Secretary of State William Rogers and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird.
*

On March 2, 1973, members of the PLO murdered U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Cleo Noel and chargé d'affaires George Moore. The killers were captured by Sudan and admitted they had gotten orders directly from the PLO. U.S. intelligence officials were believed to also have evidence directly tying Yasser Arafat to the killings, but for unknown reasons suppressed. All the terrorists were released.35
*

On March 11, 1978, PLO terrorists landed on Israel's coast and murdered an American photographer walking along the beach. The terrorists then commandeered a bus along the coastal road, shooting and lobbing grenades from the bus window at passersby. When Israeli troops stopped their deadly ride, 34 civilians were dead and another 82 wounded.
*

In October 1985, a PLF terror squad commanded by Abul Abbas hijacked the ocean liner Achille Lauro. Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American passenger was murdered.
*

In March 1988, Arafat's Fatah declared it had attempted to murder Secretary of State George Shultz by planting a car bomb near his Jerusalem hotel.36
*

On April 9, 1995, an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber blew up an Israeli bus killing eight people, including 20-year-old Brandeis University student Alisa Flatow.
*

August 9, 2001, Shoshana Yehudit Greenbaum, 31, was among 15 people killed in a suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in downtown Jerusalem. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.
*

July 31, 2002, a bomb exploded at the Hebrew University cafeteria killing seven and wounding 80. Five Americans were among the dead.
*

June 11, 2003, a bus bombing in Jerusalem killed one American and inured the daughter of New Jersey State Senator Robert Singer.
*

June 20, 2003, a shooting attack on a car driving through the West Bank killed Tzvi Goldstein, 47 and injured his father, mother, and wife.
*

August 19, 2003, suicide bombing on a bus in Jerusalem killed five Americans, including children aged 9, 3, and 3 months, an 11-year-old American was injured.
*

October 15, 2003, Palestinian terrorists ambushed an American convoy in the Gaza Strip killing three U.S. citizens on contract to the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.

“The bombing yesterday [August 9, 2001] of a crowded pizza restaurant in downtown Jerusalem, which killed at least 14 people and injured around 100, was an atrocity of the sort that must be distinguished from everything else that goes on in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict....the deliberate targeting of civilians, including children...is a simple savagery that no country can reasonably be expected to tolerate. Israel's determination last night to respond was entirely legitimate.

The Palestinian leadership should have had no difficulty condemning unequivocally the restaurant bombing. Yet the Palestinian leadership's response to the bombing was worse than equivocal. Yasser Arafat issued a weak statement condemning the bombing and ‘all acts that harm civilians.’ His lieutenants made clear that they didn't fault the Palestinian groups that competed to claim responsibility for the blast....

This celebration of murder, along with the perverse attempt to shift responsibility for the attack onto Mr. Sharon, adds a measure of insult to the grave injury the bombing itself inflicted. It was Mr. Arafat who released dozens of Islamic militants from custody and has refused to rearrest them since. Terrorist attack was the altogether predictable consequence. It was Mr. Arafat as well who has consistently failed to bring violence to heel and stop official incitement against Israel. The Palestinian Authority, having stoked Palestinian anger and jettisoned a viable political process, cannot now shift the blame for deadly attacks by groups it is knowingly protecting.

Israel faces this tragedy with no attractive policies to choose in response. There is increasingly less reason even to hope that Mr. Arafat could be a viable and serious partner for negotiations....Declared cease-fires have proved worthless, as have commitments to reestablish security cooperation and control terrorism. Under just about any circumstances, the obvious course would be to end negotiations. But what then?....”

— Washington Post Editorial37

MYTH

“Israel's opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state is the cause of the present conflict.”

FACT

For many years, the consensus in Israel was that the creation of a Palestinian state would present a grave risk to Israeli security. These fears were well founded given the longstanding Palestinian commitment to the destruction of Israel and the later adoption of the phased plan whereby the Palestinians expressed a reluctant willingness to start with a small state in the short-term and use it as a base from which to pursue the longer-term goal of replacing Israel (see, for example, Faisal Husseini's remark in June 2001).

Israelis still believe a Palestinian state will present a threat, especially given the Palestinians' illegal smuggling of weapons into the Palestinian Authority; nevertheless, a radical shift in opinion has occurred and even most "right-wing" Israelis are now reconciled to the likelihood that the Palestinians will establish a state and are prepared to accept the risks involved in exchange for peace..

“In the end we [Israel and the Palestinians] will reach a solution in which there will be a Palestinian state, but it has to be a Palestinian state by agreement and it has to be a demilitarized Palestinian state.”

— Ariel Sharon38

MYTH

“The Palestinian Authority is abiding by its commitments and preventing illegal arms from being smuggled into areas under its control.”

FACT

On January 3, 2002, IDF commandoes captured the Karine-A, a 4,000-ton freighter carrying 50 tons of Iranian and Russian-made weapons, including long-range Katyusha rockets, LAW anti-tank missiles, Sagger anti-tank missiles, long-range mortar bombs, mines, sniper rifles, ammunition and more than two tons of high explosives.

Despite denials by Yasser Arafat, Omar Akawi, a Palestinian Authority naval officer who captained the Palestinian-owned and operated ship, admitted the smuggling operation was ordered by the PA: "I am an officer in the navy. I am an employee of the Palestinian Authority. I take my salary from them. I have to obey orders."39

The Bush Administration also found Arafat's denials unconvincing. "The information we are receiving and developing on our own," said " Secretary of State Colin Powell, "makes it clear that there are linkages to the Palestinian Authority."40

Akawi said the weapons were intended for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The plan had been to take the boat through the Suez Canal and then transfer the arms to three smaller boats near the Egyptian port of Alexandria. The small boats would then carry the weapons to a spot off the Gaza coast, where they would be dropped into the sea packed in special waterproof containers enabling the arsenal to float undamaged until it could be picked up by Palestinian navy officers disguised as fisherman.41

The smuggling operation violated the terms of the Oslo agreements signed by the Palestinians and represented a serious escalation of the already tense situation. The quantity and quality of the arms in the shipment, which exceeded what the Palestinians had already smuggled in through tunnels in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere, also reinforced Israeli concerns about Palestinian intentions and the threat that a future Palestinian state might pose.

MYTH

“Hundreds of Israeli soldiers are refusing to serve in the territories. This proves that Israel's policies are unjust.”

FACT

About 400 Israelis serving in the reserves (out of 445,000 - 0.08 percent) signed a petition in 2002 saying they would no longer serve in the territories. They received a lot of publicity because it is so unusual for Israeli soldiers to refuse to serve their country. What attracted no media attention was the reaction of most Israelis to the call to serve in Operation Defensive Shield. The response was more than 100 percent. Israelis who were not obligated to report because they were too old, had disabilities, or were otherwise excused from service volunteered to go to the territories.

In a democracy, such as Israel, people may protest their government's policies, but the voices of a minority do not carry more weight than the majority. In fact, a poll from Tel Aviv University showed that 61.5 percent of Israelis were very much opposed to the activists' refusal to serve and another 17.6 percent considerably opposed it. That's nearly 80 percent of the public that rejected the refuseniks' argument. Total support for their point of view was 15 percent. In addition, a counter-petition was published in Israeli newspapers in February signed by more than 1,000 other reservists who said they were "amazed and ashamed" by the original letter written by a group of what they called "draft dodgers." Also, more than 4,500 reservists volunteered for additional duty.42

The soldiers raised important issues about the treatment of Palestinians by the military that are being taken seriously by the Israeli public and government, but their actions were also politically motivated and not mere acts of conscience. Shlomo Gazit, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, and someone who sympathizes with the political goals of the refusenik soldiers, wrote an impassioned plea for them to give up their protest. He pointed out that Israeli security depends on soldiers' absolute loyalty to the elected officials of the nation and the apolitical nature of the security system. Gazit points out that soldiers can't decide which orders they wish to carry out and said that if the refuseniks' principles were adopted they could find that many other soldiers would take the exact opposite views and, say, refuse to carry out orders to evacuate settlements or withdraw from the territories. As he points out, the soldiers can carry out their missions without losing their humanity and can refuse illegal orders.43

In addition, Israel's democractic society gives the soldiers other outlets to pursue their political agenda, such as creating a new political movement or using an existing one to change Israeli policy. Another option is to take their grievances before the judiciary. Eight of the Israeli reservists did just that, and their case was heard by Israel's Supreme Court. In December 2002, the court ruled that reservists cannot choose their assignments. The court said allowing them to do so could lead to a situation in which each army unit operates according to its own moral code.43a

While the small minority of “refuseniks” created a sensation in 2002, the number of Israelis who have resisted service in the territories has declined ever since. In 2002, 129 reservists were jailed; in 2003, the figure fell to 26.43b In November 2004, an all-time high of motivation to serve in IDF combat units was recorded when 92% of fresh conscripts asked to be deployed in these units.43b1

MYTH

“A fence is being constructed to separate Israel from the Palestinian Authority. This will not solve any problems and will lead to the racist creation of a Palestinian ghetto.”

FACT

Along much of the frontier separating Israel from the West Bank, there are either no barriers of any kind, or easily avoidable ones. In response to dozens of suicide bombings, and daily terrorist attacks against its civilians, Israel decided to construct a security fence near the “Green Line” to prevent Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating into Israel.

A large majority of Israelis support the construction of the security fence. Israelis living along the Green Line, both Jews and Arabs, favor the fence to prevent penetration by thieves and vandals as well as terrorists. In fact, the fence has caused a revolution in the daily life of some Israeli Arab towns because it has brought quiet, which has allowed a significant upsurge in economic activity.43c

It is not unreasonable or unusual to build a fence for security purposes. Israel already has fences along the frontiers with Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, so building a barrier to separate Israel from the Palestinian Authority is not revolutionary. Most nations have fences to protect their borders (the United States is building one now to keep out illegal Mexican immigrants), and, ironically, after condemning Israel's barrier, the UN announced plans to build its own fence to improve security around its New York headquarters.43d

Even Israelis who are not enthusiastic about the establishment of a Palestinian state argue the fence is needed to reduce the number of terror attacks. The head of the Shin Bet, Avi Dichter, for example, has said that a physical barrier can be a deterrent and cites the example of the fence that was built to separate Israel from the Gaza Strip.44 Since its construction not a single suicide bomber has penetrated the barrier while approximately 250 came from the West Bank during the second Palestinian uprising.

The fence is not impregnable. It is possible that some terrorists will manage to get past the barrier; nevertheless, the obstacle makes it far more difficult for incursions and thereby minimizes the number of attacks. During the 34 months from the beginning of the violence in September 2000 until the construction of the first continuous segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, Samaria-based terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1950 wounded. In the 11 months between the erection of the first segment at the beginning of August 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003. Since construction of the fence began, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90%. The number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70% and 85%, respectively, after erection of the fence. The success of the anti-terrorist fence in Samaria means that the launching point for terrorists has been moved to Judea, where there is not yet a continuous fence.44a

Critics have complained that the fence is being built beyond Israel's pre-1967 border, but the so-called “Green Line” was not an internationally recognized border, it was an armistice line between Israel and Jordan pending the negotiation of a final border. As Israel's Supreme Court noted in its ruling on the route of the barrier, building the fence along that line would have been a political statement and would not accomplish the principal goal of the barrier, namely, the prevention of terror. The route of the fence must take into account topography, population density, and threat assessment of each area. To be effective in protecting the maximum number of Israelis, it also must incorporate some of the settlements in the West Bank.

Most of the fence runs roughly along the Green Line. The fence is about a mile to the east in three places that allows the incorporation of the settlements of Henanit, Shaked, Rehan, Salit, and Zofim. The most significant deviation from the pre-1967 line is a bulge of less than four miles around the towns of Alfei Menashe and Elkanah where about 8,000 Jews live. In some places, the fence is actually inside the “Green Line.”

Palestinians complain that the fence creates “facts on the ground,” but most of the area incorporated within the fence is expected to be part of Israel in any peace agreement with the Palestinians. Israeli negotiators have always envisioned the future border to be the 1967 frontier with modifications to minimize the security risk to Israel and maximize the number of Jews living within the State, and a growing number of Israelis have come to the conclusion that the best solution to the conflict with the Palestinians is separation.

Palestinian charges that a fence would have the effect of creating a ghetto are nonsense. Prime Minister Sharon has accepted the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state on their side of the barrier.

When the Palestinians stop the violence, as required by the road map for peace, and negotiate in good faith, it may be possible to remove the fence, move it, or open it in a way that offers freedom of movement. Israel, for example, moved a similar fence when it withdrew from southern Lebanon. Until the terror stops, however, Israel must take precautions to protect its citizens, and finishing the fence is one of the most vital safeguards. The fence may help stimulate the Palestinians to take positive steps because it has shown them there is a price to pay for sponsoring terrorism.

In the short-run, Palestinians benefit from the fence because it reduces the need for Israeli military operations in the territories, and the deployment of troops in Palestinian towns. Onerous security measures, such as curfews and checkpoints, have in many areas become unnecessary or dramatically scaled back.

Every effort is being made to exclude Palestinian villages from the area within the fence and no territories are being annexed. The land used in building the security fence is seized for military purposes, not confiscated, and it remains the property of the owner. Legal procedures are already in place to allow every owner to file an objection to the seizure of their land. In addition, Israel has budgeted $22 million to compensate Palestinians for the use of their land.

Israel is doing its best to minimize the negative impact on Palestinians in the area of construction and is providing agricultural passageways to allow farmers to continue to cultivate their lands, and crossing points to allow the movement of people and the transfer of goods. Moreover, property owners are offered compensation for the use of their land and for any damage to their trees. Contractors are responsible for carefully uprooting and replanting the trees. So far, more than 60,000 olive trees have been relocated in accordance with this procedure.

Despite Israel's best efforts, the fence has caused some injury to residents near the fence. Israel’s Supreme Court took up the grievances of Palestinians and ruled the government had to reduce the infringement upon local inhabitants by altering the path of the fence in an area near Jerusalem. Though the Court’s decision made the government’s job of securing the population from terrorist threats more difficult, costly, and time-consuming, the Prime Minister immediately accepted the ruling.

The original route was approximately 458 miles; however, the plan has been repeatedly modified and, in February 2004, the government announced its intention to shorten the route by about 60 miles. As a result of the June 2004 Supreme Court decision, the route is being altered further to move the barrier closer to the 1967 cease-fire line and to make it less burdensome to the Palestinians.

To date, more than 140 miles of the fence has been completed. After the fence is finished, Israel will have to decide whether to allow Jews to remain in communities on the “wrong” side of the fence (where they would not benefit from the security the fence provides), offer them compensation to move, or forcibly evacuate them to the Israeli side. According to Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan, most of the settlements would be removed and the residents compensated and relocated.

MYTH

“The demolition of Palestinian homes is an example of the barbaric policies of Israeli oppression.”

FACT

Israel does not arbitrarily decide to demolish the homes of Palestinians. The army usually decides to take this drastic measure only after extreme provocation, and to insure the security of soldiers and civilians. In the case of Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip, in particular, they have been used as bomb factories, to provide cover for snipers, and to conceal tunnels used to smuggle weapons from Egypt. By demolishing homes, the objective is also to demonstrate that terrorists bring destruction not only to their victims, but to their own families and communities. The hope is that before engaging in terrorism, a Palestinian might think twice about the consequences. The IDF has, in fact, found the demolition of homes to be an effective deterrent, and that the policy has led fathers to turn in their sons before the youths participate in terrorist attacks that would lead to the destruction of the family's home.44b

Homes are also sometimes demolished when they are built illegally, without government approval or the proper permits. This practice is not applied only to Palestinians; however, Jewish homes have also been torn down when they were built illegally. Efforts by Jewish settlers, for example, to create new outposts or illegally expand existing settlements often result in the new structures being demolished.45

MYTH

“The Palestinians have given up their maximalist dream of destroying Israel and reconciled themselves to the establishment of a state in part of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that will peacefully coexist with Israel.”

FACT

The Palestinian Authority has made clear its territorial objective in its school textbooks, the way Yasser Arafat wears his kaffiyeh (i.e., shaped like Palestine), and the emblems of its organizations (see that of the PLO, for example). The most dramatic expression of the goal is in the following map of Palestine that it published on its official web site, which shows Palestine as encompassing not only the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but all of Israel as well.46

Israelis have expressed a willingness to live in peace with a Palestinian state beside Israel. As the map vividly indicates, however, the Palestinians continue to dream of a Palestinian state that replaces Israel.

MYTH

“The Arab League peace plan of March 2002 represents a dramatic new vision in which the Arabs are for the first time giving up their maximalist demands.”

FACT

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah presented a vision of peace that was subsequently revised and adopted by the Arab League as a peace initiative that offered Israel "normal relations" in exchange for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders and resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue.

In fact, the "new" initiative is nothing more than a restatement of the Arab interpretation of UN Resolution 242. The problem is that 242 does not say what the peace plan calls on Israel to do. The resolution calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the war, not "all" the territories in exchange for peace. In fact, the Arab delegates lobbied to have the word "all" included in the resolution and this idea was rejected.

In addition, Resolution 242 also says that every state has the right to live within "secure and recognizable boundaries," which all military analysts have understood to mean the 1967 borders with modifications to guarantee Israel's security. Incidentally, the resolution does not say that one comes before the other, rather, they are equal principles. Israel is under no obligation to withdraw before the Arabs agree to live in peace.



“There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4….this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.”

— President Lyndon Johnson, speech on June 19, 1967

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

The demand that Israel withdraw from "the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon" is not only ingenuous, but at odds with the UN conclusion that Israel has completely fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from Lebanese territory.

The Arab initiative also calls for a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem based on the nonbinding UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Today, the UNRWA says that 3.9 million Palestinians are refugees. The current population of Israel is approximately 6 million, 5 million of whom are Jews. If the Palestinians all returned, the population would be nearly 10 million and the proportion of Jews and Palestinian Arabs would be nearly 50-50. Given the higher Arab birth rate, Israel would soon cease to be a Jewish state and would de facto become a second Palestinian state (along with the one expected to be created on the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This suicidal formula has been rejected by Israel since the end of the 1948 war and is totally unacceptable to all Israelis today.

Israel has agreed to allow some Palestinian refugees to return on a humanitarian basis and as part of family reunification. Thousands have returned already this way. In the past, Israel has repeatedly expressed a willingness to accept as many as 100,000 refugees as part of a resolution of the issue. In fact, one government report said that Israel has already accepted 140,000 refugees just since the Oslo agreement of 1993.47

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

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

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

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



“A classified American intelligence report taken from a Saudi intelligence survey in mid-October [2001] of educated Saudis between the ages of 25 and 41 concluded that 95 percent of them supported Mr. bin Laden's cause.”

— New York Times48

MYTH

“Arab leaders have condemned suicide bombers and other acts of terrorism since September 11, and responded to President Bush's call to take steps to fight terrorism.”

FACT

In April 2002, President Bush called on the Arab states to "do everything possible to stop terrorist activities, to disrupt terrorist financing and stop incitement of violence in state-owned media." He also urged them to publicly denounce suicide bombings, and to use their influence with the Palestinian Authority and other groups to stop the violence.49 Not only did the Arab leaders reject the President's request, they did the exact opposite. For example, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein publicly promised to pay $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Saudi Arabia held a terrorthon to raise millions of dollars for "martyrs," with the two biggest contributors being King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah, the latter hailed as the architect of the latest Arab League peace initiative.50 So both radicals, such as Iraq, and "moderates" such as Saudi Arabia, are underwriting terrorism. This is in addition to the broader sponsorship of terror of these and other countries, including Iran.

On April 2, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting in Malaysia rejected any linkage between Palestinian attacks and terrorism and refused to even define terrorism. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad called on the group to classify all attacks on civilians, including those by Palestinian suicide bombiers, as terrorism, but the Conference would not do so.51

Perhaps the best example of the Arab refusal to condemn terrorism came from King Abdullah of Jordan, generally regarded as the most moderate Arab leader and America's closest Arab ally. In an interview with CNN, Christiane Amanpour asked Abdullah in a variety of ways if he would make a simple declarative statement condemning suicide bombings against Israel and he repeatedly evaded the question.52

So long as the Arab states continue to support terrorism, Israel will remain at risk, and there is little hope for regional peace or stability. Furthermore, the Arab policy legitimates the use of terror not only against Israel, but other nations as well, including the United States.



“You cannot negotiate with terrorists because the single response of terrorists for fulfilling their demands is blackmail....[Israel] cannot negotiate with people who kill civilians for political purpose....Any political leader who tolerates political terrorism as a legitimate tool for his political campaign — is a terrorist.”

— Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman53

MYTH

“Israel is making specious comparisons between Palestinian resistance and the September 11 attacks on the United States in the hope of generating sympathy for its policies.”

FACT

Israel and the United States are allies in the war on terrorism. Both face a common threat from radical Islamic and ideological groups that want to destroy them because of what they represent — freedom, democracy, modernity and Judeo-Christian values. The Palestinians are not engaged in resistance, but cold-blooded murder. No excuse justifies the killing of innocents. That is terrorism.

It is true that the terror attacks in Israel and the United States are not completely analogous. September 11 was a terrible day, but just one of only a handful where Americans have been victimized by terror. Israelis face threats to their lives on a daily basis. Americans have had to learn to live with new precautions at airports, a relatively mild inconvenience. Israelis must be wary of people and packages everywhere. Thankfully, Americans do not yet have to think twice before they send their kids out to play, go shopping at a mall, or enjoy an evening out at a restaurant. Israelis now must worry constantly about the safety of their children, and risk their lives going to discos, pizzerias and grocery stores. For most Americans the Sabbath is a time of prayer, reflection, leisure and enjoyment. For Israelis, the Sabbath has often been marked by murder and mayhem from Palestinian suicide bombers. After the March 2002 Passover massacre in which 29 people were murdered during their Seder, Israelis cannot even enjoy their religious festivals.

It is sometimes difficult for Americans to appreciate the magnitude of the impact of a terror attack that "only" kills 29 people, but in a country as small as Israel that number is devastating, and it is likely that many Israelis will personally know the victims. In fact, one study found that one-third of Israelis between 14 and 18 know someone killed or wounded in a terrorist attack.

On a proportional basis the death of 20 Israelis is roughly equivalent to 1,000 Americans, so from the perspective of Israelis, they've been experiencing September 11 almost weekly. And this does not count all the foiled attacks. Dozens of attempts have been stopped by the police and courageous men and women who have sometimes literally put their bodies between the suicide bombers and their intended victims. And it is also important to note that while most of America's enemies are thousands of miles away, the terrorists who threaten Israel are literally on its doorstep.

“...any culture that takes pride in having the next generation as a ready supply of cheap weapons has already lost its future. Any leader who cultivates or condones suicide as its war plan has lost all moral standing. What do we say about societies that practice human sacrifice?”

— Columnist Ellen Goodman54

MYTH

“Palestinians are driven to terror by desperation.”

FACT

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

When asked about two Palestinian suicide bombers who blew themselves up on a pedestrian mall in Jerusalem, killing 10 people between the ages of 14 and 21, the cousin of one of the men said "these two were not deprived of anything."55

A report by the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that "economic conditions and education are largely unrelated to participation in, and support for, terrorism." The researchers said the latest outbreak of violence in the region cannot be blamed on deteriorating economic conditions because there is no connection between terrorism and economic depression. Furthermore, the authors found that support for violent action against Israel, including suicide bombing, does not vary much according to social background.56

Amnesty International published a study that condemned all attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians and said that no Israeli action justified them. According to the report, "The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law."57

Terrorism is not Israel's fault. It is not the result of "occupation." And it certainly is not the only response available to the Palestinians' discontentment. Palestinians have an option f