A GUIDE TO THE Arab-Israeli Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, Part 2 - Draiman

A GUIDE TO THE Arab-Israeli Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard - Part 2

MYTH “Israel’s policy of assassinating Palestinian terrorists is immoral and counterproductive.” FACT Israel is faced with a nearly impossible situation in attempting to protect its civilian population from Palestinians who are prepared to blow themselves up to murder innocent Jews. One strategy for dealing with the problem has been to pursue negotiations to resolve all of the conflicts with the Palestinians and offer to trade land for peace. After Israel gave back much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and offered virtually all of the remainder, however, the Palestinians chose to use violence to try to force Israel to capitulate to all their demands. “The assassination of Hamas head Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004 played in the world as the killing of a crippled holy man by Israeli rockets as he was leaving the mosque in a wheelchair after morning prayers. Because of secrecy surrounding the operation, no file was prepared to explain why he was being killed, that he was an arch- terrorist who had, two days previously, sent two Gaza suicide bombers into Ashdod Port in an attempt to cause a mega-blast of the fuel and nitrates stored there. Or that he had been directly responsible for the deaths of scores, if not hundreds of Israelis.” —Columnist Hirsh Goodman40 A second strategy is for Israel to “exercise restraint,” that is, not respond to Palestinian terror. The international community lauds Israel when it turns the other cheek after heinous attacks. While this restraint might win praise from world leaders, it does nothing to assuage the pain of the victims or to prevent further attacks. Moreover, the same nations that urge Israel to exercise control have often reacted forcefully when put in similar situations. For example, the British assassinated Nazis after World War II and targeted IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland. The Clinton Administration attempted to assassinate Osama bin Laden in 1998 in retaliation for his role in the bombings of the United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The Administration of George W. Bush has said it also would not hesitate to kill bin Laden and has targeted a number of other al- Qaeda operatives.41 On November 4, 2002, for example, the United States killed six suspected al- Qaeda members in Yemen with a Hellfire missile fired from an unmanned CIA drone at the car in which they were traveling.42 In April 1986, after the U.S. determined that Libya had directed the terrorist bombing of a West Berlin discotheque that killed one American and injured 200 others, it launched a raid on a series of Libyan targets, including President Muammar Qaddafi’s home. Qaddafi escaped, but his infant daughter was killed and two of his other children were wounded. In addition, a missile went off track and caused fatalities in a civilian neighborhood. President Reagan justified the action as self-defense against Libya’s state-sponsored terrorism. “As a matter of self-defense, any nation victimized by terrorism has an inherent right to respond with force to deter new acts of terror. I felt we must show Qaddafi that there was a price he would have to pay for that kind of behavior and that we wouldn’t let him get away with it.”43 More recently, George W. Bush ordered “hits” on the Iraqi political leadership during the 2003 war in Iraq. Israel has chosen a third option—eliminating the masterminds of terror attacks. It is a policy that is supported by a vast majority of the public (70 percent in an August 2001 Haaretz poll supported the general policy and a similar percentage in 2003 specifically backed the attempt to kill the leader of Hamas). The policy is also supported by the American public according to an August 2001 poll by the America Middle East Information Network. The survey found that 73 percent of respondents felt Israel was justified in killing terrorists if it had proof they were planning bombings or other attacks that could kill Israelis.44 Then Deputy Chief of Staff Major- General Moshe Ya’alon explained the policy this way: There are no executions without a trial. There is no avenging someone who had carried out an attack a month ago. We are acting against those who are waging terror against us. We prefer to arrest them and have detained over 1,000. But if we can’t, and the Palestinians won’t, then we have no other choice but to defend ourselves.45 The Israeli government also went through a legal process before adopting the policy of targeted killings. Israel’s attorney general reviewed the policy and determined that it is legal under Israeli and international law.46 Targeting the terrorists has a number of benefits. First, it places a price on terror: Israelis can’t be attacked with impunity anymore, for terrorists know that if they target others, they will become targets themselves. Second, it is a method of self- defense: pre- emptive strikes eliminate the people who would otherwise murder Israelis. While it is true that there are others to take their place, they can do so only with the knowledge they too will become targets, and leaders are not easily replaceable. Third, it throws the terrorists off balance. Extremists can no longer nonchalantly plan an operation; rather, they must stay on the 16. The Palestinian War, 2000–2005 193 194 move, look over their shoulders at all times, and work much harder to carry out their goals. Of course, the policy also has costs. Besides international condemnation, Israel risks revealing informers who often provide the information needed to find the terrorists. Soldiers also must engage in sometimes high-risk operations that occasionally cause tragic collateral damage to property and persons. The most common criticism of “targeted killings” is that they do no good because they perpetuate a cycle of violence whereby the terrorists seek revenge. This is probably the least compelling argument against the policy, because the people who blow themselves up to become martyrs could always find a justification for their actions. They are determined to bomb the Jews out of the Middle East and will not stop until their goal is achieved. Case Study In August 2002, we had all the leadership of Hamas—Sheikh Yassin and all his military commanders . . . in one room in a three- story house and we knew we needed a 2,000- pound bomb to eliminate all of them—the whole leadership, 16 people, all the worst terrorists. Think about having Osama bin Laden and all the top leadership of al- Qaeda in one house. However, due to the criticism in Israeli society and in the media, and due to the consequences of innocent Palestinians being killed, a 2,000- pound bomb was not approved and we hit the building with a much smaller bomb. There was a lot of dust, a lot of noise, but they all got up and ran away and we missed the opportunity. So the ethical dilemmas are always there.47 MYTH “Israel indiscriminately murders terrorists and Palestinian civilians.” FACT It is always a tragedy when innocent civilians are killed in a counterterrorism operation. Civilians would not be at risk; however, if the Palestinian Authority arrested the terrorists, the murderers did not choose to hide among noncombatants and the civilians refused to protect the killers. Israel does not attack Palestinian areas indiscriminately. On the contrary, the IDF takes great care to target people who are planning terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Israeli forces have a history of accuracy in such assaults; nevertheless, mistakes are sometimes made. Whereas the terrorists make no apology for their attacks on civilians, and purposely target them, Israel always investigates the reasons for any errors and takes steps to prevent them from reoccurring. Israel is not alone in using military force against terrorists or in sometimes inadvertently harming people who are not targets. For example, on the same day that American officials were condemning Israel because a number of civilians died when Israel assassinated a leader of Hamas, news reports disclosed that the United States bombed a village in Afghanistan in an operation directed at a Taliban leader that instead killed 48 Afghan civilians at a wedding party. In both cases, flawed intelligence played a role in the tragic mistakes. The terrorists themselves do not care about the lives of innocent Palestinians and are ultimately responsible for any harm that comes to them. The terrorists’ behavior is a violation of international law, specifically Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which prohibits the use of civilians to “shield, favor or impede military operations.”48 “In Gaza last week, crowds of children reveled and sang while adults showered them with candies. The cause for celebration: the cold- blooded murder of at least seven people—five of them Americans—and the maiming of 80 more by a terrorist bomb on the campus of Jersualem’s Hebrew University.” —Historian Michael Oren49 MYTH “Israel perpetrated a massacre in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002.” FACT Secretary of State Colin Powell concisely refuted Palestinian claims that Israel was guilty of atrocities in Jenin. “I see no evidence that would support a massacre took place.”50 Powell’s view was subsequently confirmed by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and an investigation by the European Union.51 The Palestinians repeatedly claimed that a massacre had been committed in the days immediately following the battle. Spokesman Saeb Erekat, for example, told CNN on April 17 that at least 500 people were massacred and 1,600 people, including women and children, were missing. The Palestinians quickly backpedaled when it became clear they could not produce any evidence to support the scurrilous charge, and their own review committee reported a death toll of 56, of whom 34 were combatants. No women or children were reported missing.52 16. The Palestinian War, 2000–2005 195 196 Israel did not arbitrarily choose to raid the refugee camp in Jenin. It had little choice after a series of suicide bombings had terrorized Israeli civilians for the preceding 18 months. To defend itself and bring about hope for peace, Israeli forces went into Jenin to root out one of the principal terrorist bases. The Palestinian Authority’s own documents call Jenin the “suiciders capital.” The camp has a long history as a base for extremists, and no less than 28 suicide attacks were launched from this terror nest during the wave of violence that preceded Israel’s action. These terrorists violated the cease- fire agreed to by Israel and undermined Israeli efforts to resume political negotiations toward a peace agreement. Palestinian snipers targeted soldiers from a girls’ school, a mosque, and a UNRWA building and, in returning fire and pursuing terrorists, some noncombatants were hit. Any civilian casualty is a tragedy, but some were unavoidable because Palestinian terrorists used civilians as shields. The majority of casualties were gunmen. “Philosophically, the difference between me and the terrorist is that he wants to hurt me and my children and my wife, while I want to hit him and spare his children and his wife . . . because even the killing of one innocent person is unfortunate and should be avoided.” —Senior Israeli Air Force pilot53 While Israel could have chosen to bomb the entire camp, the strategy employed by the U.S. in Afghanistan, the IDF deliberately chose a riskier path to reduce the likelihood of endangering civilians. Soldiers went house to house and 23 were killed in bitter combat with Palestinian terrorists using bombs, grenades, booby- traps and machine guns to turn the camp into a war zone. Also, contrary to media reports, Israel had “carefully worked out ambulance evacuation routes with local Jenin medical officials and the International Red Cross.”54 Israel also kept the hospital running in Jenin. Lt. Col. Fuad Halhal, the Druze commander of the district coordinating body for the IDF, personally delivered a generator to the hospital under fire during the military operation.55 Television pictures gave a distorted perspective of the damage in the camp as well. Jenin was not destroyed. The Israeli operation was conducted in a limited area of the refugee camp, which itself comprises a small fraction of the city. The destruction that did occur in the camp was largely caused by Palestinian bombs. Palestinians have learned from fabricating atrocity stories in the past that a false claim against Israel will get immediate media attention and attract sympathy for their cause. The corrections that inevitably follow these specious charges are rarely seen, read, or noticed. MYTH “Rachel Corrie was murdered by Israel while she was peacefully protesting against the illegal demolition of a Palestinian home.” FACT American Rachel Corrie was killed in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003, when she entered an area where Israeli forces were carrying out a military operation. The incident occurred while IDF forces were removing shrubbery along the security road near the border between Israel and Egypt at Rafah to uncover explosive devices, and destroying tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt to Gaza. Corrie was not demonstrating for peace or trying to shield innocent civilians, she was interfering with a military operation to legally demolish an empty house used to conceal one of these tunnels. A misleading photo published by the Associated Press gave the impression that Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and shouting at the driver with a megaphone, trying to prevent the driver from tearing down a building in the refugee camp. This photo, which was taken by a member of Corrie’s organization, was not shot at the time of her death, however, but hours earlier. The photographer said that Corrie was actually sitting and waving her arms when she was struck.56 “No matter how you turn the question, Rachel Corrie’s death Sunday is a tragedy. . . . But Corrie’s death is no more tragic than the deaths of other young people—some of them young Americans who had traveled to Israel—who died in bombings committed by Palestinian terrorists. They’re also worth remembering this day. However you feel about Corrie’s actions, whether she was a martyr or misguided, she at least made her choice. Palestinian terrorists didn’t give the young people killed in their bombings any choice in their deaths. That, it seems to us, is another kind of tragedy for these young Americans and their families.” —OregonLive.com57 Israel’s Judge Advocate’s Office investigated the incident and concluded that the driver of the bulldozer never saw or heard Corrie because she was standing behind debris that obstructed the view of the driver whose field of view was limited by the small armored windows of his cab. An autopsy found that the cause of Corrie’s death was falling debris.58 The State Department warned Americans not to travel to Gaza, and Israel made clear that civilians who enter areas where troops are engaged in counter- terror operations put themselves unnecessarily at risk. 16. The Palestinian War, 2000–2005 197 198 This was not the first time protestors tried to obstruct Israeli operations, but the case received worldwide publicity because it was the first such incident where a protestor was killed. In fact, the army had told Corrie and other demonstrators from the anti- Israel International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to move out of the way. “It’s possible they [the protesters] were not as disciplined as we would have liked,” admitted Thom Saffold, a founder and organizer of ISM.59 The death of an innocent civilian is always tragic, and the best way to avoid such tragedies in the future is, first and foremost, by the Palestinian Authority putting an end to violence, and stopping the smuggling operations that have brought huge quantities of illegal weapons into the Gaza Strip. Activists interested in peace should be protesting the Palestinian actions. Demonstrators have every right to express their views about Israel’s policies, but they should take care to avoid the appearance of siding with the terrorists or placing themselves in positions where they could be inadvertently caught in the crossfire of a counter-terror operation or otherwise endangered by entering an area where military operations are being conducted. “The Intifada is in its death throes. These are the final stages. . . . Not only was the Intifada a failure, but we are a total failure. We achieved nothing in 50 years of struggle; we’ve achieved only our survival.” —Zakariya Zubeidi, leader of the al- Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank60 MYTH “Israel poisoned Yasser Arafat.” FACT Farouk Kaddoumi claimed that Israel poisoned Yasser Arafat because it wants Palestinian leaders who obey it and agree with its policies.61 This was just the most recent of a number of such allegations that have persisted since Arafat’s death. We don’t know for sure what killed Arafat, but even then Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath ruled out poisoning.62 At the time of his death, the French government, constrained by privacy laws, discounted the possibility of foul play when it announced, “If the doctors had had the slightest doubt, they would have referred it to the police.”63 Moreover, members of Arafat’s family, including ones who have made the poisoning charge, have had access to the records and produced nothing to substantiate the rumors. Arafat’s wife, Suha, could have released the findings of French physicians, and you can be sure she would have done so if they would have implicated Israel in her husband’s death. Notes *The war was never formally declared, but began in September 2000 with a surge of Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel. The war also had no formal ending resulting in a cease-fire or peace agreement. The Israeli Defense Forces succeeded in suppressing the violence to the point where the war had petered out by the end of September 2005. 1. Jerusalem Post, (March 4, 2001). 2. Conclusion of the Mitchell Report, (May 4, 2001). 3. “An Engineered Tragedy: Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian- Israeli Conflict, September 2000–June 2002,” International Policy Institute for Counter- Terrorism, (June 2002). 4. Quoted in Sharm El- Sheikh Fact- Finding Committee First Statement of the Government of Israel, Israeli Foreign Ministry, (December 28, 2000). 5. “Egypt/Israel: Attacks on Civilians Are Unjustifiable Crimes,” Human Rights Watch 6. Richard Sale, “Hamas history tied to Israel,” UPI, (June 18, 2002). 7. Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari, Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising—Israel’s Third Front. (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1990), pp. 227–239. 8. Jerusalem Report, (May 21, 2001). 9. Jerusalem Post, (September 22, 2005). 10. Associated Press; Jerusalem Post; New York Post, (March 16, 2004); CNN.com (March 25, 2004). 11. Jerusalem Post, (May 25, July 5, August, 29, 2005). 12. Amnesty International, Press Release, (March 24, 2004). 13. Itamar Marcus, “Ask for Death,” The Review, (March 2003). 14. Al- Hayat Al- Jadida, (June 18, 2002). 15. Jerusalem Post, (December 25, 2003). 16. Jerusalem Post, (March 15, 2004, May 25, 2005). 17. Associated Press, (March 1, 2004). 18. MSNBC, (May 27, 2005). 19. London Daily Telegraph, (March 15, 2004). 20. “Blackmailing Young Women into Suicide Terrorism,” Israeli Foreign Ministry, (February 12, 2003). 21. NewsFirstClass, (December 12, 2003). 22. Khaled Abu Toameh, “PA arrests academic voicing criticism,” Jerusalem Post, (July 4, 2005). 23. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices—2002, The State Department, March 31, 2003; B’tselem, Amnesty International, January–December 2002; Jerusalem Post, (August 25, 2002). 24. Mohammed Daraghmeh, “Palestinian Vigilante Killings on the Rise,” Associated Press, (October 6, 2005). 25. Near East Report, (March 5, 2001). 26. Almazen [Kuwait], (June 20, 2002). 27. Jerusalem Report, (February 25, 2002); Maariv, (July 31, 2002); Israeli Foreign Ministry, Washington Post, (April 2, 2004). 28. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (October 8, 2001). 29. Pearl Sheffy Gefen, “Irshad Manji, Muslim Refusenik,” Lifestyles Magazine, (Summer 2004), p. 29. 16. The Palestinian War, 2000–2005 199 200 30. CNN, Israel Defense Forces, Jerusalem Post, (November 28, 2000); Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (March 21, 2002). 31. James Fallows, “Who Shot Mohammed al- Dura?” The Atlantic Monthly, (June 2003). 32. Eva Cahen, “French TV Sticks by Story That Fueled Palestinian Intifada,” CNSNews. com, (February 15, 2005). 33. News Conference, (September 12, 2001). 34. Briefing by Major General Giora Eiland, Head of the IDF Operation Branch, to the Foreign Press Association, Jerusalem, (May 20, 2001). 35. State Department Briefing, (April 17, 2001). 36. Time, (April 19, 2001). 37. Collin Powell, My American Journey, (NY: Random House, 1995), p. 434. 38. Washington Post, (June 28, 1993). 39. CNN, (July 16, 2002). 40. Hirsh Goodman, “A Lesson Learned,” Jerusalem Report, (September 19, 2005). 41. Washington Post, (September 14 and 18, 2001). 42. CNN, (November 4, 2002). 43. RonaldReagan.com, Washington Post and other news sources. 44. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (August 30, 2001). 45. Jerusalem Post, (August 10, 2001). 46. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (November 30, 2001). 47. Amos Yadlin, “Updating the Concept of War: The Ethics of Fighting Terrorism,” The Review, (January 2005), p. 27. 48. Near East Report, Year End Reports, (1991–1993). 49. Michael Oren, “Palestinians Cheer Carnage,” Wall Street Journal, (August 7, 2002). 50. Jerusalem Post, (April 25, 2002). 51. Jerusalem Post, (April 28, 2002); Forward, (June 28, 2002); MSNBC, (July 31, 2002). 52. New York Post, (May 3, 2002). 53. Christian Lowe and Barbara Opall- Rome, “Israel Air Force Seeks Expanded Anti-Terror Role,” Defense News, (March 28, 2005). 54. “Anatomy of Anti- Israel Incitement: Jenin, World Opinion and the Massacre That Wasn’t,” Anti- Defamation League, 2002 [http://www.adl.org/Israel/jenin/default.asp]. 55. Jerusalem Report, (December 30, 2002). 56. Christian Science Monitor, (April 2, 2003). 57. OregonLive.com, (March 18, 2003). 58. Jerusalem Post, (June 26, 2003). 59. Washington Post, (March 17, 2003). 60. Jerusalem Post, (August 4, 2004). 61. Khaled Abu Toameh, “Kaddoumi claims Israel poisoned Arafat,” Jerusalem Post, (March 30, 2005). 62. Associated Press, (November 17, 2004). 63. John Ward Anderson, “Conspiracy Theories Persist on Arafat’s Death,” Washington Post, (November 18, 2004), p. A36

17. Jerusalem MYTH “Jerusalem is an Arab City.” FACT Jews have been living in Jerusalem continuously for nearly two millennia. They have constituted the largest single group of inhabitants there since the 1840’s. Jerusalem contains the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab entity. In fact, it was a backwater for most of Arab history. Jerusalem never served as a provincial capital under Muslim rule nor was it ever a Muslim cultural center. For Jews, the entire city is sacred, but Muslims revere a site—the Dome of the Rock—not the city. “To a Muslim,” observed British writer Christopher Sykes, “there is a profound difference between Jerusalem and Mecca or Medina. The latter are holy places containing holy sites.” Besides the Dome of the Rock, he noted, Jerusalem has no major Islamic significance.1 Jerusalem’s Population2 Year Jews Muslims Christians Total 1844 7,120 5,000 3,390 15,510 1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 1896 28,112 8,560 8,748 45,420 1922 33,971 13,411 4,699 52,081 1931 51,222 19,894 19,335 90,451 1948 100,000 40,000 25,000 165,000 1967 195,700 54,963 12,646 263,309 1987 340,000 121,000 14,000 475,000 1990 378,200 131,800 14,400 524,400 2000 530,400 204,100 14,700 758,300 202 MYTH “The Temple Mount has always been a Muslim holy place and Judaism has no connection to the site.” FACT During the 2000 Camp David Summit, Yasser Arafat said that no Jewish Temple ever existed on the Temple Mount.3 A year later, the Palestinian Authority- appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrima Sabri, told the German publication Die Welt, “There is not [even] the smallest indication of the existence of a Jewish temple on this place in the past. In the whole city, there is not even a single stone indicating Jewish history.” These views are contradicted by a book entitled A Brief Guide to alHaram al- Sharif, published by the Supreme Moslem Council in 1930. The Council, the principal Muslim authority in Jerusalem during the British Mandate, said in the guide that the Temple Mount site “is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.” In a description of the area of Solomon’s Stables, which Islamic Waqf officials converted into a new mosque in 1996, the guide states: “. . . little is known for certain about the early history of the chamber itself. It dates probably as far back as the construction of Solomon’s Temple . . . According to Josephus; it was in existence and was used as a place of refuge by the Jews at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 A.D.”4 More authoritatively, the Koran—the holy book of Islam—describes Solomon’s construction of the First Temple (34:13) and recounts the destruction of the First and Second Temples (17:7). The 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 is believed to have done so atop Mount Moriah, today’s Temple Mount. 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 Dome of the Rock was built on the site of the ancient temples. Strictly observant Jews do not visit the Temple Mount for fear of accidentally treading upon the Holy of Holies, since its exact location on the Mount is unknown. Other Jews and non- Muslims are permitted to visit. “The Zionist movement has invented that this was the site of Solomon’s Temple. But this is all a lie.” —Sheik Raed Salah, a leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel5 MYTH “Jerusalem need not be the capital of Israel.” FACT Ever since King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel more than 3,000 years ago, the city has played a central role in Jewish existence. The Western Wall in the Old City is the object of Jewish veneration and the focus of Jewish prayer. Three times a day, for thousands of years, Jews have prayed “To Jerusalem, thy city, shall we return with joy,” and have repeated the Psalmist’s oath: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.” Jerusalem “has known only two periods of true greatness, and these have been separated by 2,000 years. Greatness has only happened under Jewish rule,” Leon and Jill Uris wrote in Jerusalem. “This is so because the Jews have loved her the most, and have remained constant in that love throughout the centuries of their dispersion. . . . It is the longest, deepest love affair in history.”6 “For three thousand years, Jerusalem has been the center of Jewish hope and longing. No other city has played such a dominant role in the history, culture, religion and consciousness of a people as has Jerusalem in the life of Jewry and Judaism. Throughout centuries of exile, Jerusalem remained alive in the hearts of Jews everywhere as the focal point of Jewish history, the symbol of ancient glory, spiritual fulfillment and modern renewal. This heart and soul of the Jewish people engenders the thought that if you want one simple word to symbolize all of Jewish history, that word would be ‘Jerusalem.’ ” —Teddy Kollek7 MYTH “Unlike the Jews, the Arabs were willing to accept the internationalization of Jerusalem.” FACT When the United Nations took up the Palestine question in 1947; it recommended that all of Jerusalem be internationalized. The Vatican and many predominantly Catholic delegations pushed for this status, but a key reason for the UN decision was the Soviet Bloc’s desire to embarrass Transjordan’s King Abdullah and his British patrons by denying Abdullah control of the city. The Jewish Agency, after much soul- searching, agreed to accept internationalization in the hope that in the short-run it would protect the city from bloodshed and the new state from conflict. Since the partition resolution called for a referendum on the city’s status after 10 years, and Jews comprised a substantial majority, the expectation was that the city would later be incorporated into Israel. The Arab states were as bitterly opposed to the internationalization of Jerusalem as they were to the rest of the partition plan. In May 1948, Jordan invaded and occupied East Jerusalem, dividing the city for the first time in its history, and driving thousands of Jews—whose families had lived in the city for centuries—into exile. The UN recommendation of the partition plan, including its proposal that Jerusalem be internationalized, was overtaken by events. Prime Minister David Ben- Gurion subsequently declared that Israel would no longer accept the internationalization of Jerusalem. “You ought to let the Jews have Jerusalem; it was they who made it famous.” —Winston Churchill8 MYTH “Internationalization is the best solution to resolve the conflicting claims over Jerusalem.” FACT The seeming intractability of resolving the conflicting claims to Jerusalem has led some people to resurrect the idea of internationalizing the city. Curiously, the idea had little support during the 19 years Jordan controlled the Old City and barred Jews and Israeli Muslims from their holy sites. The fact that Jerusalem is disputed or that it is of importance to people other than Israeli Jews, does not mean the city belongs to others or should be ruled by some international regime. There is no precedent for such a setup. The closest thing to an international city was post-war Berlin when the four powers shared control of the city and that experiment proved to be a disaster. Even if Israel were amenable to such an idea, what conceivable international group could be entrusted to protect the freedoms Israel already guarantees? Surely not the United Nations, which has shown no understanding of Israeli concerns since partition. Israel can count only on the support of the United States, and it is only in the UN Security Council that an American veto can protect Israel from political mischief by other nations. MYTH “From 1948 through 1967, Jordan ensured freedom of worship for all religions in Jerusalem.” FACT From 1948–67, Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan. Israel made western Jerusalem its capital; Jordan occupied the eastern section. Because Jordan maintained a state of war with Israel, the city became, in essence, two armed camps, replete with concrete walls and bunkers, barbed-wire fences, minefields and other military fortifications. Under paragraph eight of the 1949 Armistice Agreement, Jordan and Israel had were to establish committees to arrange the resumption of the normal functioning of cultural and humanitarian institutions on Mt. Scopus, use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and free access to holy places and cultural institutions. Jordan violated the agreement, however, and denied Israelis access to the Western Wall and to the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews have buried their dead for more than 2,500 years. Under Jordanian rule, “Israeli Christians were subjected to various restrictions during their seasonal pilgrimages to their holy places” in Jerusalem, noted Teddy Kollek. “Only limited numbers were grudgingly permitted to briefly visit the Old City and Bethlehem at Christmas and Easter.”9 In 1955 and 1964, Jordan passed laws imposing strict government control on Christian schools, including restrictions on the opening of new schools, state control over school  finances and appointment of teachers and the requirements that the Koran be taught. In 1953 and 1965, Jordan adopted laws abrogating the right of Christian religious and charitable institutions to acquire real estate in Jerusalem. In 1958, police seized the Armenian Patriarch- elect and deported him from Jordan, paving the way for the election of a patriarch supported by King Hussein’s government. Because of these repressive policies, many Christians emigrated from Jerusalem. Their numbers declined from 25,000 in 1949 to fewer than 13,000 in June 1967.10 These discriminatory laws were abolished by Israel after the city was reunited in 1967. 17. Jerusalem 205 206 MYTH “Jordan safeguarded Jewish holy places.” FACT Jordan desecrated Jewish holy places. King Hussein permitted the construction of a road to the Intercontinental Hotel across the Mount of Olives cemetery. Hundreds of Jewish graves were destroyed by a highway that could have easily been built elsewhere. The gravestones, honoring the memory of rabbis and sages, were used by the engineer corps of the Jordanian Arab Legion as pavement and latrines in army camps (inscriptions on the stones were still visible when Israel liberated the city). The ancient Jewish Quarter of the Old City was ravaged, 58 Jerusalem synagogues—some centuries old—were destroyed or ruined, others were turned into stables and chicken coops. Slum dwellings were built abutting the Western Wall.11 MYTH “Under Israeli rule, religious freedom has been curbed in Jerusalem.” FACT After the 1967 war, Israel abolished all the discriminatory laws promulgated by Jordan and adopted its own tough standard for safeguarding access to religious shrines. “Whoever does anything that is likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the various religions to the places sacred to them,” Israeli law stipulates, is “liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.” Israel also entrusted administration of the holy places to their respective religious authorities. Thus, for example, the Muslim Waqf has responsibility for the mosques on the Temple Mount. Les Filles de la Charite de l’Hospice Saint Vincent de Paul of Jerusalem repudiated attacks on Israel’s conduct in Jerusalem a few months after Israel took control of the city: Our work here has been made especially happy and its path smoother by the goodwill of Israeli authorities . . . smoother not only for ourselves, but (more importantly) for the Arabs in our care.12 Former President Jimmy Carter acknowledged that religious freedom has been enhanced under Israeli rule. There is “no doubt” that Israel did a better job safeguarding access to the city’s holy places than did Jordan. “There is unimpeded access today,” Carter noted. “There wasn’t from 1948–67.”13 The State Department notes that Israeli law provides for freedom of worship, and the Government respects this right.14 “I also respect the fact that Israel allows for a multi-faith climate in which every Friday a thousand Muslims pray openly on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. When I saw that, I had to ask myself, where in the Islamic world can 1,000 Jews get together and pray in full public view?” —Muslim author Irshad Manji15 MYTH “Israel denies Muslims and Christians free access to their holy sites.” FACT Since 1967, hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians—many from Arab countries that remain in a state of war with Israel—have come to Jerusalem to see their holy places. According to Islam, the prophet Muhammad was miraculously transported from Mecca to Jerusalem, and it was from there that he made his ascent to heaven. The Dome of the Rock and the al- Aksa Mosque, both built in the seventh century, made definitive the identification of Jerusalem as the “Remote Place” that is mentioned in the Koran, and thus a holy place after Mecca and Medina. After reuniting Jerusalem during the Six- Day War, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan permitted the Islamic authority, the Waqf, to continue its civil authority on the Temple Mount even though it part of the holiest site in Judaism. 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. Arab leaders are free to visit Jerusalem to pray if they wish to, just as Egyptian President Anwar Sadat did at the al- Aksa mosque. For security reasons, restrictions are sometimes imposed on the Temple Mount temporarily, but the right to worship is not abridged and other mosques remain accessible even in times of high tension. In October 2004, for example, despite high alerts for terrorism and the ongoing Palestinian war, an estimated 140,000 Muslim worshipers attended Ramadan prayers on the Temple Mount.16 For Christians, Jerusalem is the place where Jesus lived, preached, died and was resurrected. While it is the heavenly rather than the earthly Jerusalem that is emphasized by the Church, places mentioned in the New Testament as the sites of Jesus’ ministry have drawn pilgrims and devoted worshipers for centuries. Among these sites is the Church of 17. Jerusalem 207 208 the Holy Sepulcher, the Garden of Gethsemane, the site of the Last Supper, and the Via Dolorosa with the fourteen Stations of the Cross. The rights of the various Christian churches to custody of the Christian holy places in Jerusalem were defined in the course of the nineteenth century, when Jerusalem was part of the Ottoman Empire. Known as the “status quo arrangement for the Christian holy places in Jerusalem,” these rights remained in force during the period of the British Mandate and are still upheld today in Israel. “There is only one Jerusalem. From our perspective, Jerusalem is not a subject for compromise. Jerusalem was ours, will be ours, is ours and will remain as such forever.” —Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin17 MYTH “Israeli policy encourages attacks by Jewish fanatics against Muslim and Christian residents and their holy sites.” FACT Israeli authorities have consistently attempted to stop fanatics—of all faiths—from desecrating religious sites or committing acts of violence near them. When it has been unable to stop such acts from occurring, Israel has severely punished the perpetrators. Allen Goodman, a deranged Israeli who in 1982 went on a shooting rampage on the Temple Mount, for example, was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1984, Israeli authorities infiltrated a Jewish group that planned acts of violence against non- Jewish sites and civilians. The terrorists were tried and imprisoned. In 1990, the Temple Mount Faithful, a Jewish extremist group, sought to march to the Temple Mount on Sukkot to lay the cornerstone for the Third Temple. The police, worried that such a march would anger Muslims and exacerbate an already tense situation created by the Intifada and events in the Persian Gulf, denied them the right to march. That decision was upheld by the Israeli Supreme Court, a fact communicated immediately to Muslim religious leaders and the Arab press. Despite Israel’s preemptive action, “Muslim leaders and Intifada activists persisted in inciting their faithful to confrontation.”18 As a result, a tragic riot ensued in which 17 Arabs were killed. Since that time, Israel has been especially vigilant, and done everything possible to prevent any provocation by groups or individuals that might threaten the sanctity of the holy places of any faith. In 2005, for example, Israel banned non- Muslims from the Temple Mount to forestall a planned rally by Jewish ultra- nationalists. 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 minimize 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 left open the status of Jerusalem. Article V said only that Jerusalem is one of the issues to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations. 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.” “Anyone who relinquishes a single inch of Jerusalem is neither an Arab nor a Muslim.” —Yasser Arafat19 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. The PA subsequently constructed a building for its parliament in the city. Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered dramatic concessions that would have allowed the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state, and given the Palestinians control over the Muslim holy places on the Temple Mount. These ideas were discussed at the White House Summit in December 2000, but rejected by Yasser Arafat. Barak’s proposals were controversial. Giving up sovereignty over the Temple Mount would place potentially hostile Arabs literally over the 17. Jerusalem 209 210 MYTHS FACTS heads of Jews praying at their holiest site. Other suggested 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 overwhelmingly 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- Aksa 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 Fahd20 MYTH “Israel has restricted the political rights of Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem.” FACT Along with religious freedom, Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem have unprecedented political rights. Arab residents were given the choice of whether to become Israeli citizens. Most chose to retain their Jordanian citizenship. Moreover, regardless of whether they are citizens, Jerusalem Arabs are permitted to vote in municipal elections and play a role in the administration of the city. MYTH “Under UN Resolution 242, East Jerusalem is considered ‘occupied territory.’ Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem therefore violates the UN resolution.” FACT One drafter of the UN Resolution was then- U.S. Ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg. According to Goldberg, “Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. . . . Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank.” In several speeches at the UN in 1967, Goldberg said: “I repeatedly stated that the armistice lines of 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem. At no time in these many speeches did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.”21 Because Israel was defending itself from aggression in the 1948 and 1967 wars, former President of the International Court of Justice Steven Schwebel wrote, it has a better claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem than its Arab neighbors.22 “The basis of our position remains that Jerusalem must never again be a divided city. We did not approve of the status quo before 1967; in no way do we advocate a return to it now.” —President George Bush23 MYTH “East Jerusalem should be part of a Palestinian state because all its residents are Palestinian Arabs and no Jews have ever lived there.” FACT Before 1865, the entire population of Jerusalem lived behind the Old City walls (what today would be considered part of the eastern part of the city). Later, the city began to expand beyond the walls because of population growth, and both Jews and Arabs began to build in new areas of the city. By the time of partition, a thriving Jewish community was living in the eastern part of Jerusalem, an area that included the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. This area of the city also contains many sites of importance to the Jewish religion, including the City of David, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. In addition, major institutions such as Hebrew University and the original Hadassah Hospital are on Mount Scopus—in eastern Jerusalem. The only time that the eastern part of Jerusalem was exclusively Arab was between 1949 and 1967, and that was because Jordan occupied the area and forcibly expelled all the Jews. MYTH “The United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.” FACT Only two countries have embassies in Jerusalem—Costa Rica and El Salvador. Of the 180 nations with which America has diplomatic relations, 17. Jerusalem 211 212 Israel is the only one whose capital is not recognized by the U.S. government. The U.S. embassy, like most others, is in Tel Aviv, 40 miles from Jerusalem. The United States does maintain a consulate in East Jerusalem, however, that deals with Palestinians in the territories and works independently of the embassy, reporting directly to Washington. Today, then, we have the anomaly that American diplomats refuse to meet with Israelis in their capital because Jerusalem’s status is negotiable, but make their contacts with Palestinians in the city. In 1990, Congress passed a resolution declaring that “Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel” and “must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.” During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Bill Clinton said: “I recognize Jerusalem as an undivided city, the eternal capital of Israel, and I believe in the principle of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.” He never reiterated this view as President; consequently, official U.S. policy remained that the status of Jerusalem is a matter for negotiations. “I would be blind to disclaim the Jewish connection to Jerusalem.” —Sari Nusseibeh, President of Al Quds University24 In an effort to change this policy, Congress overwhelmingly passed The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. This landmark bill declared that, as a statement of official U.S. policy, Jerusalem should be recognized as the undivided, eternal capital of Israel and required that the U.S. embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 1999. The law also included a waiver that allowed the President to essentially ignore the legislation if he deemed doing so to be in the best interest of the United States. President Clinton exercised that option. During the 2000 presidential campaign George W. Bush promised that as President he would immediately “begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital.”25 As President, however, Bush has followed Clinton’s precedent and repeatedly used the presidential waiver to prevent the embassy from being moved. While critics of Congressional efforts to force the administration to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital insist that such a move would harm the peace process, supporters of the legislation argue the opposite is true. By making clear the United States position that Jerusalem should remain unified under Israeli sovereignty, they say, unrealistic Palestinian expectations regarding the city can be moderated and thereby enhance the prospects for a final agreement. MYTH “The Palestinians have been careful to preserve the archaeological relics of the Temple Mount.” FACT Though it has refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount, the Waqf cooperated with Israeli inspectors when conducting work on the holy site. After the 1993 Oslo accords, however, the Jordanian-controlled Waqf was replaced with representatives beholden to the Palestinian Authority. Following the riots that accompanied Israel’s decision to open an exit from the Western Wall tunnel, the Waqf ceased cooperating with Israel. The Waqf has subsequently prevented Israeli inspectors from overseeing work done on the Mount that has caused irreparable damage to archaeological remains from the First and Second Temple periods. Israeli archaeologists found that during extensive construction work, thousands of tons of gravel—which contained important relics—was removed from the Mount and discarded in the trash. Experts say that even the artifacts that were not destroyed were rendered archaeologically useless because the Palestinian construction workers mixed finds from diverse periods when they scooped up earth with bulldozers.26 Given the sensitivity of the Temple Mount, and the tensions already existing between Israelis and Palestinians over Jerusalem, the Israeli government has not interfered in the Waqf’s activities. Meanwhile, the destruction of the past continues. “For us, there is only one Jerusalem, and no other. It will be ours forever, and will never again be in the hands of foreigners. We will honor and cherish all lovers of Jerusalem, of all faiths and religions. We will carefully guard all its sites of prayer, churches and mosques, and freedom of worship will be ensured, which was not the case when others ruled it. We will fearlessly face the entire world and will ensure the future of united Jerusalem. For Jerusalem is the anchor, root of life, and faith of the Jewish people and we will never again part with it.” —Ariel Sharon27 Notes 1. Encounter, (February 1968). 2. John Oesterreicher and Anne Sinai, eds., Jerusalem, (NY: John Day, 1974), p. 1; Israel Central Bureau of Statistics; Jerusalem Foundation; Municipality of Jerusalem. The figures for 2000 include 9,000 with no religion classified. 3. Interview with Dennis Ross, Fox News Sunday, (April 21, 2002). 17. Jerusalem 213 214 4. Jerusalem Post, (January 26, 2001). 5. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (February 12, 2001). 6. Leon and Jill Uris, Jerusalem, (New York: Doubleday and Company, 1981), p. 13. 7. Teddy Kollek, Jerusalem, (DC: Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1990), pp. 19–20. 8. Sir Eveyln Shuckburgh, Descent to Suez; Diaries 1951–56, (London, 1986). 9. Kollek, p. 15. 10. Kollek, p. 16. 11. Kollek, p. 15. 12. Catholic Herald of London, (October 6, 1967). 13. Near East Report, (April 2, 1990). 14. U.S. Department of State, “2001 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom,” Released by the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, (Washington, D.C., December 2001). 15. Pearl Sheffy Gefen, “Irshad Manji, Muslim Refusenik,” Lifestyles Magazine, (Summer 2004), p. 29. 16. Jerusalem Post, (October 22, 2004). 17. Jerusalem Day Address to Knesset, (May 29, 1995). 18. Kollek, p. 62. 19. Voice of Palestine, Algiers, (September 2, 1993). 20. Saudi Press Agency, (July 15, 1986). 21. New York Times, (March 12, 1980). 22. American Journal of International Law, (April 1970), pp. 346–47. 23. Letter from President George Bush to Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek, (March 20, 1990). 24. Jerusalem Post, (November 12, 2001). 25. Speech to AIPAC Policy Conference, (May 22, 2000). 26. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (February 12, 2001). 27. Address by Prime Minister Sharon at the Jerusalem Day Ceremony Ammunition Hill, (June 6, 2005)

18. U.S. Middle East Policy MYTH “The creation of Israel resulted solely from U.S. pressure.” FACT When the UN took up the question of Palestine, President Harry Truman explicitly said the United States should not “use threats or improper pressure of any kind on other delegations.”1 Some pressure was nevertheless exerted and the U.S. played a key role in securing support for the partition resolution. U.S. influence was limited, however, as became clear when American dependents such as Cuba and Greece voted against partition, and El Salvador and Honduras abstained. Many members of the Truman Administration opposed partition, including Defense Secretary James Forrestal, who believed Zionist aims posed a threat to American oil supplies and its strategic position in the region. The Joint Chiefs of Staff worried that the Arabs might align themselves with the Soviets if they were alienated by the West. These internal opponents undermined U.S. support for the establishment of a Jewish state.2 Although much has been written about the tactics of the supporters of partition; the behavior of the Arab states has been largely ignored. They were, in fact, actively engaged in arm- twisting of their own at the UN trying to scuttle partition.3 MYTH “The United States favored Israel over the Arabs in 1948 because of the pressures of the Jewish lobby.” FACT Truman supported the Zionist movement because he believed the international community was obligated to fulfill the promise of the Balfour Declaration and because he believed it was the humanitarian thing to do to ameliorate the plight of the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. He did not believe the rights of the Arabs should or would be compromised. A sense of his attitude can be gleaned from a remark he made with regard to negotiations as to the boundaries of a Jewish state: The whole region waits to be developed, and if it were handled the way we developed the Tennessee River basin, it could sup- 216 port from 20 to 30 million people more. To open the door to this kind of future would indeed be the constructive and humanitarian thing to do, and it would also redeem the pledges that were given at the time of World War I.4 The American public supported the President’s policy. According to public opinion polls, 65 percent of Americans supported the creation of a Jewish state. During the third quarter of 1947 alone, 62,850 postcards, 1,100 letters and 1,400 telegrams flooded the White House, most urging the President to use American influence at the UN.5 This public support was reflected in Congress where a resolution approving the Balfour Declaration was adopted in 1922. In 1944, both national parties called for the restoration of the Jewish Commonwealth and, in 1945, a similar resolution was adopted by Congress. Rather than giving in to pressure, Truman tended to react negatively to the “Jewish lobby.” He complained repeatedly about being pressured and talked about putting propaganda from the Jews in a pile and striking a match to it. In a letter to Rep. Claude Pepper, Truman wrote: “Had it not been for the unwarranted interference of the Zionists, we would have had the matter settled a year and a half ago.”6 This was hardly the attitude of a politician overly concerned with Jewish votes. MYTH “The United States and Israel have nothing in common.” FACT The U.S. - Israel relationship is based on the twin pillars of shared values and mutual interests. Given this commonality of interests and beliefs, it should not be surprising that support for Israel is one of the most pronounced and consistent foreign policy values of the American people. Although Israel is geographically located in a region that is relatively undeveloped and closer to the Third World than the West, Israel has emerged in less than 60 years as an advanced nation with the characteristics of Western society. This is partially attributable to the fact that a high percentage of the population came from Europe or North America and brought with them Western political and cultural norms. It is also a function of the common Judeo- Christian heritage. Simultaneously, Israel is a multicultural society with people from more than 100 nations. Today, nearly half of all Israelis are Eastern or Oriental Jews who trace their origins to the ancient Jewish communities of the Islamic countries of North Africa and the Middle East. While they live in a region characterized by autocracies, Israelis have a commitment to democracy no less passionate than that of Americans. All citizens of Israel, regardless of race, religion or sex, are guaranteed equality before the law and full democratic rights. Freedom of speech, assembly and press is embodied in the country’s laws and traditions. Israel’s independent judiciary vigorously upholds these rights. The political system does differ from America’s—Israel’s is a parliamentary democracy—but it is still based on free elections with divergent parties. And though Israel does not have a formal constitution, it has adopted “Basic Laws” that establish similar legal guarantees. Americans have long viewed Israelis with admiration, at least partly because they see much of themselves in their pioneering spirit and struggle for independence. Like the United States, Israel is also a nation of immigrants. Despite the burden of spending nearly one-fifth of its budget on defense, it has had an extraordinary rate of economic growth for most of its history. It has also succeeded in putting most of the newcomers to work. As in America, immigrants to Israel have tried to make better lives for themselves and their children. Some have come from relatively undeveloped societies like Ethiopia or Yemen and arrived with virtually no possessions, education or training and become productive contributors to Israeli society. Israelis also share Americans’ passion for education. Israelis are among the most highly educated people in the world. From the beginning, Israel had a mixed economy, combining capitalism with socialism along the British model. The economic difficulties Israel has experienced—created largely in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War by increased oil prices and the need to spend a disproportionate share of its Gross National Product on defense—have led to a gradual movement toward a free market system analogous to that of the United States. America has been a partner in this evolution. In the 1980’s, attention increasingly focused on one pillar of the relationship—shared interests. This was done because of the threats to the region and because the means for strategic cooperation are more easily addressed with legislative initiatives. Despite the end of the Cold War, Israel continues to have a role to play in joint efforts to protect American interests, including close cooperation in the war on terror. Strategic cooperation has progressed to the point where a de facto alliance now exists. The hallmark of the relationship is consistency and trust: The United States knows it can count on Israel. It is more difficult to devise programs that capitalize on the two nations’ shared values than their security interests; nevertheless, such programs do exist. In fact, these Shared Value Initiatives cover a broad range of areas such as the environment, energy, space, education, occupational safety and health. More than 400 American institutions in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have received funds from bi-national programs with Israel. Little- known relationships like the Free Trade Agreement, the Cooperative Development Research Program, the Middle East Regional Cooperation Program and various 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 217 218 memoranda of understanding with virtually every U.S. governmental agency demonstrate the depth of the special relationship. Even more important may be the broad ties between Israel and each of the individual 50 states and the District of Columbia. MYTH “Most Americans oppose a close U.S. relationship with Israel.” FACT Support for Israel is not restricted to the Jewish community. Americans of all ages, races and religions sympathize with Israel. This support is also nonpartisan, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans consistently favoring Israel by large margins over the Arabs. The best indication of Americans’ attitude toward Israel is found in the response to the most consistently asked question about the Middle East: “In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?” The organization that has conducted the most surveys is Gallup. Support for Israel in Gallup Polls has remained consistently around the 50 percent mark since 1967. In 76 Gallup polls, going back to 1967, Israel has had the support of an average of 46 percent of the American people compared to just fewer than 12 percent for the Arab states/Palestinians. Americans have slightly more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Arab states, but the results of polls asking respondents to choose between Israel and the Palestinians have not differed significantly from the other surveys. Some people have the misperception that sympathy for Israel was once much higher, but the truth is that before the Gulf War the peak had been 56 percent, reached just after the Six- Day War. In January 1991, sympathy for Israel reached a record high of 64 percent, according to Gallup. Meanwhile, support for the Arabs dropped to 8 percent and the margin was a record 56 points. The most recent poll, reported by Gallup in February 2005, found that sympathy for Israel was 52 percent compared to only 18 percent for the Palestinians. Despite the violence of the preceding three years, and a steady stream of negative media coverage, this is nearly the same level of support Israel enjoyed after the 1967 war, when many people mistakenly believe that Israel was overwhelmingly popular. The figure for the Palestinians is the highest ever (on a few occasions questions asking about the “Arabs” received higher levels of support). Polls also indicate the public views Israel as a reliable U.S. ally, a feeling that grew stronger during the Gulf crisis. A January 1991 Harris Poll, for example, found that 86 percent of Americans consider Israel a “close ally” or “friendly.” This was the highest level ever recorded in a Harris Poll. The figure in 2005 was 72 percent, ranking Israel fourth after Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. In a 2005 ADL poll, the figure was 71 percent, and a May 2003 survey sponsored by ARNSI, the Alliance for Research on National Security Issues, reported that 63 percent of Americans believe Israel is “a reliable ally of the U.S. in the fight against terrorism.” “The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.” —President Woodrow Wilson, March 3, 19197 MYTH “U.S. policy has always been hostile toward the Arabs.” FACT Arabs rarely acknowledge the American role in helping the Arab states achieve independence. President Wilson’s stand for self- determination for all nations, and the U.S. entry into World War I, helped cause the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and stimulate the move toward independence in the Arab world. The Arabs have always asserted that Middle East policy must be a zero- sum game whereby support for their enemy, Israel, necessarily puts them at a disadvantage. Thus, Arab states have tried to force the United States to choose between support for them or Israel. The U.S. has usually refused to fall into this trap. The fact that the U.S. has a close alliance with Israel while maintaining good relations with several Arab states is proof the two are not incompatible. The U.S. has long sought friendly relations with Arab leaders and has, at one time or another, been on good terms with most Arab states. In the 1930s, the discovery of oil led U.S. companies to become closely involved with the Gulf Arabs. In the 1950s, U.S. strategic objectives stimulated an effort to form an alliance with pro- Western Arab states. Countries such as Iraq and Libya were friends of the U.S. before radical leaders took over those governments. Egypt, which was hostile toward the U.S. under Nasser, shifted to the pro- Western camp under Sadat. Since World War II, the U.S. has poured economic and military assistance into the region and today is the principal backer of nations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt and the Gulf sheikdoms. Although the Arab states blamed the U.S. for their defeats in wars they initiated with Israel, the truth is most of the belligerents had either been given or offered American assistance at some time. 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 219 220 MYTH “The United States has supported Israel automatically ever since 1948.” FACT The United States has been Israel’s closest ally throughout its history; nevertheless, the U.S. has acted against the Jewish State’s wishes many times. The U.S. effort to balance support for Israel with placating the Arabs began in 1948 when President Truman showed signs of wavering on partition and advocating trusteeship. After the surrounding Arab states invaded Israel, the U.S. maintained an arms embargo that severely restricted the Jews’ ability to defend themselves. Ever since the 1948 war, the U.S. has been unwilling to insist on projects to resettle Arab refugees. The U.S. has also been reluctant to challenge Arab violations of the UN Charter and resolutions. Thus, for example, the Arabs were permitted to get away with blockading the Suez Canal, imposing a boycott on Israel and committing acts of terrorism. In fact, the U.S. has taken positions against Israel at the UN more often than not, and did not use its Security Council veto to block an anti-Israel resolution until 1972. Perhaps the most dramatic example of American policy diverging from that of Israel came during the Suez War when President Eisenhower took a strong stand against Britain, France and Israel. After the war, U.S. pressure forced Israel to withdraw from the territory it conquered. David Ben- Gurion relied on dubious American guarantees that sowed the seeds of the 1967 conflict. At various other times, American Presidents have taken action against Israel. In 1981, for example, Ronald Reagan suspended a strategic cooperation agreement after Israel annexed the Golan Heights. On another occasion, he held up delivery of fighter planes because of unhappiness over an Israeli raid in Lebanon. In 1991, President Bush held a press conference to ask for a delay in considering Israel’s request for loan guarantees to help absorb Soviet and Ethiopian Jews because of his disagreement with Israel’s settlement policy. In staking his prestige on the delay, Bush used intemperate language that inflamed passions and provoked concern in the Jewish community that anti- Semitism would be aroused. Though often described as the most pro- Israel President in history, Bill Clinton also was critical of Israel on numerous occasions. George W. Bush’s administration has also shown no reluctance to criticize Israel for actions it deems contrary to U.S. interests, but has generally been more reserved in its public statements. During the first year of the Palestinian War, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on spare parts for helicopters because of anger over the use of U.S. - made helicopters in targeted killings. The Bush Administration also punished Israel for agreeing to sell military equipment to China in 2005.8 MYTH “The U.S. has always given Israel arms to insure it would have a qualitative edge over the Arabs.” FACT The United States provided only a limited amount of arms to Israel, including ammunition and recoilless rifles, prior to 1962. In that year, President Kennedy sold Israel HAWK anti- aircraft missiles, but only after the Soviet Union provided Egypt with long- range bombers. By 1965, the U.S. had become Israel’s main arms supplier. This was partially necessitated by West Germany’s acquiescence to Arab pressure, which led it to stop selling tanks to Israel. Throughout most of the Johnson Administration, however, the sale of arms to Israel was balanced by corresponding transfers to the Arabs. Thus, the first U.S. tank sale to Israel, in 1965, was offset by a similar sale to Jordan.9 The U.S. did not provide Israel with aircraft until 1966. Even then, secret agreements were made to provide the same planes to Morocco and Libya, and additional military equipment was sent to Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia.10 As in 1948, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on Israel during the Six-Day War, while the Arabs continued to receive Soviet arms. Israel’s position was further undermined by the French decision to embargo arms transfers to the Jewish State, effectively ending their role as Israel’s only other major supplier. It was only after it became clear that Israel had no other sources of arms, and that the Soviet Union had no interest in limiting its sales to the region, that President Johnson agreed to sell Israel Phantom jets that gave the Jewish State its first qualitative advantage. “We will henceforth become the principal arms supplier to Israel,” Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke told Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin, “involving us even more intimately with Israel’s security situation and involving more directly the security of the United States.”11 From that point on, the U.S. began to pursue a policy whereby Israel’s qualitative edge was maintained. The U.S. has also remained committed, however, to arming Arab nations, providing sophisticated missiles, tanks and aircraft to Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Thus, when Israel received F- 15s in 1978, so did Saudi Arabia (and Egypt received F- 5Es). In 1981, Saudi Arabia, for the first time, received a weapons system that gave it a qualitative advantage over Israel—AWACS radar planes. Today, Israel buys near top- of-the-line U.S. equipment, but many Arab states also receive some of America’s best tanks, planes and missiles. The qualitative edge may be intact, but it is undoubtedly narrow. “Our society is illuminated by the spiritual insights of the Hebrew prophets. America and Israel have a common love of human freedom, and they have a common faith in a democratic way of life.” —President Lyndon Johnson12 MYTH “U.S. aid in the Middle East has always been one- sided, with the Arabs getting practically nothing.” FACT After Israel’s victory in its War of Independence, the U.S. responded to an appeal for economic aid to help absorb immigrants by approving a $135 million Export- Import Bank loan and the sale of surplus commodities. In those early years of Israel’s statehood (also today), U.S. aid was seen as a means of promoting peace. In 1951, Congress voted to help Israel cope with the economic burdens imposed by the influx of Jewish refugees from the displaced persons camps in Europe and from the ghettos of the Arab countries. Arabs then complained the U.S. was neglecting them, though they had no interest in or use for American aid then. In 1951, Syria rejected offers of U.S. aid. Oil- rich Iraq and Saudi Arabia did not need U.S. economic assistance, and Jordan was, until the late 1950s, the ward of Great Britain. After 1957, when the United States assumed responsibility for supporting Jordan and resumed economic aid to Egypt, assistance to the Arab states soared. Also, the United States was by far the biggest contributor of aid to the Palestinians through UNRWA, a status that continues to the present. Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country, but the amounts for the first half of this period were relatively small. Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S. provided Israel with an average of about $122 million a year, a total of $3.1 billion (and actually more than $1 billion of that was a loan for military equipment in 1971–73). Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community. “It is my responsibility to see that our policy in Israel fits in with our policy throughout the world; second, it is my desire to help build in Palestine a strong, prosperous, free and independent democratic state. It must be large enough, free enough, and strong enough to make its people self-supporting and secure.” —President Harry Truman13 Israel did not begin to receive large amounts of assistance until 1974, following the 1973 war, and the sums increased dramatically after the Camp David agreements. Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received more than $90 billion in assistance. Though the totals are impressive, the value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation. Arab states that have signed agreements with Israel have also been rewarded. Since signing the peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has been the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid ($1.8 billion in 2005, Israel received $2.6 billion). Jordan has also been the beneficiary of higher levels of aid since it signed a treaty with Israel (increasing from less than $40 million to approximately $250 million). The multibillion dollar debts to the U.S. of both Arab nations were also forgiven. After the Oslo agreements, the United States also began providing aid to the Palestinians. Funding for the West Bank and Gaza between 1993 and 2004 totaled approximately $1.3 billion. In May 2005, Congress passed a $200 million emergency aid package for the Palestinians aimed at promoting development projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In an effort to strengthen Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, President Bush agreed to provide the Palestinian Authority with $50 million in direct aid. Past assistance had been indirect, paid through nongovernmental organizations, but these funds were deposited in a special account managed by Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad, who is widely credited with making the PA’s finances more transparent. The money “is to be used to build housing, schools, roads, water facilities and health clinics in Gaza to help ease the transition as Israelis withdraw.”14 MYTH “Israel continues to demand large amounts of economic aid even though it is now a rich country that no longer needs help.” FACT Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 223 224 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out over 10 years. Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel’s military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. Israel made the offer because it does not have the same need for assistance it once did. The foundation of Israel’s economy today is strong; still, Israel remains saddled with past debts to the U.S., which, unlike those of Jordan and Egypt, were not forgiven. In addition, Israel still can use American help. The country has the tremendous financial burden of absorbing thousands of immigrants, a very high rate of unemployment and an alarmingly high number of people who fall below the poverty line. The situation was further exacerbated by the Palestinian War, which devastated the tourist industry and all related service sectors of the economy. Furthermore, concessions made in peace negotiations have required the dismantling of military bases and the loss of valuable resources that must be replaced. The cost of disengaging from Gaza alone is estimated at more than $2 billion. In 2005, economic aid to Israel was expected to be reduced to $360 million while military aid was to be increased to $2.2 billion. MYTH “Israel boasts that it is the fourth strongest nation in the world, so it certainly doesn’t need U.S. military assistance.” FACT Israel has peace treaties with only two of its neighbors. It remains technically at war with the rest of the Arab/Islamic world, and several countries, notably Iran, are openly hostile. Given the potential threats, it is a necessity that Israel continue to maintain a strong defense. As the arms balance chart in the Appendix indicates, Israel faces formidable enemies that could band together, as they have in the past, to threaten its security. It must, therefore, rely on its qualitative advantage to insure it can defeat its enemies, and that can only be guaranteed by the continued purchase of the latest weapons. New tanks, missiles and planes carry high price tags, however, and Israel cannot afford what it needs on its own, so continued aid from the United States is vital to its security. Furthermore, Israel’s enemies have numerous suppliers, but Israel must rely almost entirely on the United States for its hardware. The Value of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) Orders by State15 Alabama $78,276,940 Montana $64,553 Arkansas $81,801 North Carolina $8,411,180 Arizona $22,691,178 Nebraska $240,000 California $140,040,580 New Hampshire $10,538,391 Colorado $13,929,613 New Jersey $40,998,939 Connecticut $29,994,359 New Mexico $118,093 D.C. $44,555 Nevada $518,921 Delaware $225,251 New York $114,131,158 Florida $58,534,433 Ohio $55,781,273 Georgia $4,043,891 Oklahoma $3,089,217 Hawaii $65,000 Oregon $3,458,387 Iowa $2,745,748 Pennsylvania $12,377,050 Illinois $22,372,828 Rhode Island $63,750 Indiana $2,218,757 South Carolina $1,215,324 Kansas $19,194,285 South Dakota $90,000 Kentucky $33,275,716 Tennessee $16,465,058 Louisiana $36,900,038 Texas $65,216,418 Massachusetts $20,555,992 Utah $347,871 Maryland $41,821,169 Virginia $10,094,379 Michigan $30,304,390 Vermont $180,929 Minnesota $5,701,158 Washington $3,630,537 Missouri $2,563,271 Wisconsin $6,523,873 Mississippi $6,152,867 West Virginia $35,910 MYTH “U.S. military aid subsidizes Israeli defense contractors at the expense of American industry.” FACT Contrary to popular wisdom, the United States does not simply write billion dollar checks and hand them over to Israel to spend as they like. Only about 25 percent ($555 million of $2.2 billion in 2004) of what Israel receives in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) can be spent in Israel for military procurement. The remaining 74 percent is spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. More than 1,000 companies in 47 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have signed contracts worth billions of dollars through this program over the last several years. The figures for 2004 are on page 225. MYTH “Israel was never believed to have any strategic value to the United States.” FACT In 1952, Gen. Omar Bradley, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believed the West required 19 divisions to defend the Middle East and that Israel could supply two. He also expected only three states to provide the West air power in Middle Eastern defense by 1955: Great Britain, Turkey and Israel. Bradley’s analysis was rejected because the political echelon decided it was more important for the United States to work with Egypt, and later Iraq. It was feared that integration of Israeli forces in Western strategy would alienate the Arabs.16 Israel’s crushing victory over the combined Arab forces in 1967 caused this view to be revised. The following year, the United States sold Israel sophisticated planes (Phantom jets) for the first time. Washington shifted its Middle East policy from seeking a balance of forces to ensuring that Israel enjoyed a qualitative edge over its enemies. Israel proved its value in 1970 when the United States asked for help in bolstering King Hussein’s regime. Israel’s willingness to aid Amman, and movement of troops to the Jordanian border persuaded Syria to withdraw the tanks it had sent into Jordan to support PLO forces challenging the King during “Black September.”17 By the early 1970s it was clear that no Arab state could or would contribute to Western defense in the Middle East. The Baghdad Pact had long ago expired, and the regimes friendly to the United States were weak compared to the anti- Western forces in Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Even after Egypt’s reorientation following the signing of its peace treaty with Israel, the United States did not count on any Arab government for military assistance. The Carter Administration began to implement a form of strategic cooperation (it was not referred to as such) by making Israel eligible to sell military equipment to the United States. The willingness to engage in limited, joint military endeavors was viewed by President Carter as a means of rewarding Israel for “good behavior” in peace talks with Egypt. Though still reluctant to formalize the relationship, strategic cooperation became a major focus of the U.S. - Israel relationship when Ronald Reagan entered office. Before his election, Reagan had written: “Only by full appreciation of the critical role the State of Israel plays in our strategic calculus can we build the foundation for thwarting Moscow’s designs on territories and resources vital to our security and our national well- being.”18 Reagan’s view culminated in the November 30, 1981, signing of a Memorandum of Understanding on “strategic cooperation.” On November 29, 1983, a new agreement was signed creating the Joint Political Military Group (JPMG) and a group to oversee security assistance, the Joint Security Assistance Planning Group (JSAP). In 1987, Congress designated Israel as a major non- NATO ally. This law formally established Israel as an ally, and allowed its industries to compete equally with NATO countries and other close U.S. allies for contracts to produce a significant number of defense items. “Since the rebirth of the State of Israel, there has been an ironclad bond between that democracy and this one.” —President Ronald Reagan19 In April 1988, President Reagan signed another MOU encompassing all prior agreements. This agreement institutionalized the strategic relationship. By the end of Reagan’s term, the U.S. had pre-positioned equipment in Israel, regularly held joint training exercises, began co- development of the Arrow Anti- Tactical Ballistic Missile and was engaged in a host of other cooperative military endeavors. Since then, U.S. - Israel strategic cooperation has continued to evolve. Israel now regularly engages in joint training exercises with U.S. forces and, in 2005, for the first time, also trained and exercised with NATO forces. Today, strategic ties are stronger than ever and Israel has become a de facto ally of the United States. MYTH “The employment of Jonathan Pollard to spy on the United States is proof that Israel works against American interests.” FACT In November 1985, the FBI arrested Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, on charges of selling classified material to Israel. Pollard was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. His wife, Anne, was sentenced to five years in jail for assisting her husband. Immediately upon Pollard’s arrest, Israel apologized and explained that the operation was unauthorized. “It is Israel’s policy to refrain from any 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 227 228 intelligence activity related to the United States,” an official government statement declared, “in view of the close and special relationship of friendship” between the two countries. Prime Minister Shimon Peres stated: “Spying on the United States stands in total contradiction to our policy.”20 The United States and Israel worked together to investigate the Pollard affair. The Israeli inquiry revealed that Pollard was not working for Israeli military intelligence or the Mossad. He was directed by a small, independent scientific intelligence unit. Pollard initiated the contact with the Israelis. A subcommittee of the Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee on Intelligence and Security Services concluded: “Beyond all doubt . . . the operational echelons (namely: the Scientific Liaison Unit headed by Rafael Eitan) decided to recruit and handle Pollard without any check or consultation with the political echelon or receiving its direct or indirect approval.” The Knesset committee took the government to task for not properly supervising the scientific unit. As promised to the U.S. government, the spy unit that directed Pollard was disbanded, his handlers punished and the stolen documents returned.21 The last point was crucial to the U.S. Department of Justice’s case against Pollard. Pollard denied spying “against” the United States. He said he provided only information he believed was vital to Israeli security and was being withheld by the Pentagon. This included data on Soviet arms shipments to Syria, Iraqi and Syrian chemical weapons, the Pakistani atomic bomb project and Libyan air defense systems.22 Pollard was convicted of espionage. His life sentence was the most severe prison term ever given for spying for an ally. It also was far greater than the average term imposed for spying for the Soviet Union and other enemies of the United States.23 Though initially shunned by Israel, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu admitted that Pollard had worked for Israeli intelligence and granted him citizenship. Netanyahu requested clemency for Pollard during Middle East peace talks at the Wye Plantation in Maryland in 1998. Since then, Israeli officials have made additional entreaties on Pollard’s behalf. Pollard’s supporters in the United States also routinely request that he be pardoned. President Clinton reportedly considered a pardon, but defense and intelligence agency officials vigorously opposed the idea. At the end of Clinton’s term, the issue was again raised and Sen. Richard Shelby (R- AL), chairman of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, along with a majority of senators argued against a pardon. “Mr. Pollard is a convicted spy who put our national security at risk and endangered the lives of our intelligence officers,” Shelby said. “There not terms strong enough to express my belief that Mr. Pollard should serve every minute of his sentence. . . .”24 In November 2003, a federal judge rejected requests by Pollard to appeal his life sentence and review classified government documents that Pollard said would prove his spying was not as damaging or as extensive as prosecutors had charged. The judge said that Pollard had waited too long—more than a decade after it was imposed—to object to his sentence and ruled that Pollard’s attorneys offered no compelling justification for seeing the sealed intelligence documents.25 A U.S. federal appeals court in July 2005 rejected Pollard’s claim that he had inadequate counsel in his original trial and denied his request to downgrade his life sentence. The court also denied Pollard’s attorneys access to classified information they hoped would help in their attempt to win presidential clemency for their client. The rulings leave Pollard with little recourse but the Supreme Court to change his fate.26 MYTH “U.S. dependence on Arab oil has decreased over the years.” FACT In 1973, the Arab oil embargo dealt the U.S. economy a major blow. This, combined with OPEC’s subsequent price hikes and a growing American dependence on foreign oil, triggered the recession in the early seventies. In 1973, foreign oil accounted for 35 percent of total U.S. oil demand. By 2005, the figure had risen to 57 percent, and Arab OPEC countries accounted for 26 percent of 2004 U.S. imports (with non- Arab countries Indonesia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, the figure is 50 percent). Saudi Arabia ranked number three and Iraq (#6), Algeria (#7) and Kuwait (#12) were among the top 20 suppliers of petroleum products to the United States in 2004. The Persian Gulf states alone supply 24 percent of U.S. petroleum imports.27 The growing reliance on imported oil has also made the U.S. economy even more vulnerable to price jumps, as occurred in 1979, 1981, 1982, 1990, 2000 and 2005. Oil price increases have also allowed Arab oil- producers to generate tremendous revenues at the expense of American consumers. These profits have subsidized large weapons purchases and non-conventional weapons programs such as Iran’s. America’s dependence on Arab oil has occasionally raised the specter of a renewed attempt to blackmail the United States to abandon its support for Israel. In April 2002, for example, Iraq suspended oil shipments for a month to protest Israel’s operation to root out terrorists in the West Bank. No other Arab oil producers followed suit and the Iraqi action had little impact on oil markets and no effect on policy. The good news for Americans is that the top two suppliers of U.S. oil today—Canada and Mexico—are more reliable and better allies than the Persian Gulf nations. 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 229 230 MYTH “America’s support of Israel is the reason that terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11.” FACT The heinous attacks against the United States were committed by Muslim fanatics who had a variety of motivations for these and other terrorist attacks. These Muslims have a perverted interpretation of Islam and believe they must attack infidels, particularly Americans and Jews, who do not share their beliefs. They oppose Western culture and democracy and object to any U.S. presence in Muslim nations. They are particularly angered by the existence of American military bases in Saudi Arabia and other areas of the Persian Gulf. This would be true regardless of U.S. policy toward the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless, an added excuse for their fanaticism is the fact that the United States is allied with Israel. Previous attacks on American targets, such as the USS Cole and U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, were perpetrated by suicide bombers whose anger at the United States had little or nothing to do with Israel. “Osama bin Laden made his explosions and then started talking about the Palestinians. He never talked about them before.” —Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak28 Osama bin Laden claimed he was acting on behalf of the Palestinians, and that his anger toward the United States was shaped by American support for Israel. This was a new invention by bin Laden clearly intended to attract support from the Arab public and justify his terrorist acts. Bin Laden’s antipathy toward the United States has never been related to the Arab- Israeli conflict. Though many Arabs were taken in by bin Laden’s transparent effort to drag Israel into his war, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al- Ansari, dean of Shar’ia and Law at Qatar University was critical, “In their hypocrisy, many of the [Arab] intellectuals linked September 11 with the Palestinian problem—something that completely contradicts seven years of Al- Qaida literature. Al- Qaida never linked anything to Palestine.”29 Even Yasser Arafat told the Sunday Times of London that bin Laden should stop hiding behind the Palestinian cause. Bin Laden “never helped us, he was working in another completely different area and against our interests,” Arafat said.30 Though Al- Qaida’s agenda did not include the Palestinian cause, the organization has begun to take a more active role in terror against Israeli targets, starting with the November 28, 2002, suicide bombing at an Israeli- owned hotel in Kenya that killed three Israelis and 11 Kenyans, and the attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner with a missile as it was taking off from Kenya that same day.31 Al- Qaida operatives have also now has begun to infiltrate the Palestinian Authority.32 MYTH “The hijacking of four airliners in one day, on September 11, was an unprecedented act of terror.” FACT The scale of the massacre and destruction on September 11 was indeed unprecedented, as was the use of civilian aircraft as bombs. The coordinated hijackings, however, were not new. On September 6, 1970, members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked three jets (Swissair, TWA and Pan Am) with more than 400 passengers on flights to New York. A fourth plane, an El Al flight was also targeted, but Israeli security agents foiled the hijacking in mid- air and killed one of the two terrorists when they tried to storm the cockpit. On the 9th, a British BOAC jet was also hijacked by the PFLP.33 The UN could not muster a condemnation of the hijackings. A Security Council Resolution only went so far as to express grave concern, and did not even bring the issue to a vote. Instead of flying their planes into buildings, they landed them on airfields (three in Jordan, one in Egypt). All four hijacked planes were blown up on the ground—after the passengers were taken off the planes—on September 12. More than three dozen Americans were among the passengers who were then held hostage in Jordan as the terrorists attempted to blackmail the Western governments and Israel to swap the hostages for Palestinian terrorists held in their jails. On September 14, after releasing all but 55 hostages, the terrorists said all American hostages would be treated as Israelis. A tense standoff ensued. Seven terrorists were ultimately set free by Britain, Germany and Switzerland in exchange for the hostages.34 After the hijackings, shocked members of Congress called for immediate and forceful action by the United States and international community. They insisted on quick adoption of measures aimed at preventing air piracy, punishing the perpetrators and recognizing the responsibility of nations that harbor them.35 Virtually nothing was done until 31 years later. The PFLP as an organization, and some of the individual participants responsible for those hijackings still are alive and well, supported by Syria, the Palestinian Authority and others. In fact, Leila Khaled, the person who 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 231 232 tried to hijack the El Al jet, was going to be admitted into the territories to attend the Palestine National Council meetings in 1996, but she still refused to disavow terrorism. Today, she is said to live in Amman. MYTH “Israel’s Mossad carried out the bombing of the World Trade Center to provoke American hatred of Arabs.” FACT Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass told a delegation from Great Britain that Israel was responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He claimed the Mossad had warned thousands of Jewish employees not to go to work that day at the World Trade Center. He was the highest-ranking Arab public official to publicly voice a view that is widespread in the Arab world that the attacks were part of a Jewish conspiracy to provoke U.S. retaliation against the Arab world and to turn American public opinion against Muslims. One poll published in the Lebanese newspaper An Nahar, for example, found that 31 percent of the respondents believed Israel was responsible for the hijackings while only 27 percent blamed Osama bin Laden. A Newsweek poll found that a plurality of Egyptians believed the Jews were responsible for the Trade Center bombings.36 The conspiracy theory is also being circulated by American Muslim leaders. Imam Mohammed Asi of the Islamic Center of Washington said Israeli officials decided to launch the attack after the United States refused their request to put down the Palestinian Intifada. “If we’re not going to be secure, neither are you,” was the Israelis’ thinking following the U.S. response, according to Asi.37 No U.S. authority has suggested, nor has any evidence been produced, to suggest any Israeli or Jew had any role in the terrorist attacks. These conspiracy theories are complete nonsense and reflect the degree to which many people in the Arab world are prepared to accept anti-Semitic fabrications and the mythology of Jewish power. They may also reflect a refusal to believe that Muslims could be responsible for the atrocities and the hope that they could be blamed on the Jews. MYTH “Groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the PFLP are freedom fighters and not terrorists.” FACT When the United States declared a war on terrorists and the nations that harbor them after September 11, Arab states and their sympathizers argued that many of the organizations that engage in violent actions against Americans and Israelis should not be targets of the new American war because they are “freedom fighters” rather than terrorists. This has been the mantra of the terrorists themselves, who claim that their actions are legitimate forms of resistance against the “Israeli occupation.” This argument is deeply flawed. First, the enemies of Israel rationalize any attacks as legitimate because of real and imagined sins committed by Jews since the beginning of the 20th century. Consequently, the Arab bloc and its supporters at the United Nations have succeeded in blocking the condemnation of any terrorist attacks against Israel. Instead, they routinely sponsor resolutions criticizing Israel when it retaliates. Second, nowhere else in the world is the murder of innocent men, women and children considered a “legitimate form of resistance?” The long list of heinous crimes includes snipers shooting infants, suicide bombers blowing up pizzerias and discos, hijackers taking and killing hostages, and infiltrators murdering Olympic athletes. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the PFLP, and a number of other groups, mostly Palestinian, have engaged in these activities for decades and rarely been condemned or brought to justice. All of them qualify as terrorist groups according to the U.S. government’s own definition—“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”38—and therefore should be targets of U.S. efforts to cut off their funding, to root out their leaders and to bring them to justice. In the case of the Palestinian groups, there is no mystery as to who the leaders are, where their funding comes from and which nations harbor them. American charitable organizations have been linked to funding some of these groups and Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Authority all shelter and/or financially and logistically support them. “You can’t say there are good terrorists and there are bad terrorists.” —U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice39 MYTH “American universities should divest from companies that do business in Israel to force an end to Israeli ‘occupation’ and human rights abuses.” FACT The word “peace” does not appear in divestment petitions, which makes clear the intent is not to resolve the conflict but to delegitimize Israel.

Petitioners blame Israel for the lack of peace and demand that it make unilateral concessions without requiring anything of the Palestinians, not even the cessation of terrorism. Divestment advocates also ignore Israel’s efforts during the Oslo peace process, and at the summit meetings with President Clinton, to reach historic compromises with the Palestinians that would have created a Palestinian state. Even after Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip, certain individuals and groups persisted in their campaign to undermine Israel and further demonstrated that they are interested in Israel’s destruction rather than any territorial compromise. The divestment campaign against South Africa was specifically directed at companies that were using that country’s racist laws to their advantage. In Israel no such racist laws exist; moreover, companies doing business there adhere to the same standards of equal working rights that are applied in the United States. Harvard University President Lawrence Summers observed that the divestment efforts are anti- Semitic. “Profoundly anti- Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities,” said Summers. “Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti- Semitic in their effect, if not their intent.”40 Peace in the Middle East will come only from direct negotiations between the parties, and only after the Arab states recognize Israel’s right to exist, and the Palestinians and other Arabs cease their support of terror. American universities cannot help through misguided divestment campaigns that unfairly single out Israel as the source of conflict in the region. Divestment proponents hope to tar Israel with an association with apartheid South Africa, an offensive comparison that ignores the fact that all Israeli citizens are equal under the law. MYTH “Advocates for Israel try to silence critics by labeling them anti- Semitic.” FACT Criticizing Israel does not necessarily make someone anti- Semitic. The determining factor is the intent of the commentator. Legitimate critics accept Israel’s right to exist, whereas anti- Semites do not. Anti- Semites use double standards when they criticize Israel, for example, denying Israelis the right to pursue their legitimate claims while encouraging the Palestinians to do so. Anti- Semites deny Israel the right to defend itself, and ignore Jewish victims, while blaming Israel for pursuing their murderers. Anti- Semites rarely, if ever, make positive statements about Israel. Anti-Semites describe Israelis using pejorative terms and hate- speech, suggesting, for example, that they are “racists” or “Nazis.” Natan Sharansky has suggested a “3- D” test for differentiating legitimate criticism of Israel from anti- Semitism. The first “D” is the test of whether Israel or its leaders are being demonized or their actions blown out of proportion. Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is one example of demonization. The second “D” is the test of double standards. An example is when Israel is singled out for condemnation at the United Nations for perceived human rights abuses while nations that violate human rights on a massive scale, such as Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, are not even mentioned. The third “D” is the test of delegitimization. Questioning Israel’s legitimacy, that is, its right to exist is always anti-Semitic.41 No campaign exists to prevent people from expressing negative opinions about Israeli policy. In fact, the most vociferous critics of Israel are Israelis themselves who use their freedom of speech to express their concerns every day. A glance at any Israeli newspaper will reveal a surfeit of articles questioning particular government policies. Anti-Semites, however, do not share Israelis’ interest in improving the society; their goal is to delegitimize the state in the short- run, and destroy it in the long- run. There is nothing Israel could do to satisfy these critics. MYTH “Arab- Americans are a powerful voting bloc that U.S. presidential candidates must pander to for votes.” FACT Arab- Americans represent a tiny fraction (less than one- half of one percent) of the U.S. population. Unlike American Jews, who are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, Arab- Americans are not a monolithic group. There are approximately 1.2 million Arabs in the United States, and they tend to reflect the general discord of the Arab world, which has twenty-one states with competing interests. While the Palestinian cause receives most of the media’s attention, because of the salience of the Arab- Israeli conflict and the omnipresence of a handful of activists and vocal Palestinian spokespersons, the reality is that only about 70,000 Palestinians (6 percent of all Arab- Americans) live in the United States. Roughly 38 percent of Arab- Americans are Lebanese, primarily Christians. In addition, while attention has focused on the allegedly growing political strength of Muslims in the United States, less than one- fourth of all Arab- Americans are Muslims.42 Christian Arabs, especially those from Lebanon, do not typically support the Palestinians’ anti- Israel agenda, largely because of their history of mistreatment by Palestinians and Muslims. 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 235 Consequently, Arab- American voters do not pursue a positive agenda of strengthening U.S. - Arab ties; instead, they focus on weakening U.S. - Israel relations. Presidential candidates, however, and most Americans, historically view Israel as an ally that supports American interests, and are unwilling to support a reversal of this longstanding policy. The divisions were apparent in 2000 when George W. Bush was viewed with suspicion by most Jewish voters and considered likely to be more sympathetic to the Arab cause by Arab- Americans. In that election, 45 percent of Arab- Americans nationwide voted for George Bush, 38 percent for Al Gore, and 13 percent for Ralph Nader (who, incidentally, is of Lebanese descent).43 The situation changed dramatically in 2004 when Arab- Americans perceived Bush as pro- Israel, and were disturbed by his support for security measures that they viewed as threats to their civil liberties. Consequently, John Kerry received 63 percent of the Arab-American vote, while President Bush won 28 percent.44 Once again, this constituency did not change the outcome. Even if Arab- Americans vote as a bloc, their influence is marginal, and restricted to a handful of states. About half of the Arab population is concentrated in five states—California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York—that are all key to the electoral college. Still, the Arab population is dwarfed by that of the Jews in every one of these states except Michigan. Jewish and Arab Populations in Key States45 State Arab Population Arabs as % of Total State Population Jewish Population Jews as % of Total State Population CA 142,805 .48 999,000 2.9 FL 49,206 .38 628,000 3.9 MI 76,504 .82 110,000 1.1 NJ 46,381 .60 485,000 5.7 NY 94,319 .52 1,657,000 

8.7 MYTH “The United States must be ‘engaged’ to advance the peace process.” FACT The European Union, Russia, and the UN all have pursued largely one-sided policies in the Middle East detrimental to Israel, which has disqualified them as honest brokers. The United States is the only country that has the trust of both the Israelis and the Arabs and is therefore the only third party that can play a constructive role in the peace process. This has led many people to call for greater involvement by the Bush Administration in negotiations. While the United States can play a valuable role as a mediator, history shows that American peace initiatives have never succeeded, and that it is the parties themselves who must resolve their differences. The Eisenhower Administration tried to ease tensions by proposing the joint Arab- Israeli use of the Jordan River. The plan would have helped the Arab refugees by producing more irrigated land and would have reduced Israel’s need for more water resources. Israel cautiously accepted the plan, the Arab League rejected it. President Johnson outlined five principles for peace. “The first and greatest principle,” Johnson said, “is that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors.” The Arab response came a few weeks later: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it. . . .” President Nixon’s Secretary of State, William Rogers, offered a plan that sought to “balance” U.S. policy, but leaned on the Israelis to withdraw to the pre- 1967 borders, to accept many Palestinian refugees, and to allow Jordan a role in Jerusalem. The plan was totally unacceptable to Israel and, even though it tilted toward the Arab position, was rejected by the Arabs as well. President Ford’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had a little more success in his shuttle diplomacy, arranging the disengagement of forces after the 1973 war, but he never put forward a peace plan, and failed to move the parties beyond the cessation of hostilities to the formalization of peace. Jimmy Carter was the model for presidential engagement in the conflict. He wanted an international conference at Geneva to produce a comprehensive peace. While Carter spun his wheels trying to organize a conference, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat decided to bypass the Americans and go directly to the Israeli people and address the Knesset. Despite revisionist history by Carter’s former advisers, the Israeli Egyptian peace agreement was negotiated largely despite Carter. Menachem Begin and Sadat had carried on secret contacts long before Camp David and had reached the basis for an agreement before Carter’s intervention. Carter’s mediation helped seal the treaty, but Sadat’s decision to go to Jerusalem was stimulated largely by his conviction that Carter’s policies were misguided. In 1982, President Reagan announced a surprise peace initiative that called for allowing the Palestinians self- rule in the territories in association with Jordan. The plan rejected both Israeli annexation and the 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 237 238 creation of a Palestinian state. Israel denounced the plan as endangering Israeli security. The plan had been formulated largely to pacify the Arab states, which had been angered by the expulsion of the PLO from Beirut, but they also rejected the Reagan Plan. George Bush’s Administration succeeded in convening a historic regional conference in Madrid in 1991, but it ended without any agreements and the multilateral tracks that were supposed to resolve some of the more contentious issues rarely met and failed to resolve anything. Moreover, Bush’s perceived hostility toward Israel eroded trust and made it difficult to convince Israelis to take risks for peace. President Clinton barely had time to get his vision of peace together when he discovered the Israelis had secretly negotiated an agreement with the Palestinians in Oslo. The United States had nothing to do with the breakthrough at Oslo and very little influence on the immediate aftermath. In fact, the peace process became increasingly muddled as the United States got more involved. Peace with Jordan also required no real American involvement. The Israelis and Jordanians already were agreed on the main terms of peace, and the main obstacle had been King Hussein’s unwillingness to sign a treaty before Israel had reached an agreement with the Palestinians. After Oslo, he felt safe to move forward and no American plan was needed. In a last ditch effort to save his presidential legacy, Clinton put forward a peace plan to establish a Palestinian state. Again, it was Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s willingness to offer dramatic concessions that raised the prospects for an agreement rather than the President’s initiative. Even after Clinton was prepared to give the Palestinians a state in virtually all the West Bank and Gaza, and to make east Jerusalem their capital, the Palestinians rejected the deal. President George W. Bush also offered a plan, but it was undercut by Yasser Arafat, who obstructed the required reforms of the Palestinian Authority, and refused to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and stop the violence. Bush’s plan morphed into the road map, which drew the support of Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United Nations, but has not been implemented because of the continuing Palestinian violence. The peace process only began to move again when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made his disengagement proposal, a unilateral approach the State Department had long opposed. Rather than try to capitalize on the momentum created by Israel’s evacuation of the Gaza Strip, however, the Bush Administration remains wedded to its plan, which stalled because Mahmoud Abbas has been unable and/or unwilling to fulfill his commitments. History has shown that Middle East peace is not made in America. Only the parties can decide to end the conflict, and the terms that will be acceptable. No American plan has ever succeeded, and it is unlikely one will bring peace. The end to the Arab- Israeli conflict will not be achieved through American initiatives or intense involvement; it will be possible only when Arab leaders have the courage to follow the examples of Sadat and Hussein and resolve to live in peace with Israel. Notes 1. Foreign Relations of the United States 1947, (DC: GPO, 1948), pp. 1173–4, 1198–9, 1248, 1284. [Henceforth FRUS 1947.] 2. Mitchell Bard, The Water’s Edge And Beyond, (NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991), p. 132. 3. FRUS 1947, p. 1313. 4. Harry Truman, Years of Trial and Hope, Vol. 2, (NY: Doubleday, 1956), p. 156. 5. John Snetsinger, Truman, The Jewish Vote and the Creation of Israel, (CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1974), pp. 9–10; David Schoenbaum, “The United States and the Birth of Israel,” Wiener Library Bulletin, (1978), p. 144n. 6. Peter Grose, Israel in the Mind of America, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983), p. 217; Michael Cohen, “Truman, The Holocaust and the Establishment of the State of Israel,” Jerusalem Quarterly, (Spring 1982), p. 85. 7. Mitchell Bard, U.S. - Israel Relations: Looking to the Year 2000, AIPAC Papers on U.S. - Israel Relations, (1991), p. 3. 8. Nathan Guttman, “US Stopped parts sales during Intifada,” Jerusalem Post, (September 22, 2005); Ze’ev Schiff, “U.S. Sanctions still in place, despite deal over security exports,” Haaretz, (August 28, 2005). 9. Memorandum of conversation regarding Harriman- Eshkol talks, (February 25, 1965); Memorandum of conversation between Ambassador Avraham Harman and W. Averill Harriman, Ambassador- at- Large, (March 15, 1965), LBJ Library; Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs, (MA: Little Brown and Company, 1979), pp. 65–66. 10. Robert Trice, “Domestic Political Interests and American Policy in the Middle East: Pro- Israel, Pro- Arab and Corporate Non- Governmental Actors and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1966–1971,” (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin- Madison, 1974), pp. 226–230. 11. Memorandum of conversation between Yitzhak Rabin et al., and Paul Warnke et al., (November 4, 1968), LBJ Library. 12. Speech to B’nai B’rith on September 10, 1968, cited in Bernard Reich, Quest for Peace, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1977), p. 423n. 13. Truman campaign speech, Madison Square Garden, (October 28, 1948). 14. USAID; Washington Post, (May 27, 2005). 15. Israeli Ministry of Defense. 16. Dore Gold, America, the Gulf, and Israel, (CO: Westview Press, 1988), p. 84. 17. Yitzhak Rabin, address to conference on “Strategy and Defense in the Eastern Mediterranean,” sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Israel Military Correspondents Association, Jerusalem, (July 9–11, 1986). 18. Ronald Reagan, “Recognizing the Israeli Asset,” Washington Post, (August 15, 1979). 19. Reagan Address to B’nai B’rith, September 3, 1980, cited in Mitchell Bard, U.S. - Israel Relations: Looking to the Year 2000, AIPAC Papers on U.S. - Israel Relations, p. 6. 20. Wolf Blitzer, Territory of Lies, (NY: Harper & Row, 1989), p. 201. 21. New York Times, (December 2 and 21, 1985). 22. Blitzer, pp. 166–171. 23. Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah, (MA: Little Brown, & Co., 1991), pp. 289–312. 24. Washington Post, (December 23, 2000). 25. Washington Post, (November 14, 2003). 18. U.S. Middle East Policy 239 240 26. Matthew E. Berger, “After court denies his appeal, Pollard left with few legal options,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (July 24, 2005). 27. Energy Information Administration; Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 28. Newsweek, (October 29, 2001). 29. Al- Raya (Qatar), (January 6, 2002). 30. Washington Post, (December 16, 2002). 31. CNN, (December 3, 2002). 32. Maariv, (October 17, 2005). 33. Henry Kissinger, The White House Years. (MA: Little Brown & Co., 1979), pp. 600– 617. 34. Guardian Unlimited, (January 1, 2001). 35. Near East Report, (September 16, 1970). 36. Jerusalem Post, (October 19, 2001); Newsweek poll quoted in “Protocols,” The New Republic Online, (October 30, 2001). 37. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (November 2, 2001). 38. Washington Post, (September 13, 2001). 39. Jerusalem Post, (October 17, 2001). 40. Address at morning prayers, Memorial Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (September 17, 2002), Office of the President, Harvard University. 41. Natan Sharansky, “Anti-Semitism in 3- D,” Forward, (January 21, 2005), p. 9. 42. Alex Ionides, “Getting Their House Together,” Egypt Today, (November 2003). 43. “Poll: Bush losing Arab- American support,” Zogby International, (March 13, 2004). 44. James Zogby, “Arab Americans in election 2004,” Arab American Institute—November 15, 2004, in American Muslim Perspective, [http://www.ampolitics.ghazali.net/html/ arab_americans2.html]. 45. U.S. Census Bureau (2000).

19. 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 Simcha Dinitz, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., “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 242 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, Israel 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 “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 would be celebrating more than half a century of independence. Had the Arab states not supported terrorism directed at Israeli civilians and provoked seven 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. “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.” —Prime Minister Ariel Sharon2 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, whose president threatened to wipe Israel off the map, maintain a state of war with Israel despite having no territorial disputes. 19. The Peace Process “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. Israelis still believe a Palestinian state will present a threat, especially given the Palestinians’ illegal smuggling of weapons into the Palestinian Authority, and continuing support for terrorism; nevertheless, a radical shift in opinion has occurred and even most “right- wing” Israelis are now reconciled to the establishment of a Palestinian 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 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 all of Gaza, and allowing the Palestinians to govern themselves, terrorism against Israelis has continued. So far, no concessions by Israel have been sufficient to prompt the Palestinian Authority 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 “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. ■ 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. In addition, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. 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 19. The Peace Process 245 246 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?”6 “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 Rumsfeld7 MYTH “Yasser Arafat rejected Barak’s proposals in 2000 because they did not offer the Palestinians a viable state.” 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 3 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. 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.8 The prevailing view of the Camp David White House negotiations— that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the war that began in September 2000—was acknowledged 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.” 9 MYTH “Israel and the Palestinians were on the verge of reaching a peace deal during negotiations at Taba in 2001, but Ariel Sharon’s election torpedoed the agreement.” FACT Even after Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s unprecedented offer to create a Palestinian state in 97 percent of the West Bank, members of the Israeli government still hoped a peace agreement was possible with the Palestinians. In hopes of a breakthrough before the scheduled Israeli election, and the end of President Clinton’s term, Israel sent a delegation of some of its most dovish officials, all of whom favored a two- state solution, to the Egyptian port city of Taba in January 2001. The Israelis believed that even though Arafat would not even offer a counterproposal to Barak, they might induce a Palestinian delegation without the PLO chairman to make sufficient compromises to at least narrow the gap between the Barak proposal and Arafat’s maximalist demands. The Israelis discovered, however, that the Palestinians were not willing to negotiate on the basis of what Barak had proposed. Instead, they withdrew many of the concessions they had offered. For example, at Camp David, the Palestinians agreed that Israel could retain two settlement blocs that would incorporate most of the Jews into Israel. At Taba, the Palestinians called for the evacuation of 130 out of 146 settlements and refused to accept the creation of settlement blocs. In fact, while the 19. The Peace Process 247 248 Palestinians now falsely claim that Barak offered them only cantons at Camp David, instead of a contiguous state; it is actually the Palestinians at Taba who sought to create isolated Jewish Bantustans that would be dependent on strings of access roads. Besides other disagreements over settlements, many of which represented backsliding from earlier Palestinian positions, the parties remained deeply divided over the status of Jerusalem. Barak had offered to allow the Palestinians to make their capital in the predominantly Arab parts of East Jerusalem, and to share sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat had insisted on complete Palestinian control over the holy site, and denied Jews had any connection to it. At Taba, the Palestinians also refused to recognize the area was holy to the Jews and insisted on controlling most, if not all, of the Western Wall. On the third key final status issue, refugees, no agreement was reached. The Palestinians did not accept Israeli proposals on the number of refugees that would be allowed into Israel or the amount of compensation that should be paid to the rest. Beilin said the Palestinians should tell the refugees that once peace is achieved, and their state is established, “they will be allowed to immigrate to [the Palestinians state] and live in it in dignity. Not in Haifa.”10 Despite a positive joint statement issued at the end of the negotiations, the truth is that no agreement was reached at Taba and, according to the Palestinians themselves, the parties left the talks farther apart on the issues than they had been at Camp David. Abu Alaa, one of the lead Palestinian negotiators told Al-Ayyam after the talks that “there has never before been a clearer gap in the positions of the two sides.”11 MYTH “The Palestinians are being asked to accept only 22 percent of Palestine for their state while Israel keeps 78 percent.” FACT The government of Israel has agreed to a two- state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. Once Israel agreed to give the Palestinians the independence they say they want, they shifted their complaint to the size of the state they were being offered. Many “moderates,” such as Hanan Ashrawi, who say they can coexist with Israel, have adopted the refrain that Israel is doing the Palestinians no favors by offering them a state in the disputed territories because it is asking them to accept a state in only 22 percent of Palestine while Israel keeps 78 percent. This is a very convincing point to show the unfairness of the Palestinians’ plight and to suggest Israel’s peace overtures are niggardly; that is, unless you know the history of Palestine and recognizes that the truth is exactly the reverse. Historic Palestine included not only Israel and the West Bank, but also all of modern Jordan. It is Israel, including the disputed territories, that is only 22 percent of Palestine. If Israel were to withdraw completely from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it would possess only about 18 percent. And from Israel’s perspective, it is the Zionists who have made the real sacrifice by giving up 82 percent of the Land of Israel. In fact, by accepting the UN’s partition resolution, they were prepared to accept only about 12 percent of historic Israel before the Arab states attacked and tried to destroy the nascent state of Israel. Meanwhile, of the approximately 9 million Palestinians worldwide, three- fourths live in historic Palestine. MYTH “Ariel Sharon has made clear that he does not want peace and no deal is possible as long as he is Prime Minister.” FACT Ariel Sharon has been demonized by the Arabs and caricatured by the media, which often insists on referring to him as the “right- wing” or “hard- line” Prime Minister, appellations rarely affixed to any other foreign leaders. Sharon has spent most of his life as a soldier and public servant trying to bring peace to his nation. It was Ariel Sharon who gave then Prime Minister Menachem Begin the critical backing that made the Israel- Egypt Peace Treaty possible. At a crucial moment at Camp David, the negotiations were on the verge of collapse over Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s insistence that all Israeli settlements in the Sinai be dismantled. Begin called Sharon and asked if he should give up the settlements; Sharon not only advised him to do so, but ultimately was the one who implemented the decision to remove the settlers, some by force.12 Sharon’s views have also evolved over time. While he was once fiercely opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, as Prime Minister he has endorsed the idea. Since taking office, Sharon has repeatedly offered to negotiate with the Palestinians on condition only that they end the violence. He asked for only seven days of peace—a demand some found onerous despite the fact that the Palestinians had promised at Oslo eight years of peace—and later even dropped that demand. When he did, the Palestinians answered his gesture with the Passover massacre, the suicide bombing of a religious observance in a Netanya hotel in which 29 people were killed. Even when Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah proposed a peace initiative that was filled with provisions the Saudi knew Israel could never accept, Sharon did not reject the plan, and called for direct negotiations to discuss it. Sharon also agreed to negotiate with the cording to the road map formula devised by the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations, despite serious reservations about many elements of the plan. Although Sharon is one of the fathers of the settlement movement, he has said “not all the settlements in Judea and Samaria today will remain.”13 He also ordered the evacuation of four settlements in Samaria and all of those in Gaza despite virulent opposition from his own party. If the Arabs doubt Sharon’s commitment to peace, all they need do is put him to the test—end the violence and begin negotiations. So long as the Palestinians keep up their terrorist attacks, no Israeli Prime Minister can offer them concessions. “To keep 3.5 million people under occupation is bad for us and them. . . . I want to say clearly that I have come to the conclusion that we have to reach a [peace] agreement.” —Prime Minister Ariel Sharon14 MYTH “Israel must help Mahmoud Abbas improve his standing among Palestinians to facilitate the peace process.” FACT The death of Yasser Arafat, stimulated hope that a new Palestinian leader would emerge with the courage and vision of Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, and agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state that will live in peace beside Israel. The Palestinians chose Mahmoud Abbas to lead them. Abbas was involved in past peace negotiations and his election was welcomed by Israel. Still, Israelis had no illusions about Abbas. He was the number two person in the PLO and a founder of the Fattah terrorist organization. He had made numerous irredentist statements in the past and during his campaign. His uncompromising position on the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees, for example, bodes ill for negotiations. On the other hand, he also demonstrated the courage to publicly criticize the Palestinian War, and said that violence has not helped the Palestinian cause. He declared a readiness to make peace with Israel. Israel has been repeatedly called on to make gestures to Abbas to help him consolidate his power; however, Israel owes him nothing. It is Abbas who must show that he has both the will and ability to reform the Palestinian Authority, to dismantle the terrorist networks, and to end the violence. Words are insufficient; he must take action. The agreements signed by the Palestinians are unequivocal about what is required of them; they cannot evade their responsibilities with conciliatory statements to the press in English or cease- fires with groups such as Hamas that remain committed to Israel’s destruction. Though it has no obligation to do so, Israel has taken steps to show its goodwill, including facilitating the Palestinian elections (which international observers reported were unfettered by Israel15), releasing prisoners, and withdrawing troops from parts of the West Bank. More important, Israel evacuated all of its civilians and soldiers from the Gaza Strip. The hope for a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians now rests on the shoulders of Abbas. He has taken steps to consolidate his power. He has persuaded Hamas at different times to accept a cease- fire. He ordered Palestinian security forces to stop attacks by terrorists on Israelis and he sent a police contingent to the Gaza Strip to impose order. He also declared that only policemen and security personnel will be allowed to carry weapons. To date, however, he has had limited success in implementing these decisions and many Israelis question whether he is politically strong enough to impose order. Coexistence is impossible unless Palestinian violence stops. There can be no attacks on Jews anywhere, no mortars or rockets fired into Israel, and no incitement to violence. This is not a case of giving extremists a veto over negotiations; Israel has not said that Abbas must stop 100 percent of the incidents before it will talk, but Israel does insist that he demonstrate a 100 percent effort to stop them. To date, he has not done so. “I confirm that the resistance will continue after the withdrawal from Gaza, and the resistance’s weapons will remain to protect this achievement.” —Hamas representative Osama Hamdan16 MYTH “The disengagement plan was a trick to allow Israel to hold onto the West Bank.” FACT Prime Minister Sharon, as well as President Bush, has made it clear that the disengagement plan is consistent with the road map. Sharon has also repeatedly stated his acceptance of the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which would require the evacuation of additional communities in the West Bank. 19. The Peace Process 251 252 Sharon’s motives were questioned despite the political risks he took in pursuing his plan. After all, few people inside or outside of Israel would have predicted as recently as the year 2000 that the man considered the father of the settlement movement would defy much of his own party and evacuate Jews from their homes in the territories. Moreover, the disengagement plan was not restricted to Gaza; it also involved the dismantling of four Jewish communities in Samaria. While the number of Jews evacuated was small (approximately 550), the area that Israel evacuated was actually larger than the entire Gaza Strip.17 The Jews who live in the West Bank did not believe the evacuation of Gaza was meant to solidify their position. On the contrary, the reason so many Jews in Judea and Samaria defended the rights of the Jews in Gaza was because they saw their removal as a precedent that will eventually be followed in the West Bank. Sharon has only expressed commitments to retain the large settlement blocs that the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree should be incorporated into Israel, and many of the Jews living in smaller, isolated communities saw the disengagement as the first step toward their eventual evacuation. “I think if they (Palestinians) can’t achieve progress in the time of the current (Israeli) prime minister, it will be very difficult to make any progress in peace. He (Sharon) is capable of pursuing peace, and he is capable of reaching solutions, if he wants to.” —Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak18 MYTH “Israel evacuated Gaza, but turned it into a prison by preventing the movement of people or goods.” FACT Israel decided to completely evacuate its soldiers and civilians from Gaza to improve the lives of Palestinians and Israelis. The Palestinian Authority now has full control over the population in Gaza. No one there is “under occupation.” Gaza Palestinians can now move freely within Gaza, live and work where they choose, and pursue normal lives, subject only to the restrictions imposed by their leaders. Prior to disengagement, Israel established a development team to improve the economic circumstances in Gaza. Israel offered to provide assistance in building desalination facilities, sewage systems, hospitals, and a power station. Another team was created to facilitate trade with the Palestinians.19 In addition, Israel has agreed to allow guarded convoys to travel between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and proposed building a railway linking the two, demonstrating that Israel has no intention of isolating the two territories.20 Still, Israel is accused of imprisoning Gazans by refusing to allow the Palestinians use of a seaport or airport. Israel is prepared to allow the use of these facilities, but neither is ready for use now. Moreover, Palestinian businessmen and economists have said the construction of a seaport, which will take many months, is not a priority. If relations with Israel are good, Palestinians can use the Israeli port of Ashdod or Port Said in Egypt.21 Israel and the PA reached an agreement in November 2005 to allow greater freedom of movement in and out of Gaza and to permit the Palestinians to begin building a seaport and airport. The deal stipulated that the Rafah crossing would be monitored by Palestinian and Egyptian officials, with outside observers from the European Union on site. Israel will have access to closed- circuit cameras to watch traffic going through the crossing, and will be able to voice objections over any person that they regard as suspicious, but will not have the power to veto an individual’s access to the other side of the border.22 “I thank Allah the exalted for His support in the Jihad of our people and for the liberation of the beloved Gaza Strip, and I ask him to help us to liberate Jerusalem and the West Bank, Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Safed, Nazareth, Ashkelon, and all of Palestine.” —Muhammad Deif, Commander of the c Izz Al- Din Al- Qassam Brigades23 The Palestinians were unwilling to negotiate a peace agreement in conjunction with Israel’s disengagement from Gaza; therefore, Israel has no assurance the area will not be used as a terrorist base. Hamas and other terrorist groups explicitly say they plan to continue their war to destroy Israel. The PA, meanwhile, refuses to honor its road map obligations to disarm the terrorists and dismantle the infrastructure. Given these conditions, and memories of the Karine-A—the ship laden with Iranian weapons meant for the PA that Israel seized in 2002—Israel cannot put its population at risk by allowing Palestinians to bring material in by air and sea without any inspection, or to go to and from the West Bank without scrutiny. Israelis and Palestinians have been discussing how to provide Israel with the necessary security safeguards to allow for the quicker movement of goods and people over the border.24 19. “Israel should be replaced by a bi-national state where Jews and Palestinians live together.” FACT The idea of a bi-national state is not new; it was first proposed by prominent Jews such as Judah Magnes in the 1920’s. As is the case today, however, the suggestion enjoyed no popular support. The utopian view of the advocates of bi-nationalism was that the Jews and Arabs both had legitimate claims to the land and should live in peace together in one state. This idea negated the Jewish right to its historic homeland and also assumed the Arabs were prepared to coexist peacefully with the Jews within the same state. This was proven wrong through two decades of violence by Arabs against Jews in Palestine, and by the Arab rejection of the British White Paper of 1939, which offered them just such an arrangement. “A Palestinian state will never be built on a foundation of violence. Now is the time for every true friend of the Palestinian people, every leader in the Middle East, and the Palestinian people themselves, to cut off all money and support for terrorists and actively fight terror on all fronts. Only then can Israel be secure and the flag rise over an independent Palestine.” —President George W. Bush25 As early as 1937, it had become clear that the two peoples could not live together and needed to have states of their own. As a result, the Peel Commission proposed a partition in that year and the UN approved the same approach a decade later. Nothing has changed since that time to suggest any other solution can end the conflict. Since Palestinian Arabs already constitute approximately 46 percent of the population living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and their birth rate is double that of Israeli Jews, they would soon become the majority of the population in a bi-national state. The Jewish character of the nation would then erode and disappear, and Israeli Jews would lose political control over the one safe haven for Jews. Given the historical mistreatment of minorities, especially Jews, in Arab lands, this idea would be a recipe for the persecution of Jews (and Christians). One proponent of the idea of a bi-national state suggested that an international force would protect the Jews, but no leader would entrust the fate of the Jewish people to such an unreliable guarantor. More important, if advocates of bi-nationalism acknowledge that Jews would need protection in such a state, what is the basis for believing this is a solution to the conflict? MYTH “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.” Palestinians also called 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.”26 “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 Zimeray27 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. Newer textbooks are less strident, but still problematic. For example, they describe the Palestinian nation as one comprised of Muslims 19. The Peace Process 255 256 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.28 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 learn 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.29 The Palestinian authorities also try to convince children that Israel is out to kill them by all sorts 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.30 These teachings violate the letter and spirit of the peace agreements. “We are teaching the children that suicide bombs make Israeli people frightened. . . . 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 interviewer31 MYTH “Palestinians no longer object to the creation of Israel.” FACT One of the primary Palestinian obligations under the road map for peace is to affirm Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. How then does one interpret Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s description of the decision to create a Jewish state in 1948 as a crime?32 While Israelis were still celebrating the 57th anniversary of their independence, Abbas and other Palestinians were mourning the establishment of Israel on what they call Nakba Day. Had the Palestinians and the Arab states accepted the partition resolution in 1947, the State of Palestine would have also been celebrating its birthday, and Palestinians would not be lamenting Al Nakba (“The Catastrophe”). Palestinians are understandably bitter about their history over these last six decades, but we are often told that what they object to today is the “occupation” of the territories Israel captured in 1967. If that is true, then why isn’t their Nakba Day celebrated each June on the anniversary of the Arab defeat in the Six- Day War? The reason is that the Palestinians consider the creation of Israel the original sin, and their focus on that event is indicative of a refusal, even today, to reconcile themselves with the Jewish State. Abbas’s comments on the occasion, along with those by PA Prime Minister Ahmed Korei, who said “our wound is still bleeding 57 years later,” hardly inspires confidence in their willingness to end the conflict with Israel.33 “Terrorism will have no positive results, and there will be no chance to establish an independent Palestinian state as long as violence and terrorism continue.” —German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer34 And Hamas, which has never left any doubt about its refusal to accept Israel’s existence, said that Israel is a “cancer” and promised to continue fighting “until the liberation of the last inch of our land and the last refugee heads back to his home.”35 This is the organization that could win upcoming elections in the PA and would then presumably have a greater say in policy toward Israel. Another disturbing aspect of Nakba Day was that traffic stopped and people stood straight and silent as sirens of mourning sounded, intentionally mimicking the Israeli practice on Holocaust Remembrance Day. This was an insidious way to make the odious comparison between the Holocaust and the creation of Israel. It may be that the current leadership does not truly represent the feelings of the Palestinian people. A May 2005 poll, for example, found that 54 percent of Palestinians are prepared to accept a two- state solution.36 This is a hopeful sign, however, as long as the Palestinian Authority treats Israel’s creation as a catastrophe on a par with the Holocaust, the prospects for coexistence will remain bleak. 19. The Peace Process 257 258 MYTH “The Palestinians have given up their maximalist dream of destroying Israel.” FACT The Palestinian Authority continues to promote the maximalist vision in its school textbooks and, especially, by its maps. The most dramatic expression of the goal is in Map 22, a map of Palestine 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. Similar maps appear in textbooks, which never show Israel.37 Israelis have expressed a willingness to live in peace with a Palestinian state beside Israel. As Map 22 vividly indicates, however, the Palestinians continue to dream of a Palestinian state that replaces Israel. 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.”38 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 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.39 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.”40 19. The Peace Process 259 260 Terrorism is not Israel’s fault. It is not the result of “occupation.” And it certainly is not the only response available to the Palestinians’ discontentment. Palestinians have an option for improving their situation, it is called negotiations. And that is not the only option. The Palestinians could also choose the nonviolent path taken by Martin Luther King or Gandhi. Unfortunately, they have chosen to pursue a war of terror instead of a process for peace. Israel has proven time and again willingness to trade land for peace, but it can never concede land for terror. “The use of suicide bombing is entirely unacceptable. Nothing can justify this.” —UN Special Representative for the protection of children in armed conflict, Under Secretary- General Olara Otunnu41 MYTH “Palestinians are helpless to stop the terrorists.” FACT The media has helped create the misperception that the Palestinian Authority cannot dismantle the terrorist network in its midst because of the strength and popularity of the radical Islamic Palestinian terrorist groups. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not huge armed forces. Together, the armed wings of both organizations total fewer than 1,500 men. By contrast, the PA has 35,000 people in a variety of police, intelligence, and security forces.42 Not only does the PA have overwhelming superiority of manpower and firepower, it also has the intelligence assets to find most, if not all of the terrorists. It is true these Islamic groups have achieved some popularity, but polls show that together they still are only supported by about one-fourth of the Palestinian population. The PA is not a democracy, so its leaders do not base their decisions on public opinion, but the data shows that it is not hindered from acting by any overwhelming sympathy for the radical factions. The PA could follow the example of the Jordanian government, which has not allowed Hamas to establish a foothold in the kingdom. King Abdullah closed their offices in Amman, as well as their newspaper, and has arrested and deported numerous members of the organization.43 Despite the suffering the terrorists have brought them; the Palestinian public has not called for an end to the violence. No equivalent to Israel’s Peace Now movement has emerged. Still, on an individual basis, it is possible for Palestinians to say no to terror. When the suicide bombing recruiter phoned the wife of former Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al- Rantisi to ask if her son was available for an operation, she turned him down.44 In other countries, including Israel (where they helped prompt a withdrawal from Lebanon); mothers have often helped stimulate positive change. When enough Palestinian mothers stand up to the terror recruiters, and to their political leaders, and say that they will no longer allow their children to be used as bombs, the prospects for peace will improve. So long as they prefer their children to be martyrs rather than doctors, bombers rather than scholars, and murderers rather than lawyers, the violence will continue, and young Palestinians will continue to die needlessly. “The Palestinian Authority, despite consistent promises by its leadership, has made no progress on its core obligation to take immediate action on the ground to end violence and combat terror, and to reform and reorganize the Palestinian Authority.” —UN MidEast envoy Terje Roed- Larsen45 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 failed, 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, were the commitment both nations made to peace and the actions they took to insure it. 19. The Peace Process 261 262 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. “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 Arafat46 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. MYTH “The Palestinian Authority has seized illegal weapons and fulfilled its obligation 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. By accepting the road map, the Palestinian Authority agreed also to confiscate all illegal weapons. During the Palestinian War, the Palestinians abandoned all pretense of fulfilling what Israel viewed as a crucial security requirement in the Oslo accords. The most dramatic example was the PA’s attempt in January 2002 to smuggle in 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. After the IDF captured the Karine-A with its illicit cargo, Yasser Arafat denied having anything to do with the ship; however, Omar Akawi, a PA naval officer who captained the Palestinian- owned and operated vessel, admitted the smuggling operation was ordered by the PA.47 Between the time of the capture of the arms ship and the evacuation from Gaza, Israeli forces fought a constant battle to prevent Palestinians from smuggling weapons through tunnels in the Gaza Strip. After the disengagement from Gaza, Israel and Egypt signed an agreement stating that Egypt was now in charge of patrolling the “Philadelphi Route” along the Egyptian- Gaza border. Egypt opened the border with Gaza for a short time after the Israelis evacuated in August 2005, and this allowed Palestinians to bring weapons and ammunition into Gaza to attack Israelis. According to Major Gen. Doron Almog, “The term ‘smuggling’ does not do justice to the problem of the Philadelphi corridor . . . It involves the illegal importation into Gaza of significant quantities of arms and materiel, on a scale sufficient to turn Gaza into launching pad for ever deeper attacks against Israel proper.”48 In addition to its unwillingness to stem the flow of illegal weapons, the PA has also flouted its road map commitment by repeatedly saying that terrorist groups will not be disarmed.49 Now dozens of armed militias have formed that are prohibited by the peace agreements. They have used rifles, machine guns, mortars, grenades and other explosives 19. The Peace Process 263 264 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 are breaking their promises and reinforces Israeli concerns about Palestinian intentions and the threat that a future Palestinian state might pose to Israel’s security. MYTH “The Palestinians have fulfilled their commitment to arrest and prosecute terrorists.” FACT The Palestinians have arrested suspected terrorists from time to time; however, they have had a revolving door whereby most of them are subsequently released.50 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. Despite leading the organization most responsible for the suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians, Yassin was never jailed. 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 opposing the policies of the leadership. Palestinians who commit “crimes” against the Palestinian people are usually arrested and, in several instances, quickly executed.51 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, Jabril Rajoub52 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: ■ 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 it. All the terrorists were released.53 ■ 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 Fattah declared it had attempted to murder Secretary of State George Shultz by planting a car bomb near his Jerusalem hotel.54 ■ 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, 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 injured 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, and injured his father, mother, and wife. 19. The Peace Process 265 266 ■ August 19, 2003, a 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. ■ September 24, 2004, A mortar strike on a housing community killed dual citizen Tiferet Tratner. “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. . . . It was Mr. Arafat who released dozens of Islamic militants from custody and has refused to re-arrest 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.” —Washington Post Editorial55 MYTH “Hamas is a force for moderation in the territories. It advocates Muslim- Jewish harmony and reconciliation.” FACT Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, 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’s platform calls for the creation of an Islamic republic in Palestine that would replace Israel.56 MYTH “There is a distinction between the political and terror wings of Hamas.” FACT Apologists for Palestinian terror, especially in the media, sometimes argue that Hamas shouldn’t be labeled a terrorist organization because only some members engage in murder while others perform charitable activity. The ombudsman for the Washington Post, for example, argued that, since Hamas is a “nationalist movement” engaged in “some social work,” the perpetrators of Palestinian suicide and other attacks should be described in the press as “militants” or “gunmen.”57 A false distinction is made between the “political” and “military” wings of Hamas. All of the activities of Hamas are intertwined, and serve the organization’s primary objective laid out in its covenant, namely, to “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” Hamas’s leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, denied that Hamas has uncoordinated wings: “We cannot separate the wing from the body. If we do so, the body will not be able to fly. Hamas is one body.”58 And the “political” leaders of Hamas freely admit their relationship to the murderers. “The political leadership,” Hamas spokesman, ‘Abd al- ‘Aziz ar-Rantisi said, “has freed the hand of the [c Izz ad- Din al- Qassam] brigades to do whatever they want against the brothers of monkeys and pigs [i.e., Jews].”59 While Hamas does engage in social work, this is closely connected to the “armed struggle.” Various charitable activities are used to recruit young Palestinians for terrorist operations. Hospitals, mosques, sport clubs, libraries, and schools serve not only their expected roles but also act as covers for hiding weapons, obtaining supplies, and indoctrinating future suicide bombers. The education system is used to incite young Palestinians to become martyrs. “The children of the kindergarten are the shahids [martyrs] of tomorrow,” read signs in a Hamas- run school, while placards in classrooms at al- Najah University in the West Bank and at Gaza’s Islamic University declare that “Israel has nuclear bombs; we have human bombs.”60 Hamas operatives use Islamic charities and social welfare programs to skim and launder funds, and to earn money to live on while they engage in terrorism. Recipients of Hamas charity also understand there is a quid pro quo. If they are asked to provide assistance, whether it be to hide weapons, provide a safe house for a fugitive, or act as a courier, few are likely to refuse.61 The United States government recognizes the connection between the charitable activities of Hamas and its terrorist campaign, which is 19. The Peace Process 267 268 why the Treasury Department designated six senior Hamas political leaders and five charities as terrorist entities. According to the Treasury Department, “the political leadership of Hamas directs its terrorist networks just as they oversee their other activities.” “. . . 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 Goodman62 MYTH “Palestinians have no need for propaganda because the truth about Israeli behavior makes clear their barbarity.” FACT Palestinian and other Arab leaders routinely use their media outlets to spread outrageous libels against Israel and the Jews to inflame their populations. Palestinians have become masters of the technique perfected by Adolph Hitler known as the “big lie.” As Hitler explained in Mein Kampf: The size of a lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones. One example of the Palestinian big lie came on March 11, 1997, when the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus.63 Palestinians claimed in 2002 that Israel was dropping poisoned candies from helicopters in front of schools to poison children. That lie was updated in 2003 with the fabrication that Israel is making “bombs and mines designed as toys” and dropping them into the Palestinian territories from airplanes so children will play with them and be blown up.64 In 2005, the Palestinians announced that Israel was using a “radial spy machine” at checkpoints, and that the device killed a 55- year- old Palestinian woman.65 The Palestinians also regularly try to inflame the Muslim world by falsely claiming the Jews are going to blow up the Temple Mount or the al- Aksa Mosque. For example, on September 29, 2000, the Voice of Palestine, the PA’s official radio station, sent out calls “to all Palestinians to come and defend the al- Aksa mosque.” This was the day after Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, and the subsequent riots marked the unofficial beginning of the Palestinian War. In the midst of that war, the Palestinian Authority TV “Message to the World” broadcast announced: “The Zionist criminals are planning to destroy the al- Aksa mosque on the ground that they are searching for the Holy Temple, which they falsely claim is under the mosque.”66 One of the most outrageous lies circulated throughout the Middle East was that 4,000 Israelis did not report to work on September 11, or “called in sick” that morning because they knew an attack was coming. Israel and the Mossad are also said to be responsible for the atrocities. Of course, this was also a lie, but it is the type of conspiracy theory that is widely believed by Arabs who maintain the forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is factual. “I’ll remind those who focus on the road map that the first thing the road map said was that there must be security in order for peace to advance, that there must be a collective effort to fight terror.” —President George W. Bush67 MYTH “Releasing Palestinian prisoners would build confidence for the peace process without endangering Israeli security.” FACT Israel has released Palestinian prisoners from its jails on a number of occasions because the Palestinians have made this a major issue and said that it would build confidence in the peace process. To date, however, it is difficult to find evidence that these prisoner releases have done anything to improve the prospects for peace. The Israeli concession has not moderated Palestinian behavior or prompted the PA to fulfill its road map obligations to dismantle terrorist networks and confiscate illegal weapons. Israel has naturally been reluctant to release prisoners because these individuals are in jail for a good reason; they committed crimes, often violent ones. Moreover, when Israel has made these political and humanitarian gestures, the criminals have often resumed their terrorist activities. In the summer of 2003, for example, Ariel Sharon responded to the entreaties of the Palestinians, and the international community, to release prisoners as a way to help bolster the stature of then Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Even though the road map says nothing about 19. The Peace Process 269 270 the subject, Sharon released 350 Palestinians. Not long after, two of the former prisoners, under the command of a third, carried out suicide bombings at Café Hillel in Jerusalem and the Tzrifin army base, killing 15 civilians and soldiers, and wounding more than 80.68 After Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, and prior to Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, nearly 1,000 Palestinians were released. The terror continued. Releasing prisoners is another example of one of the great risks that Israel has often taken for peace without any reciprocal gesture from the Palestinians. “The problem is the same problem that has been there for the three years that I have been working in this account. And that is terrorism, terrorism that still emanates from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other organizations that are not interested in peace, not interested in a state for the Palestinian people. They’re interested in the destruction of Israel.” —Secretary of State Colin Powell69 MYTH “Israel’s security fence won’t stop terrorism.” 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 (the 1949 armistice 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.70 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.71 Since its construction no suicide bombers have penetrated the barrier, while approximately 250 came from the West Bank during the Palestinian War. 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 1,950 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 percent. The number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70 percent and 85 percent, 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.72 MYTH “Israel is the only country that believes a fence can secure its borders.” FACT 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 and several use barriers in political disputes: ■ The United States is building a fence to keep out illegal Mexican immigrants. ■ Spain built a fence, with European Union funding, to separate its enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla from Morocco to prevent poor people from sub- Saharan Africa from entering Europe. ■ India constructed a 460- mile barrier in Kashmir to halt infiltrations supported by Pakistan. ■ Saudi Arabia built a 60- mile barrier along an undefined border zone with Yemen to halt arms smuggling. ■ Turkey built a barrier in the southern province of Alexandretta, which was formerly in Syria and is an area that Syria claims as its own. ■ In Cyprus, the UN sponsored a security fence reinforcing the island’s de facto partition. 19. The Peace Process 271 272 ■ British- built barriers separate Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods in Belfast.73 Ironically, after condemning Israel’s barrier, the UN announced plans to build its own fence to improve security around its New York headquarters.74 MYTH “The security fence should be built along the pre- 1967 border.” FACT 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. In some places, the fence is actually inside this 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. One of the most controversial questions has been whether to build the fence around Ariel, a town of approximately 20,000 people, the second largest Jewish settlement in the territories. To incorporate Ariel, the fence would have to extend approximately 12 miles into the West Bank. In the short- run, Israel decided to build a separate fence around Ariel, but said in February 2005 it would be incorporated within the main fence at a later stage. 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. The original route was 458 miles; however, the plan has been repeatedly modified. 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. The fence is now expected to cover approximately 385 miles and incorporate just 7 percent of the West Bank—less than 160 square miles—on its “Israeli side,” while 2,100 square miles will be on the “Palestinian side.” 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. If and when the Palestinians decide to negotiate an end to the conflict, the fence may be torn down or moved. Even without any change, a Palestinian state could now theoretically be created in 93 percent of the West Bank (the PA now controls 100 percent of the Gaza Strip). This is very close to the 97 percent Israel offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000, which means that while other difficult issues remain to be resolved, the territorial aspect of the dispute will be reduced to a negotiation over roughly 90 square miles. MYTH “Israel is creating a Palestinian ghetto.” FACT 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 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. 19. 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. MYTH “Israel’s security fence is just like the Berlin Wall.” FACT Although critics have sought to portray the security fence as a kind of “Berlin Wall,” it is nothing of the sort. First, unlike the Berlin Wall, the fence does not separate one people, Germans from Germans, and deny freedom to those on one side. Israel’s security fence separates two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, and offers freedom and security for both. Second, while Israelis are fully prepared to live with Palestinians, and 20 percent of the Israeli population is already Arab, it is the Palestinians who say they do not want to live with any Jews and call for the West Bank to be judenrein. Third, the fence is not being constructed to prevent the citizens of one state from escaping; it is designed solely to keep terrorists out of Israel. Finally, of the 385 miles scheduled to be constructed, only a tiny fraction of that (less than 3 percent or about 15 miles) is actually a 30-foot- high concrete wall, and that is being built in areas where it will prevent Palestinian snipers in the terrorist hotbeds of Kalkilya and Tulkarm from shooting at cars along the Trans- Israel Highway, one of the country’s main roads. The wall also takes up less space than the other barriers, only about seven feet, so it did not have a great impact on the area where it was built. Most of the barrier will be a chain- link type fence, similar to those used all over the United States, combined with underground and long-range sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, trenches, landmines and guard paths. Manned checkpoints will constitute the only way to travel back and forth through the fence. The barrier is altogether about 160 feet wide in most places. Israel did not want to build a fence, and resisted doing so for more than 35 years. If anyone is to blame for the construction, it is Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other Palestinian terrorists. Perhaps the construction of the security fence may help stimulate the Palestinians to take action against the terrorists because the barrier has shown them there is a price to pay for sponsoring terrorism. MYTH “Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the security fence is illegal.” FACT In 1989, Alan Dershowitz observed, “For the first time in MidEast history, there is an independent judiciary willing to listen to grievances of Arabs—that judiciary is called the Israeli Supreme Court.75 That court took up the grievances of Palestinians who claimed the Israeli security fence causes hardships for them, is illegal according to Israeli and international law, and is meant to disguise the Israeli objective of annexing additional territory to Israel. The Court ruled that a small segment of the fence—an 18- mile stretch near Jerusalem (out of the 125 miles built at that time)—needed to be rerouted because of the hardships caused to the Palestinians in the area who were cut off from their farms, schools and villages. The Court also said, however, that it could not accept the argument that the fence’s route was determined by politics rather than security. The Justices specifically rejected the idea that the fence should be constructed on the Green Line, noting that “it is the security perspective—and not the political one—which must examine a route based on its security merits alone, without regard for the location of the ‘Green Line.’ ” The Justices also concluded “it is permitted, by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation to take possession of an individual’s land in order to erect a separation fence upon it, on the condition that this is necessitated by military needs. To the extent that construction of the Fence is a military necessity, it is permitted, therefore, by international law. Indeed, the obstacle is intended to take the place of combat military operations, by physically blocking terrorist infiltration into Israeli population centers.” The fundamental question for the Court was how to satisfy Israel’s security concerns without causing disproportionate injury to the residents affected by the fence. The Justices ruled that international humanitarian law and Israeli administrative law “require making every possible effort to ensure that injury will be proportionate. Where conflict construction of the Separation Fence demands that inhabitants be separated from their lands, access to these lands must be ensured, in order to minimize the damage to the extent possible.” The Justices acknowledged that the ruling would have an impact on the fight against terrorism. “We are aware this decision does not make it easier to deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy: She does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual liberties constitute an important aspect of her security stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties.” “In the length of the fence involved, in the number of villages and people affected, the [Israeli Supreme Court] decision is hardly momentous. But as a statement of principle, it is head and shoulders above anything any other Middle East government would permit—never mind implement.” —Richard Cohen76 The Supreme Court once again demonstrated that in Israel the rule of law and judicial review is applied even to matters of national security and that it can balance the State’s need to protect its citizens with humanitarian matters. Though the Court’s decision made the government’s job of protecting its citizens from terrorist threats more difficult, costly, and time-consuming, the government accepted the ruling and began to reroute the section of the fence near Jerusalem. In addition, the Court’s ruling is also being factored into the planning of the rest of the barrier. 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 nearly 80 percent of the public 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.77 The soldiers raised important issues about the treatment of Palestinians by the military that were 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 sympathized 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 noted 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, which is precisely what happened three years later when another handful of soldiers objected to the disengagement from Gaza. As Gazit also observed, soldiers can carry out their missions without losing their humanity and can refuse illegal orders.78 In addition, Israel’s democratic 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.79 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 26.80 In November 2004, an all- time high of motivation to serve in IDF combat units was recorded when 92 percent of fresh conscripts asked to be deployed in these units.81 19. The Peace Process 277 278 MYTH “The Palestinian Authority protects Jewish holy sites.” FACT Less than 24 hours after the last IDF soldier withdrew from the Gaza Strip; Palestinian Authority bulldozers began to raze synagogues that were left behind by Jewish residents. Thousands of Palestinians also stormed the former Gaza settlements and set fire to several synagogues and yeshivas while PA security forces stood and watched. Several Palestinians belonging to terrorist groups climbed the roofs of synagogues and placed green flags on top while other members inside set fire to the buildings and looted items that the Jews left behind.82 Israel decided not to dismantle the 19 synagogues and yeshivas in Gaza and the evacuated northern Samaria settlements. “It would be a historic Jewish mistake to destroy the synagogues,” said Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.83 United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan was told by Israel that since the disengagement plan was implemented, the “PA now had the moral responsibility to protect the synagogues as places with religious significance.”84 Earlier in the week, Ministry of Defense workers placed signs that read “Holy Place” in Arabic and English on synagogue walls throughout Gaza so the Palestinians would know not to destroy them.85 Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas defended the razing of Gaza synagogues by claiming, “There are no synagogues here.” Abbas said the buildings that were formally synagogues were now emptied and in danger of collapsing, and must be demolished to build homes for thousands of Palestinians.86 The PA maintained that the synagogues were symbols of Israeli occupation, and boycotted the ceremony marking the handover of Gaza to the Palestinians in protest of Israel’s decision to leave the synagogues intact.87 This was not the first instance when the PA has failed to protect Jewish holy places: ■ In September 1996, Palestinian rioters destroyed a synagogue at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus. ■ Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem has been repeatedly attacked since 1996. ■ In October 2000, Joseph’s Tomb was torched after the Israeli garrison guarding it was temporarily withdrawn. It was subsequently rebuilt as a mosque. ■ Also in October 2000, the ancient synagogue in Jericho was destroyed by arson and a second historic synagogue was damaged. PA textbooks continue to teach young Palestinians that Jews have no connection to the Land of Israel and to disparage Judaism, so it should not be surprising that Jewish institutions are not shown respect. This is one reason why Israel is reluctant to make any compromises regarding Jerusalem that might allow Palestinians to threaten the sanctity of the shrines of any religion. MYTH “Peace with Syria has been prevented only by Israel’s obstinate refusal to withdraw from the Golan Heights.” FACT Given past history, Israel is understandably reluctant to give away the strategic high ground and its early- warning system. Nevertheless, Israel had repeatedly expressed a willingness to negotiate the future of the Golan Heights. 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 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. 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 19. The Peace Process 279 280 that have allowed terrorists, first the PLO, and now Hezbollah, 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, Hezbollah and the Lebanese government insist that Israel holds Lebanese territory in a largely uninhabited patch called Shebaa Farms. This claim provides Hezbollah with a pretext to continue its attacks against Israel. The Israelis maintain, however, that the land was captured from Syria. Syria, meanwhile, has used its influence over Lebanon to discourage any peace negotiations 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 Assad88 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.”89 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.90 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. 19. The Peace Process 280 1. Israel’s Roots 281 The situation is growing more dangerous each year as the population of the region continues to grow exponentially, 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. “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 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. 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 addition, the United States agreed to fund a pipeline to bring water to Gaza from Israel’s desalinization plant in Ashkelon.91 In response to the threat to water supplies posed by the Palestinian War, 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.92 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 Farouk al- Sharaa93 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.”94 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 “Saudi Arabia is a force for peace and moderation that does not sponsor terror.” FACT “The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot- soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader,” said Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corporation analyst in a secret briefing to a top Pentagon advisory board. “Saudi Arabia,” he added, “supports our enemies and attacks our allies.”95 The most dramatic evidence of Saudi involvement in terror is the fact that 15 of the 19 September 11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Despite this, the Saudi government refused to cooperate with the U.S. investigation of the attacks and rejected American requests to stop the flow of money through charitable organizations to terrorist groups. Many such charities are based in the United States and are being investigated by the Treasury Department. Saudi support for terrorism and al- Qaida, in particular, is not restricted to extremists in the kingdom. A classified American intelligence report revealed that an October 2001 survey of educated Saudis between the ages of 25 and 41 found that 95 percent of the respondents supported Osama bin Laden’s cause.96 According to a UN report, “al Qaida was able to receive between $300 and $500 million over the last 10 years from wealthy businessmen and bankers whose fortunes represent about 20 percent of the Saudi GNP, through a web of charities and companies acting as fronts.”97 The Saudis have been heavily involved in supporting Palestinian terror. They were the largest financial backer of Hamas during the 1990s, providing perhaps as much as $10 million annually. At one point, Abu Mazen even complained to the governor of Riyadh that Saudi money wasn’t reaching the “martyrs,” but was going directly to Hamas.98 The Saudis held a terror telethon on April 11, 2002, which raised more than $100 million for families of Palestinian “martyrs,” including the families of suicide bombers99 and, during Operation Defensive Shield, the Israelis found numerous documents linking the Saudis to terror. One, for example, itemized their allocations line by line, detailing the circumstances of the death of Palestinians whose families received assistance, and making clear the allocation was for suicide attacks. The information came from the Saudi Committee for Aid to the Al- Quds Intifada, which is headed by Saudi Minister of the Interior, Prince Nayef bin ’Abd al- Aziz. Israeli authorities arrested an Israeli- Arab Hamas activist in September 2005 who confessed to receiving instructions for Hamas field operatives and hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Hamas headquarters in Saudi Arabia. Hamas leaders in Saudi Arabia provided funding to establish a “communications office” to report developments on the ground to Hamas operatives abroad. Money was also transferred, often under the cover of charity work, to the families of suicide bombers, imprisoned terrorists and Hamas institutions.100

MYTH “The Arab world’s commitment to peace is reflected by its abandonment of the boycott against Israel.” FACT The Arab League declared a boycott against the Jews before Israel was established, and most of its members have pursued a diplomatic and economic embargo against the Jewish State since its establishment. The boycott’s influence waned after Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel, the Palestinians became engaged in peace negotiations, and several Gulf states started ignoring the blacklist, but it was never abandoned, and several nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, have energetically enforced it for decades. To give an indication of how entrenched the boycott is within the Arab world, the Bureau for Boycotting Israel held its 72nd conference in April 2004. Representatives from 19 Arab countries met in Syria to discuss tightening the boycott, and blacklisting new companies that do business with the Jewish state.101 To their credit, Mauritania, Egypt and Jordan, which have diplomatic ties with Israel, stayed away from the meeting. The Palestinians, however, did participate, and the head of their delegation, Ali Abo al- Hawa, asked the conference to respond to the Arab public’s call for boycotting Israel, particularly in commercial relations. This was a violation of the PLO promise to oppose the boycott made in the September 28, 1995, Joint Declaration of the Washington Summit. Delegates to the 2004 conference also wanted to take measures to prevent Israeli companies from trying to penetrate the Iraqi market, but removed the issue from the agenda after the Iraqi delegate, Sabah al- Imam, assured the group, “there is no Israeli activity in Iraq “approved by Iraqi authorities. Syria subsequently banned a Greek, Danish and two Maltese ships from its ports because they’d made stops in Israeli ports, and has placed nine Israeli companies on a black list. And Libya, which had pledged to provide entry visas to all qualified participants, announced that it would not allow any Israelis to participate in the World Chess Championships in Tripoli in June 2004.102 In 2005, Saudi Arabia announced it would end its economic embargo of Israeli goods to win acceptance to the World Trade Organization.103 Nevertheless, the continued effort to isolate Israel economically and diplomatically demonstrates that many Arab states are still unwilling to recognize Israel. Until the boycott is terminated, and the Arab League members accept the existence of Israel, the prospects for regional peace will remain dim. Notes 1. Speech to AIPAC Policy Conference, (May 8, 1978). 2. Reuters, (September 24, 2001). 3. Daniel Pipes, The Long Shadow: Culture and Politics in the Middle East, (NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989), pp. 273–74. 4. Reuters, (November 11, 2001). 5. Michael Widlanski, Can Israel Survive A Palestinian State? (Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1990), pp. 10, 35. 6. Yediot Aharonot, (November 23, 2001). 7. Yediot Aharonot, (August 7, 2002). 19. The Peace Process 285 286 8. Maariv, (April 6, 2001); Interview with Dennis Ross, Fox News Sunday, (April 21, 2002); President Clinton, Press Conference, (July 25, 2000); “Camp David: An Exchange.” The New York Review of Books, (September 20, 2001); Fred Barnes, “Myths of the Intifada,” The Daily Standard, (April 25, 2002). 9. MSNBC, (March 26, 2002). 10. Yediot Aharonot, (August 18, 2003). 11. David Makovsky, “Taba Mythchief,” The National Interest, (February 26, 2003). 12. Steven Spiegel, The Other Arab- Israeli Conflict: Making America’s Middle East Policy from Truman to Reagan, (IL: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 358; Ariel Sharon, Warrior, (NY: Touchstone Books, 2001), pp. 400–401. 13. CBC News, (August 29, 2005). 14. Associated Press, (May 26, 2003). 15. Herb Keinon, “Observer teams validate PA elections,” Jerusalem Post, (January 11, 2005). 16. Jerusalem Post, (November 4, 2004). 17. Speech by Ambassador Dennis Ross, University of Michigan, (March 13, 2005). 18. Jerusalem Post, (December 2, 2004). 19. Globes, (April 26, 2005). 20. Haaretz, (June 7, 2005); Ynetnews.com, (September 8, 2005). 21. James Bennet, “Palestinians’ Big Plans for Gaza, With a Bit of Doubt,” New York Times, (August 27, 2005). 22. Herb Keinon, Matthew Gutman, and JPost staff, “Abbas: Permanent status deal could be reached in 6 months,” Jerusalem Post, (November 15, 2005); Robin Wright, “Rice Cements Deal on Gaza Borders,” Washington Post, (November 16, 2005). 23. Audiotape posted August 27, 2005, on the ‘Izz Al- Din Al- Qassam Brigades website, translated by MEMRI. 24. Herb Keinon, “PA to get Gush Katif hothouses,” Jerusalem Post, (August 12, 2005). 25. New York Times, (August 27, 2003). 26. NBC News and MSNBC, (May 8, 2001). 27. Jerusalem Post, (October 16, 2001). 28. Lee Hockstader, “At Arab, Israeli Schools, Hatred Is Common Bond,” Washington Post, (September 5, 2001). 29. Near East Report, (June 25, 2001); Jerusalem Post, (July 20, 2001). 30. Jerusalem Post, (May 23, 2001). 31. Quoted in Jerusalem Post, (July 20, 2001). 32. Jerusalem Post, (May 15, 2005). 33. Jerusalem Post, (May 15, 2005). 34. “Germany’s Fischer: No Palestinian state if violence goes on,” Associated Press, (July 15, 2005). 35. Associated Press, (May 15, 2005). 36. Jerusalem Media & Communication Center, (May 2–7, 2005). 37. Palestinian Authority. Note that the site is often down and the material sometimes moves or is recast as “history,” which would only be accurate if Jordan was also included as part of historical Palestine. 38. Washington Post, (December 5, 2001). 39. Jitka Maleckova and Alan Kreuger, “Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?” (July 2002), quoted in the Daily Star [Lebanon], (August 6, 2002). 40. “Without distinction—attacks on civilians by Palestinian armed groups,” Amnesty International, (July 11, 2002). 41. Jerusalem Post, (January 15, 2003). 42. Anthony H. Cordesman, “Escalating to Nowhere: The Israeli- Palestinian War—The Actors in the Conflict: The Palestinian Factions That Challenge Peace and the Palestinian Authority,” (DC: CSIS, September 12, 2003), p. 35. 43. International Policy Institute for Counter- Terrorism, “Jordan Closes Hamas Offices in Amman,” (August 31, 1999); “Jordan Deports Hamas Leaders to Qatar,” (November 22, 1999); “The Jordanian Move against Hamas,” (August 31, 1999). 44. Israel Radio, (August 1, 2002). 45. “US Envoy Slams Palestinian Authority over Terror Attacks,” Scotsman.com, (July 14, 2004). 46. Washington Post, (July 18, 2001), citing an article by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in the New York Review of Books in which they quote the President at the Camp David summit in July 2000. 47. Fox News, (January 8, 2002); USA Today, (January 10, 2002). 48. Doron Almog, “Tunnel- Vision in Gaza,” Middle East Quarterly, (Summer 2004). 49. Jerusalem Post, (August 22, September 22, 2005). 50. For example, three officials from a Palestinian faction that claimed responsibility for an attack on Israel were arrested and then released five hours later, Haaretz, (February 5, 2005). 51. See, for example, CNN, (January 13, 2001); Associated Press, (July 31, 2001). 52. Islamic Association for Palestine, (June 9, 2001). 53. Neil Livingstone and David Halevy, Inside the PLO, (Readers Digest Press, 1990), pp. 276–288. 54. Chicago Tribune, (March 5, 1988). 55. Washington Post, (August 10, 2001). 56. Hamas Covenant. See Appendix. 57. Washington Post, (September 21, 2003). 58. Reuters, (May 27, 1998). 59. Reuters, (July 31, 2001). 60. USA Today, (June 26, 2001). 61. Matthew Levitt, “Hamas from Cradle to Grave,” The Middle East Quarterly, (Winter 2004). 62. Washington Post, (April 6, 2002). 63. Morris Abram, “Israel Under Attack: Anti- Semitism in the United Nations,” The Earth Times, (December 16–31, 1997). 64. Palestinian Authority TV, (March 3, 2003). 65. Palestine News Agency WAFA, (April 28, 2005). 66. Palestinian Authority TV, (March 3, 2003). 67. Washington Post, (September 19, 2003). 68. Ze’ev Dasberg, “Society takes precedence over the individual,” Haaretz, (November 2, 2003). 69. VOA News, (February 12, 2004). 70. Yair Ettinger, “Highway, fence spur growth in Wadi Ara,” Haaretz, (July 14, 2004). 71. Haaretz, (February 13, 2002). 72. Israeli Foreign Ministry. 73. Wall Street Journal editorial, (September 26, 2005). 74. United Nations, (May 6, 2004). 75. Speech to AIPAC Policy Conference, (May 23, 1989). 76. Richard Cohen, “Israel’s Day of Light,” Washington Post, (July 3, 2004). 77. The Jewish Week (NY), (February 8, 2002); Jerusalem Post, (April 5, 2002). 78. Washington Jewish Week, (February 14, 2002). 79. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (December 30, 2002). 19. The Peace Process 287 288 80. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (February 3, 2004). 81. Maariv, (November 24, 2004). 82. “PA bulldozers begin razing remaining Gaza synagogues,” Jerusalem Post, (September 12, 2005). 83. Herb Keinon, “Cabinet votes not to dismantle Gaza synagogues,” Jerusalem Post, (September 12, 2005). 84. Herb Keinon, “Cabinet votes not to dismantle Gaza synagogues,” Jerusalem Post, (September 12, 2005). 85. Yoav Stern, “PA to raze synagogues, spokesman says,” Haaretz, (September 12, 2005). 86. Khaled Abu Toameh, “PA, Hamas defend synagogue razing,” Jerusalem Post, (September 12, 2005). 87. “PA bulldozers begin razing remaining Gaza synagogues,” Jerusalem Post, (September 12, 2005). 88. Radio Damascus, (March 8, 1974). 89. Jerusalem Post, (July 16, 1994). 90. Washington Times, (July 30, 1990). 91. Yediot Aharonot, (January 14, 2005). 92. Israeli- Palestinian Joint Water Committee, “Joint Declaration for Keeping the Water Infrastructure out of the Cycle of Violence,” (January 31, 2001). 93. MidEast Mirror, (October 7, 1991). 94. Washington Post, (September 10, 1995). 95. Washington Post, (August 6, 2001). 96. New York Times, (January 27, 2002). 97. Quoted in Gulf News, (December 28, 2002). 98. Kenneth Timmerman, “Hamas’ Friends,” Australia/Israel Review, (June 2002), p. 13. 99. Washington Post, (April 2 and 12, 2002). 100. Matthew Levitt, “A Hamas Headquarters in Saudi Arabia?” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, (September 28, 2005). 101. Associated Press, SANA, (April 26, 2004). 102. Jerusalem Post, (May 5, 2004); Associated Press, (May 8, 2004). 103. “Saudi Arabia lifts Israel embargo,” Jerusalem Post, (November 15, 2005).

20. Settlements MYTH “Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are illegal.” FACT Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria—the West Bank—since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan’s rule from 1948 to 1967. This prohibition was contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, and specifically encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land,” which included Judea and Samaria. Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International Court of Justice, notes that 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.1 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, Rostow noted, “allows Israel to administer the territories” it won in 1967 “until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved.”2 MYTH “Settlements are an obstacle to peace.” FACT 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 were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel. ■ In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power; Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt. ■ One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would. ■ In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue; if anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing. ■ Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor- led governments; the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995. ■ In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlements, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict. ■ In August 2005, Israel evacuated all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in Northern Samaria, but terror attacks continued. 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.”3 Many Israelis nevertheless have concerns about the expansion of settlements. Some consider them provocative, others worry that the settlers are particularly vulnerable, and note they have been targets of repeated Palestinian terrorist attacks. To defend them, large numbers of soldiers are deployed who would otherwise be training and preparing for a possible future conflict with an Arab army. Some Israelis also object to the amount of money that goes to communities beyond the Green Line, and special subsidies that have been provided to make housing there more affordable. Still others feel the settlers are providing a first line of defense and developing land that rightfully belongs to Israel. The disposition of settlements is a matter for the final status negotiations. The question of where the final border will be between Israel and a Palestinian entity will likely be influenced by the distribution of these Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria (the border with Gaza was unofficially defined following Israel’s withdrawal). Israel wants to incorporate as many settlers as possible within its borders while the Palestinians want to expel all Jews from the territory they control. If Israel withdraws toward the 1949 armistice line unilaterally, or as part of a political settlement, many settlers will face one or more options: remain in the territories (the disengagement from Gaza suggests this may not be possible), expulsion from their homes, or voluntary resettlement in Israel (with financial compensation). The impediment to peace is not the existence of Jewish communities in the disputed territories; it is the Palestinians’ unwillingness to accept a state next to Israel instead of one replacing Israel. MYTH “The Geneva Convention prohibits the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied territories.” FACT The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the West Bank; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others. In addition, those territories never legally belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. “The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there,” according to Professor Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs.4 As a matter of policy, moreover, Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements. Housing construction is allowed on private land only after determining that no private rights will be violated. The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave. 20. Settlements 291 292 MYTH “Israel is provocatively settling Jews in predominantly Arab towns, and has established so many facts on the ground territorial compromise is no longer possible.” FACT Altogether, built- up settlement area is less than two percent of the disputed territories. An estimated 70 percent of the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population believes Israel must retain to ensure its security, and even President Clinton indicated in December 2000 that they should remain under permanent Israeli sovereignty.5 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.6 Today; approximately 250,000 Jews live in roughly 150 communities in the West Bank. The overwhelming majority of these settlements have fewer than 1,000 citizens and several have only a few dozen residents. Analysts have noted that 70–80 percent of the Jews could be brought within Israel’s borders with minor modifications of the Green Line. MYTH “At Camp David, during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Israel agreed to halt the construction of settlements for five years.” 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 as Egyptian President Anwar Sadat acknowledged, “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.”7 MYTH “The Mitchell Report said Israeli settlement policy was as much to blame for the breakdown of the peace process as Palestinian violence and that a settlement freeze was a prerequisite to ending the violence.” FACT In November 2000, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was appointed to lead a fact-finding committee to investigate the origins of what would become the Palestinian War, and explore how to prevent future violence. The report his committee issued did recommend a settlement freeze—as one of more than 15 different confidence-building measures—but Mitchell and Warren Rudman, another member of the committee, made clear that settlement activity was in no way equated with Palestinian terrorism. They explicitly stated in a letter clarifying their view: “We do not in any way equate Palestinian terrorism with Israeli settlement activity. . . .” Mitchell and Rudman also disputed the idea that the cessation of settlement construction and terrorism were linked. “The immediate aim must be to end the violence. . . . Part of the effort to end the violence must include an immediate resumption of security cooperation between the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at preventing violence and combating terrorism.” They added, “Regarding terrorism, we call upon the Palestinian Authority, as a confidence building measure, to make clear through concrete action, to Israelis and Palestinians alike, that terror is reprehensible and unacceptable, and the Palestinian Authority is to make a total effort to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators acting in its jurisdiction.”8 “If settlement- building is now concentrated in areas that the Palestinians themselves acknowledge will remain part of Israel in any future peace agreement, why the obsessive focus on settlements as an ‘obstacle to peace?’ ” —Yossi Klein Halevi9 MYTH “Israel’s plan to link Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim is meant to sabotage the peace process.” FACT In March 2005, Israel announced the intention to build 3,500 homes on a strip of territory between the community of Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem.10 The decision immediately caused an uproar as Palestinian officials claimed it was “a kind of terror against the peace process and against the Palestinian people,” and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was at odds with U.S. policy.11 This is a good example of the importance of understanding not only the politics of the issue, but the geography. 20. Settlements 293 294 Proposed Palestinian State MEDITERRANEAN SEA ISRAEL Jerusalem ISRAEL GAZA STRIP JORDAN Israeli Settlement Blocs Annexed to Israel 1967 “border” Jordan River Sea of Galilee Dead Sea N miles 0 15 Gaza Tel Aviv Haifa Jenin Tulkarm Nablus Ramallah Jericho Hebron EGYPT Ma’aleh Adumim (est. bloc pop. 33,000) Gush Etzion (est. bloc pop. 42,000) Ariel (est. bloc pop. 39,000) Modiin Illit (est. bloc pop. 31,000) Bethlehem Qalqilya Ma’aleh Adumim is in the West Bank, so it is called a settlement, but it is actually a suburb of Israel’s capital, barely three miles outside the city limits, a ten- minute drive away. Ma’aleh Adumim is not a recently constructed outpost on a hilltop; it is a 30- year- old community that is popular because it is clean, safe, and close to where many residents work. It is also the largest Jewish community in the territories, with a population of 27,300. Because of its size and location, it is understood by both Israelis and Palestinians that Ma’aleh Adumim will not be dismantled or evacuated; it will be part of Israel after a peace agreement is reached. That is why the plan to link the city to Jerusalem was conceived during Prime Minister Rabin’s term. The development was part of his plan to connect all of the large settlement blocs just outside Jerusalem’s city limits. To understand why the plan has the support of Israel’s major parties, just look at a map. If Ma’aleh Adumim is not linked to Jerusalem, the city would be an island. We hear a lot about Palestinian concerns about the contiguity of a future Palestinian state, but the same principal applies to the future boundaries of Israel. Why should it be a problem for Israel to fill in the empty gap between the city and this bedroom community? The corridor is approximately 3,250 acres and does not have any inhabitants, so no Palestinians will be displaced. And why shouldn’t Israel be able to build in and around the city that the U.S. Congress said “should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel” and “should remain an undivided city”? In his April 14, 2004, letter to Prime Minister Sharon, President Bush acknowledged that Israel would incorporate some settlements inside its borders: In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two- state solution have reached the same conclusion.12 Given that Ma’aleh Adumim is the largest of these population centers, the decision to develop around the town is consistent with the policy expressed in Bush’s letter. It is also consistent, incidentally, with the Clinton plan. Would the completion of the building project known as E- 1 prevent the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state? Again, a look at the map shows that it would not. The security fence is being built roughly along the Green Line, and around the major settlement blocs, such as Ma’aleh Adumim, which are expected to be within the final negotiated borders of the state. The area of the West Bank beyond the fence is contiguous. 20. Settlements 295 296 MYTH “Israel must dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank or peace is impossible.” FACT When serious negotiations begin over the final status of the West Bank, battle lines will be drawn over which settlements should be incorporated into Israel, and which must be evacuated. In August 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon acknowledged that “not all the settlements that are today in Judea and Samaria will remain Israeli.” In Gaza, Israel’s intent was to withdraw completely, and no settlements were viewed as vital to Israel for economic, security, or demographic reasons. The situation in the West Bank is completely different because Jews have strong historic and religious connections to the area stretching back centuries. Moreover, the West Bank is an area with strategic significance because of its proximity to Israel’s heartland and the fact that roughly one- quarter of Israel’s water resources are located there. “Clearly, in the permanent agreement we will have to give up some of the Jewish settlements.” —Prime Minister Ariel Sharon13 The disengagement from Gaza involved only 21 settlements and approximately 8,500 Jews; more than 100 settlements with a population of roughly 250,000 are located in Judea and Samaria. Any new evacuation from the West Bank will involve another gut- wrenching decision that most settlers and their supporters will oppose with even greater ferocity than the Gaza disengagement. Most Israelis, however, favor withdrawing from small, isolated communities, and about half of the settlements have fewer than 500 residents. Approximately two- thirds of the Jews in the West Bank live in five settlement “blocs” that are all near the 1967 border. Most Israelis believe these blocs should become part of Israel when final borders are drawn and Prime Minister Sharon has repeatedly said the large settlement blocs will “remain in our hands.” As the table shows, these are large communities with thousands of residents. Evacuating them would be the equivalent of dismantling major American cities the size of Maryland’s capital, Annapolis, Juneau, Alaska, or Augusta, Georgia. “Consensus” Settlements Bloc No. of Communities Population Approximate. Area (sq. miles) Ma’ale Adumim 6 33,000 28 Modiin Illit 4 31,205 2 Ariel 15 38,909 47 Gush Etzion 18 42,322 10 Givat Ze’ev 5 14,603 3 Total 45 160,039 90 Ma’ale Adumim is a suburb of Israel’s capital, barely three miles outside Jerusalem’s city limits, a ten- minute drive away. Ma’ale Adumim is the largest Jewish city in the territories, with a population of 27,300. Approximately 6,000 people live in surrounding settlements that are included in the Ma’ale bloc. Israel has long planned to fill in the empty gap between Jerusalem and this bedroom community (referred to as the E1 project). The corridor is approximately 3,250 acres and does not have any inhabitants, so no Palestinians would be displaced. According to the Clinton plan, Ma’ale was to be part of Israel. The Gush Etzion Bloc consists of 18 communities with a population of more than 42,000 just 10 minutes from Jerusalem. Jews lived in this area prior to 1948, but the Jordanian Legion destroyed the settlements and killed 240 women and children during Israel’s War of Independence. After Israel recaptured the area in 1967, descendants of those early settlers reestablished the community. The largest of the settlements is the city of Betar Illit with more than 24,000 residents. The Givat Ze’ev bloc includes five communities just northwest of Jerusalem. Givat Ze’ev, with a population of nearly 11,000, is the largest. Modiin Illit is a bloc with four communities. The city of Modiin Illit is the largest, with more than 26,000 people situated just over the Green Line, about 23 miles northwest of Jerusalem and the same distance east of Tel Aviv. Ariel is now the heart of the second most populous bloc of settlements. The city is located just 25 miles east of Tel Aviv and 31 miles north of Jerusalem. Ariel and the surrounding communities expand Israel’s narrow waist (which was just 9 miles wide prior to 1967) and ensure that Israel has a land route to the Jordan Valley in case Israel needs to fight a land war to the east. It is more controversial than the other consensus settlements because it is the furthest from the 1949 Armistice Line, extending approximately 12 miles into the West Bank. 20. Settlements 297 298 Nevertheless, Barak’s proposal at Camp David included Ariel among the settlement blocs to be annexed to Israel; the Clinton plan also envisioned incorporating Ariel within the new borders of Israel. Most peace plans assumed that Israel would annex sufficient territory to incorporate 75–80 percent of the Jews currently living in the West Bank. Using the figures in the table above, however, it appears that Israel would fall short of that demographic goal even if these six blocs were annexed. The total population of these communities is approximately 160,000, which is roughly 64 percent of the estimated 250,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria. The expectation, however, is that roughly one- third of the Jews living in other settlements will move into these blocs, which would bring the total close to 80%, but still require Israel to evacuate another 50,000 people. In 1995, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said Israel would keep the settlement blocs of Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev, and Gush Etzion. Prior to the 2000 Camp David Summit, even Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinians could accept Israel holding onto Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev. At Camp David, Israel insisted that 80 percent of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria would be in settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty. President Clinton agreed and proposed that Israel annex 4–6 percent of the West Bank for three settlement blocs to accomplish this demographic objective and swap some territory within Israel in exchange. Recognizing the demographics of the area, President Bush acknowledged the inevitability of some Israeli towns in the West Bank being annexed to Israel in his 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon. In his meeting a year later with Palestinian Authority President Abbas, however, he seemed to hedge his support by saying that any such decision would have to be mutually agreed to by Israelis and Palestinians. Nevertheless, the future border is likely to approximate the route of the security fence, given the Israeli prerequisite (with U.S. approval) of incorporating most settlers within Israel. Would the incorporation of settlement blocs prevent the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state? A look at Map 24 shows that it would not. The total area of these communities is only about 1.5 percent of the West Bank. A kidney- shaped state linked to the Gaza Strip by a secure passage would be contiguous. Some argue that the E1 project linking Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem would cutoff east Jerusalem, but even that is not necessarily true as Israel has proposed constructing a four lane underpass to guarantee free passage between the West Bank and the Arab sections of Jerusalem. Ultimately, Israel may decide to unilaterally disengage from the West Bank and determine which settlements it will incorporate within the borders it delineates. Israel would prefer, however, to negotiate a peace treaty with the Palestinians that would specify which Jewish communities will remain intact within the mutually agreed border of Israel, and which will need to be evacuated. Israel will undoubtedly insist that some or all of the “consensus” blocs become part of Israel. Notes 1. American Journal of International Law, (April, 1970), pp. 345–46. 2. New Republic, (October 21, 1991), p. 14. 3. Washington Post, (November 1, 1991). 4. American Journal of International Law, (1990, Vol. 84), p. 72. 5. Haaretz, (September 13, 2001). 6. Jerusalem Post, (October 22, 1991). 7. Middle East News Agency, (September 20, 1978). 8. Letter from George Mitchell and Warren Rudman to ADL Director Abraham Foxman, (May 11, 2001). 9. Los Angeles Times, (June 20, 2001). 10. “Mofaz okays 3,500 housing units in Ma’aleh Adumim,” Jerusalem Post, (March 20, 2005). 11. Etgar Lefkovits, “Building controversy,” Jerusalem Post, (March 28, 2005). 12. Letter from George W. Bush to Ariel Sharon, (April 14, 2004). 13. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Address to the Likud Central Committee, (January 5, 2004).

21. The Arms Balance MYTH “The threat from Israel, and the withdrawal of the United States’ offer to build the Aswan Dam, drove Egypt to seek arms from the Soviet Union in 1955. This started the Middle East arms race.” FACT In 1955, Nasser turned to the Soviet Union in anger because the United States had armed Iraq, Egypt’s hated rival, and promoted the Baghdad Pact. Nasser opposed that agreement, as he did any defense alliance with the West. Egypt began to receive Soviet Bloc arms in 1955. The United States, hoping to maintain a degree of influence in Egypt and to induce Nasser to reduce his arms acquisitions, offered to build the Aswan Dam. But Nasser increased his arms orders and spurned a U.S. peace initiative. Egypt had embarked on a policy of “neutralism,” which meant that Nasser intended to get aid from both East and West if he could, while maintaining his freedom to attack the West and assist Soviet efforts to gain influence in the Arab and Afro- Asian worlds. As a result of these actions, and Nasser’s increasing hostility to the West, the United States withdrew the Aswan offer. Egypt then nationalized the Suez Canal. Immediately after Nasser made his 1955 arms deal, Israel appealed to the United States—not for a gift of arms, but for the right to purchase them. The U.S. recognized the need to maintain an arms balance, but it referred Israel to France and other European suppliers. It was not until 1962 that the United States agreed to sell Israel its first significant American system, the HAWK anti- aircraft missile. MYTH “The Arab states have had to keep pace with an Israeli- led arms race.” FACT In most cases, the reverse was true. Egypt received the Soviet IL- 28 bomber in 1955. It was not until 1958 that France provided Israel with a squadron of comparable Sud Vautour twin- jet tactical bombers. In 1957, Egypt obtained MiG- 17 fighter planes. Israel received the comparable Super Mystere in 1959. Egypt had submarines in 1957, Israel in 1959. After the Egyptians obtained the MiG- 21, the Israelis ordered the Dassault Mirage III supersonic interceptor and fighter- bomber. Egypt received ground- to-air missiles—the SA- 2—two years before Israel obtained HAWK missiles from the United States. Later, Washington reluctantly agreed to sell Israel Patton tanks. Even when the United States began selling arms to Israel in the 1960s, it maintained a policy of balance whereby similar sales were made to Arab states. In 1965, for example, the first major tank sale to Israel was matched by one to Jordan. A year later, when Israel received Skyhawks, the U.S. provided planes to Morocco and Libya, as well as additional military equipment to Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia.1 It was not until 1968, when the Johnson Administration sold Israel Phantom jets, that America’s arms transfer policy shifted to emphasize maintaining the Jewish State’s qualitative advantage. Since then, however, the U.S. has frequently sold sophisticated arms (e.g., F- 15s, AWACS and Stinger missiles) to Israel’s adversaries, which have eroded the Jewish State’s qualitative edge. MYTH “Israel is militarily superior to its neighbors in every area and has maintained a qualitative edge over its enemies.” FACT Israel’s qualitative military edge has declined as Arab and Muslim states acquire increasingly sophisticated conventional and unconventional arms. In fact, despite its pledges to the contrary, the United States is allowing Israel’s qualitative edge to dissipate. In some cases, U.S. arms transfers to the Arabs are the reason for this erosion. Israel’s standing army is smaller than those of Egypt, Iran and Syria. Even with its reserves, Israel is outmanned by Egypt and Iran. In addition, Israel is likely to have to face a combination of enemies; together, virtually any combination of likely opponents would be superior in manpower, tanks and aircraft. During the 1990’s, the Arab states and Iran imported more than $180 billion worth of the most sophisticated weapons and military infrastructure available from both the Western and Eastern blocs. In 2004, Saudi Arabia alone spent $21.6 billion (and the Bush Administration notified Congress in 2005 of its intention to sell the Saudis another $2 billion worth of arms), while Iran spent more than $17 billion. Between 2001 and 2004, Egypt purchased $6.5 billion worth of arms (by comparison, Israel spent $4.4 billion). In 2005, Syria renewed its military purchases from Russia, obtaining SA- 18 antiaircraft missiles and the promise of additional weapons. Israel allocates about 21. The Arms Balance 301 302 $9 billion for defense annually, while Iran and the Arab states, many of which are in a state of war with Israel, spend more than $40 billion a year.2 In addition to the quantity of weapons, Israel must also be concerned with the erosion of its qualitative edge as the Arab states acquire increasingly sophisticated systems. In 2005, for example, the United Arab Emirates took delivery of F- 16 fighters, which were newer and more advanced that those sold to Israel. This was the first sale of the planes to a non- NATO country.3 In addition to the sheer quantity of arms, these states are also buying and producing increasing numbers of non-conventional weapons. The buildup of chemical and biological weapons, combined with the pursuit of a nuclear capability, makes Israel’s strategic position more precarious. Beyond the security threat, this massive arms build- up also requires Israel to spend about 9 percent of its GDP on defense. Even this high level of spending is insufficient, however, to meet the Arab threat, as budgetary restrictions have forced Israel to make substantial cuts in its defense allocations. Arab arms sales have significantly raised the cost to Israel of maintaining its own defense, exacerbating the strain on Israel’s economy. MYTH “The sale of U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia has reduced the need for American troops to defend the Persian Gulf. These weapons pose no threat to Israel.” FACT The Saudi armed forces are structurally incapable of defending their country. They were helpless in the face of the Iraqi threat in 1990–91, despite the Saudi acquisition of more than $50 billion in U.S. arms and military services in the decade preceding the Gulf War.4 If Saddam Hussein had continued his blitzkrieg into Saudi Arabia before American forces arrived in August 1990, much of the weaponry the United States sold to Riyadh over the years might have fallen into Saddam’s hands. The Saudis’ small armed forces cannot withstand an assault by a force three to four times its size. Moreover, it makes no sense to say that advanced American weapons can help the Saudis counter external threats but that those same arms pose no danger to Israel. The U.S. has no way to ensure that the vast quantities of aircraft and missiles it sells to Saudi Arabia will not be used against Israel. The possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of enemies of the United States cannot be ruled out either, given the Saudis’ support for terrorists and the possibility that the monarchy could be overthrown by a more hostile regime. In past Arab- Israeli wars, the Saudis never had a modern arsenal of sufficient size to make their participation in an Arab coalition against Israel a serious concern. The Saudi buildup since the 1973 War changes this equation. The Kingdom could be pressured into offensive action against Israel by other eastern front partners precisely because of this buildup. “I wish Israel did not need defensive weapons of mass destruction or the region’s most powerful defense forces. I wish the world had not driven the Jewish State into allocating its limited resources away from its universities and toward its military, but survival must come first, and Israel’s military strength is the key to its survival. Anyone who believes that survival can be assured by moral superiority alone must remember the Warsaw Ghetto and the Treblinka gas chambers.” —Alan Dershowitz5 MYTH “Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty to conceal its nuclear arsenal, and therefore threatens its neighbors.” FACT Though Israel does not formally acknowledge that it has a nuclear capability, it has been widely reported that Israel has been a member of the nuclear club for a number of years. During that time, Israel has never tested, used or threatened the use of nuclear weapons. Israel’s decision not to be bound by the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is based largely on the grounds that the treaty has done little to stem nuclear proliferation in the region. Iraq is a signatory to the NPT, and yet was able to amass a large amount of nuclear material without the knowledge of the International Atomic Energy Agency prior to the Israeli attack on its reactor in 1981. More recently, it was discovered that another signatory to the NPT, Iran, has had a secret nuclear weapons program for more than a decade and now may have a bomb within five to ten years. Israel has called for the creation of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East and has stated many times that it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons into the region. 21. The Arms Balance 303 304 MYTH “Arms control in the Middle East is impossible so long as Israel refuses to give up its nuclear weapons.” FACT Israel’s assumed nuclear deterrent is an option of last resort, needed to offset the threats it faces from the large imbalance in conventional arms, chemical weapons and ballistic missiles possessed by the Arab states. Israel has no incentive to unilaterally attack its neighbors with nuclear weapons whereas the Arabs—as history has shown—have both the capability and motivation to join in a war against Israel. The desire of Arab and Islamic regimes to obtain weapons of mass destruction also has more to do with notions of national pride and rivalries with other nations than Israel’s arsenal. For example, Saddam Hussein used his chemical weapons against a domestic threat, the Kurds, and Iraq’s motivation for pursuing nuclear weapons was the threat Hussein felt from Iran.6 Pakistan developed the first “Islamic bomb” to counter rival India’s bomb. And Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has said, “Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path.”7 Arms control must therefore begin with a reduction in Arab military offensive capability. Arab “arms control” proposals in essence have only called for Israel to give up nuclear arms without offering anything substantive in return. MYTH “Egypt is no longer a military threat since signing a peace treaty with Israel.” FACT While Egypt remains formally at peace with Israel and honors its Camp David commitments; Cairo has nevertheless amassed a substantial offensive military capability in recent years. Prudent Israeli military planners have no choice but to carefully monitor Egypt’s buildup in case regional events take a dramatic turn for the worse. If the present regime in Cairo were overthrown, for example, the prospect for continued stable relations with Israel would diminish substantially. Egypt was the third largest purchaser of arms from 2001–2004, trailing only China and India. Despite its status as a U.S. ally, Egypt has purchased Scud missiles from North Korea and is believed to possess chemical weapons.8 Its army, air force and navy now field a wide range of the most sophisticated Western arms, many identical to Israel’s own weapons. In 2003, for example, Egypt requested F- 15 jets armed with JDAM (joint direct attack munition) “smart” bombs. These sophisticated weapons were used by U.S. forces in the 2003 war with Iraq. Egypt’s military also now has Abrams tanks, F- 16 fighter planes and Apache attack helicopters. These arms transfers are a matter of concern for Israel because the principal threats faced by Egypt today are internal ones. No nation poses any danger to Egypt. So why has Egypt been spending billions of dollars to amass an arsenal that includes 3,000 tanks and more than 500 aircraft, especially when it has serious economic problems caused in large measure by an exponentially growing population that does not have enough food, shelter, or employment? If Egypt’s military simulations are any indication of the regime’s thinking, Israel has good reason to worry. Egyptian forces have staged large-scale military training exercises that included simulated operations crossing into the Sinai against an unnamed adversary to the east (i.e., Israel). In fact, Israel is the “enemy” in all of Egypt’s war games. In December 2003, Israel protested Egypt’s use of unmanned aerial vehicles and drones to spy on Israeli military facilities. Israel reportedly threatened to shoot down the drones, whose flights violate the peace treaty and prompted increased concern over Egypt’s military buildup.9 Israel is also worried about the looming succession crisis in Egypt. President Hosni Mubarak is now in his late 70s and has been the nation’s ruler since Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981. No one knows who will follow Mubarak. Given the strong Muslim fundamentalist movement in the country, and the antipathy of the military toward Israel, it is by no means certain that Mubarak’s successor will maintain the “cold peace” that has prevailed now for more than 30 years. MYTH “Iran has no ambition to become a nuclear power and poses no threat to Israel or the United States.” FACT Iran has made no secret of its antipathy for the United States and Israel— President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map—and, and has become one of the most serious threats to stability in the Middle East. American and Israeli intelligence assessments agree that the Islamic regime in Iran will be able to complete a nuclear weapon within ten years, and possibly much sooner if its current program is not stopped. In 1990, China signed a 10- year nuclear cooperation agreement that allowed Iranian nuclear engineers to obtain training in China. In addition, China has already built a nuclear research reactor in Iran that be- 21. The Arms Balance 305 306 came operational in 1994. In 2002, Iran revealed that it had purchased special gas from China that could be used to enrich uranium for the production of nuclear weapons. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, which allows the peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology, including uranium mining and enrichment, under oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The gas purchase was supposed to be reported to the IAEA, but it was concealed instead. Chinese experts have also been involved in the supervision of the installation of centrifuge equipment that can be used to enrich uranium. According to the CIA, “Iran continues to use its civilian nuclear energy program to justify its efforts to establish domestically or otherwise acquire the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Iran claims that this fuel cycle would be used to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors, such as the 1,000- megawatt lighter- water reactor that Russia is continuing to build at the southern port city of Bushehr. However, Iran does not need to produce its own fuel for this reactor because Russia has pledged to provide the fuel throughout the operating lifetime of the reactor and is negotiating with Iran to take back the irradiated spent fuel.”10 In 2002, two previously unknown nuclear facilities were discovered in Iran. One in Arak produces heavy water, which could be used to produce weapons. The other is in Natanz. In February 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami announced the discovery of uranium reserves near the central city of Yazd and said Iran was setting up production facilities “to make use of advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.”11 This was an alarming development because it suggested Iran was attempting to obtain the means to produce and process fuel itself, despite the agreement to receive all the uranium it would need for civilian purposes from Russia. Further evidence of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was revealed in late 2003 and early 2004 when Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted he provided nuclear weapons expertise and equipment to Iran. The Iranian government, confronted in February 2004 with new evidence obtained from the secret network of nuclear suppliers surrounding Khan, acknowledged it had a design for a far more advanced high- speed centrifuge to enrich uranium than it previously revealed to the IAEA. This type of centrifuge would allow Iran to produce nuclear fuel far more quickly than the equipment that it reluctantly revealed to the agency in 2003. This revelation proved that Iran lied when it claimed to have turned over all the documents relating to their enrichment program. In July 2004, Iran broke the seals on nuclear equipment monitored by UN inspectors and was again building and testing machines that could make fissile material for nuclear weapons. Teheran’s move violated an agreement with European countries under which Iran suspended “all uranium enrichment activity.” Defying a key demand set by 35 nations, Iran announced on September 21, 2004, that it had started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons. A couple of weeks later, Iran announced it had processed several tons of raw “yellowcake” uranium to prepare it for enrichment—a key step in developing atomic weapons.12 Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, which he intimated would only make sense if Iran was also developing or planning to develop a nuclear capability. “There is no doubt in my mind—and it’s fairly straightforward from what we’ve been saying for years—that they have been interested in a nuclear weapon that has utility, meaning that it is something they would be able to deliver, not just something that sits there,” Powell said.13 In February 2005, Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Iran will never scrap its nuclear program, and talks with the Europeans are aimed at protecting the country’s nuclear achievements, not negotiating an end to them. In May, Iran confirmed that it had converted 37 tons of uranium into gas, its first acknowledgment of advances made in the production process for enriched uranium. This means Tehran is in a position to start enriching uranium quickly if negotiations with the Europeans over the future of its nuclear program fail.14 On September 2, 2005, the IAEA reported that Iran had produced about seven tons of the gas it needs for uranium enrichment since it restarted the process the previous month. A former UN nuclear inspector said that would be enough for an atomic weapon. In unusually strong language, an IAEA report also said questions remain about key aspects of Iran’s 18 years of clandestine nuclear activity and that it still was unable “to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.”15 Iran subsequently threatened to resume uranium enrichment and bar open inspections of its nuclear facilities if the IAEA decides to refer it to the Security Council for possible sanctions. Newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended his country’s right to produce nuclear fuel in a fiery speech to the UN General Assembly and later raised worldwide concern about nuclear proliferation when he said, “Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know- how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”16 Masud Yazaiari, spokesperson of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, warned that Iran would respond to any Israeli efforts to stop their nuclear program. “Their threats to attack our nuclear facilities will not succeed,” Yazaiari said. “They are aware that Tehran’s response would be overwhelming and would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”17 21. The Arms Balance 307 308 Notes 1. Mitchell Bard, The Water’s Edge And Beyond, (NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991), p. 194–209. 2. Aluf Benn, “Israel worried about possible new Russia- Syria arms deals,” Haaretz, (October 26, 2005); Information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). 3. Arieh O’Sullivan, “US Sells world’s best F- 16s to UAE,” Jerusalem Post, (May 5, 2005). 4. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; Defense Security Assistance Agency Report; World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers. 5. Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah, (MA: Little Brown, and Co., 1991), p. 249. 6. Josef Joffe, “A World Without Israel,” Foreign Policy, (January/February 2005), pp. 36–42. 7. Associated Press, (June 12, 2004). 8. Aluf Benn, “Israel worried about possible new Russia- Syria arms deals,” Haaretz, (October 26, 2005); Center for Strategic and International Studies, United Nations (UN) Institute for Disarmament Research. 9. Jerusalem Post, (December 21, 2003). 10. Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, (Langley, VA: CIA, 2004). 11. Associated Press, (February 11, 2003). 12. Telegraph, (July 27, 2004); Associated Press, (October 6, 2004). 13. Washington Post, (November 18, 2004). 14. Associated Press, (May 9, 2005). 15. Chicago Tribune, (September 3, 2005). 16. Associated Press, (September 15 & 20, 2005). 17. Maariv, (July 27, 2004).

22. The Media MYTH “Press coverage of Israel is proportional to its importance in world affairs.” FACT It is hard to justify the amount of news coverage given to Israel based on that nation’s importance in world affairs or American national interests. How is it that a country the size of New Jersey routinely merits top billing over seemingly more newsworthy nations such as Russia, China and Great Britain? Israel probably has the highest per capita fame quotient in the world. Americans know more about Israeli politics than that of any other foreign country. Most of Israel’s leaders, for example, are more familiar in the United States than those of America’s neighbors in Canada or Mexico. In addition, a high percentage of Americans are conversant on the Arab- Israeli conflict. One reason Americans are so knowledgeable about Israel is the extent of coverage. American news organizations usually have more correspondents in Israel than in any country except Great Britain. MYTH “Israel receives so much attention because it is the only country in the Middle East that affects U.S. interests.” FACT The Middle East is important to the United States (and the Western world) primarily because of its oil resources. Events that might threaten the production and supply of oil affect vital U.S. interests. The United States also has an interest in supporting friendly regimes in the region. Attention is warranted because the Middle East is the scene of repeated conflagrations that directly or indirectly affect American interests. Events in countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Iran have required the intervention of U.S. troops, and nothing focuses the attention of the public like American lives being endangered abroad. The United States has been deeply involved in each of the Arab- Israeli wars, but has also had its own independent battles, most notably the Gulf War with Iraq in 1991 and 310 “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in 2003. The media is now very focused on Iraq because of the continuing U.S. troop deployment there. On the other hand, Americans are not typically interested in the fratricidal wars of people in distant lands when the fighting does not appear to have any bearing on U.S. interests. This is true in Africa, Latin America and even the Balkans. Similarly, inter- Arab wars have not generated the kind of interest that Israel’s problems have. However, the Israeli- Palestinian dispute—two people fighting over one land—is a particularly compelling story. It is made all the more so by the fact that it is centered in the Holy Land. Another explanation for the disproportionate coverage Israel receives relative to Arab countries is that few correspondents have a background in Middle East history or speak the regional languages. Journalists are more familiar with the largely Western culture in Israel than the more alien Muslim societies. MYTH “Media coverage of the Arab world is objective.” FACT When journalists are allowed to pierce the veil of secrecy, the price of access to dictators and terrorists is often steep. Reporters are sometimes intimidated or blackmailed. In Lebanon during the 1980s, for example, the Palestine Liberation Organization had reporters doing their bidding as the price for obtaining interviews and protection. During the Palestinian War, Israeli journalists were warned against going to the Palestinian Authority and some received telephone threats after publishing articles critical of the PA leadership.1 When asked to comment on what many viewers regard as CNN’s bias against Israel, Reese Schonfeld, the network’s first president explained, “When I see them on the air I see them being very careful about Arab sensibilities.” Schonfeld suggested the coverage is slanted because CNN doesn’t want to risk the special access it has in the Arab world.2 In Arab countries, journalists are usually escorted to see what the dictator wants them to see or they are followed. Citizens are warned by security agencies, sometimes directly, sometimes more subtly, that they should be careful what they say to visitors. In the case of coverage of the PA, the Western media relies heavily on Palestinian assistants to escort correspondents in the territories. In addition, Palestinians often provide the news that is sent out around the world. For example, at least two journalists working for Agence FrancePresse simultaneously worked for PA media outlets. An Associated Press correspondent also worked for the PA’s official newspaper. One veteran journalist said, “It’s like employing someone from the [Israeli] Government Press Office or one of the Israeli political parties to work as a journalist.”3 “By my own estimate,” journalist Ehud Ya’ari wrote, “over 95 percent of the TV pictures going out on satellite every evening to the various foreign and Israeli channels are supplied by Palestinian film crews. The two principle agencies in the video news market, APTN and Reuters TV, run a whole network of Palestinian stringers, freelancers and fixers all over the territories to provide instant footage of the events. These crews obviously identify emotionally and politically with the Intifada and, in the ‘best’ case, they simply don’t dare film anything that could embarrass the Palestinian Authority. So the cameras are angled to show a tainted view of the Israeli army’s actions, never focus on the Palestinian gunmen and diligently produce a very specific kind of close- up of the situation on the ground.”4 A particularly egregious incident occurred in October 2000 when two non- combatant Israeli reservists were lynched in Ramallah by a Palestinian mob. According to reporters on the scene, the Palestinian police tried to prevent foreign journalists from filming the incident. One Italian television crew managed to film parts of the attack and these shocking images ultimately made headlines around the world. A competing Italian news agency took a different tack, placing an advertisement in the PA’s main newspaper, Al Hayat- Al-Jadidah, explaining that it had nothing to do with filming the incident: My dear friends in Palestine. We congratulate you and think that it is our duty to put you in the picture (of the events) of what happened on October 12 in Ramallah. One of the private television stations which competes with us (and not the official Italian television station RTI) filmed the events; that station filmed the events. Afterwards Israeli Television broadcast the pictures, as taken from one of the Italian stations, and thus the public impression was created as if we (RTI) took these pictures. We emphasize to all of you that the events did not happen this way, because we always respect (will continue to respect) the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine and we are credible in our precise work. We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our way of acting (note: meaning we do not work like the other television stations). We do not (and will not) do such a thing. Please accept our blessings. Signed Ricardo Christiano Representative of the official Italian station in Palestine5 If a news organization strays from the pro- Palestinian line, it comes under immediate attack. In November 2000, for example, the Palestinian Journalist’s Union complained that the Associated Press was presenting a false impression of the Palestinian War. The Union called AP’s coverage a conscious crime against the Palestinian people and said it served the Israeli position. The Union threatened to adopt all necessary measures against AP staffers as well as against AP bureaus located in the PA if the agency continued to harm Palestinian interests.6 “We were filming the beginning of the demonstration. Suddenly, a van pulled in hurriedly. Inside, there were Fattah militants. They gave their orders and even distributed Molotov cocktails. We were filming. But these images, you will never see. In a few seconds, all those youngsters surrounded us, threatened us, and then took us away to the police station. There, we identified ourselves but we were compelled to delete the controversial pictures. The Palestinian Police calmed the situation but censored our pictures. We now have the proof that those riots are no longer spontaneous. All the orders came from the Palestinian hierarchy.” —Jean Pierre Martin7 MYTH “Journalists covering the Middle East are driven by the search for the truth.” FACT It will come as no surprise to learn that journalists in the Middle East share an interest in sensationalism with their colleagues covering domestic issues. The most egregious examples come from television reporters whose emphasis on visuals over substance encourages facile treatment of the issues. For example, when NBC’s correspondent in Israel was asked why reporters turned up at Palestinian demonstrations in the West Bank they knew were being staged, he said, “We play along because we need the pictures.”8 The networks can’t get newsworthy pictures from closed societies such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Libya. Israel often faces an impossible situation of trying to counter images with words. “When a tank goes into Ramallah, it does not look good on TV,” explains Gideon Meir of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. “Sure we can explain why we are there, and that’s what we do. But it’s words. We have to fight pictures with words.”9 The magnitude of the problem Israel confronts is clear from Tami Allen-Frost, deputy chairman of the Foreign Press Association and a producer for Britain’s ITN news, who says “the strongest picture that stays in the mind is of a tank in a city” and that “there are more incidents all together in the West Bank than there are suicide bombings. In the end, it’s quantity that stays with you.”10 MYTH “Israel gets favorable coverage because American Jews control the media and have disproportionate political influence.” FACT If Jews controlled the media; it’s not likely you’d hear Jews complaining so much about the anti- Israel bias of the press. It is true that the amount of attention Israel receives is related to the fact that the largest Jewish population outside Israel is in the United States, and that Israel greatly concerns American Jews. Large numbers of Jews do hold significant positions in the media (though they by no means “control” the press as anti-Semites maintain), and the Jewish population is concentrated in major media markets such as New York and Los Angeles, so it is not surprising the spotlight would be directed at Israel. Politically, Jews wield disproportionate power in the United States and use it to advocate policies that strengthen the U.S. - Israel relationship; however, there is no evidence this has translated into favorable press coverage for Israel. It is possible to argue the pro- Arab lobby has as much or more influence on the media and encourage an anti- Israel bias. MYTH “Arab officials tell Western journalists the same thing they tell their own people.” FACT Arab officials often express their views differently in English than they do in Arabic. They express their true feelings and positions to their constituents in their native language. For external consumption, however, Arab officials have learned to speak in moderate tones and often relate very different views when speaking in English to Western audiences. Long ago, Arab propagandists became more sophisticated about how to make their case. They now routinely appear on American television news broadcasts and are quoted in the print media and come across as reasonable people with legitimate grievances. What many of 22. The Media 313 314 these same people say in Arabic, however, is often far less moderate and reasonable. Since Israelis can readily translate what is said in Arabic they are well aware of the views of their enemies. Americans and other English-speakers, however, can easily be fooled by the slick presentation of an Arab propagandist. To give just one example, Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat is frequently quoted by the Western media. After the brutal murder of two Israeli teenagers on May 9, 2001, he was asked for a reaction. The Washington Post reported his response: Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian official, said in English at a news conference that “killing civilians is a crime, whether on the Palestinian or the Israeli side.” The comment was not reported in Arabic- language Palestinian media.11 The unusual aspect of this story was that the Post reported the fact that Erekat’s comment was ignored by the Palestinian press. Over the years Yasser Arafat was famous for saying one thing in English to the Western media and something completely different to the Arabic press in his native tongue. This is why the Bush Administration insisted that he repeat in Arabic what he said in English, in particular condemnations of terrorist attacks and calls to end violence. It is more difficult for Arab leaders to get away with doubletalk today because their Arabic remarks are now translated by watchdog organizations and disseminated in English. MYTH “Journalists are well- versed in Middle East history and therefore can place current events in proper context.” FACT One cause of misunderstanding about the Middle East and bias in media reporting is the ignorance of journalists about the region. Few reporters speak Hebrew or Arabic, so they have little or no access to primary resources. They frequently regurgitate stories they read in English language publications from the region rather than report independently. When they do attempt to place events in historical context, they often get the facts wrong and create an inaccurate or misleading impression. To cite one example, during a recitation of the history of the holy sites in Jerusalem, CNN’s Garrick Utley reported that Jews could pray at the Western Wall during Jordan’s rule from 1948 to 1967.12 In fact, Jews were prevented from visiting their holiest shrine. This is a critical historical point that helps explain Israel’s position toward Jerusalem. Case Study A Washington Post story about the “cycle of death” in the West Bank included an interview with Raed Karmi, an official in Fattah, the dominant faction in Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization. The report begins with the observation that Karmi is running out to join a battle against Israeli soldiers and grabs an M- 16 assault rifle. What the story fails to mention is that only Palestinian police are supposed to be armed. The report implies that Israeli and Palestinian violence is equivalent in this “cycle” because Karmi said he was acting to avenge the death of a Palestinian who the Israelis assassinated for organizing terrorist attacks. Karmi admits that he participated in the kidnapping and execution- style murder of two Israelis who had been eating lunch in a Tulkarm restaurant. Karmi was jailed by the Palestinian Authority, but he was released after just four months and subsequently killed four more Israelis, including a man buying groceries and a driver who he ambushed. “I will continue attacking Israelis,” he told the Post.13 MYTH “Israelis cannot deny the truth of pictures showing their abuses.” FACT A picture may be worth thousand words, but sometimes the picture and the words used to describe it are distorted and misleading. There is no question that photographers and television camera crews seek the most dramatic pictures they can find, most often showing brutal Israeli Goliaths mistreating the suffering Palestinian Davids, but the context is often missing. In one classic example, the Associated Press circulated a dramatic photo of an angry baton- wielding Israeli soldier standing over a bloody young man. It appeared the soldier had just beaten the youth. The picture appeared in the New York Times14 and spurred international outrage because the caption, supplied by AP, said, “An Israeli policeman and a Palestinian on the Temple Mount.” Taken at a time when Palestinians were rioting following Ariel Sharon’s controversial visit to the al- Aksa mosque, the picture appeared to be a vivid case of Israeli brutality. It turned out, however, the caption was inaccurate and the photo actually showed an incident that might have conveyed almost the exact opposite impression had it been reported correctly. In fact, the victim was not a Palestinian beaten by an Israeli soldier; it was a policeman protecting an American Jewish student, Tuvia Gross- 22. The Media 315 316 man, who had been riding in a taxi when it was stoned by Palestinians. Grossman was pulled out of the taxi, beaten and stabbed. He broke free and fled toward the Israeli policeman. At that point a photographer snapped the picture. Besides getting the victim wrong, AP also inaccurately reported that the photograph was taken on the Temple Mount. When AP was alerted to the errors, it issued a series of corrections, several of which still did not get the story straight. As is usually the case when the media makes a mistake, the damage was already done. Many outlets that had used the photo did not print clarifications. Others issued corrections that did not receive anywhere near the prominence of the initial story. Another example of how pictures can be both dramatic and misleading was a Reuter’s photo showing a young Palestinian being arrested by Israeli police on April 6, 2001. The boy was obviously frightened and wet his pants. Once again the photo attracted worldwide publicity and reinforced the media image of Israelis as brutal occupiers who abuse innocent children. In this instance it is the context that is misleading. Another Reuter’s photographer snapped another picture just before the first one was taken. It showed the same boy participating in a riot against Israeli soldiers. Few media outlets published this photo. MYTH “The press makes no apologies for terrorists.” FACT The media routinely accepts and repeats the platitudes of terrorists and their spokespersons with regard to their agendas. The press gullibly treats claims that attacks against innocent civilians are acts of “freedom fighters.” In recent years some news organizations have developed a resistance to the term “terrorist” and replaced it with euphemisms such as “militant” because they don’t want to be seen as taking sides or making judgments about the perpetrators. For example, after a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a pizza restaurant in downtown Jerusalem on August 9, 2001, killing 15 people, the attacker was described as a “militant” (Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, NBC Nightly News) and “suicide bomber” (New York Times, USA Today). ABC News did not use the word “terrorist.” When a Palestinian woman walked into a crowded beach restaurant in Haifa and detonated a bomb that killed 21 people, including four children on October 4, 2003, the Reuters account said she had waged an “attack” in retaliation for previous Israeli army actions and that the bombing showed that Palestinian officials had failed to “rein in the militants.”15 Clifford May of the Middle East Information Network pointed out the absurdity of the media coverage: “No newspaper would write, ‘Militants struck the World Trade Center yesterday,’ or say, ‘They may think of themselves as freedom fighters, and who are we to judge, we’re news people.’ ”16 “By any logic, militants engaged in warfare don’t blow up little babies.” —Tom Fiedler, Executive Editor, Miami Herald17 One of the best examples of how the press sometimes distinguishes terrorist attacks against other nations was a list of “recent terror attacks around the world” disseminated in November 2003 by the Associated Press, probably the most influential news service in the world. The list cited 15 terrorist incidents during the five- year period between August 1998 and August 2003. During that period, more than 800 Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks, but not one of the incidents in Israel made the list.18 Similarly, when AP released its Year in Photos 2003, six of the 130 photos chosen related to human suffering in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. All six were of Palestinians. In a memo to the New York Times foreign desk, former Jerusalem bureau chief James Bennet criticized his paper’s reluctance to use the word “terrorism.” He said, “The calculated bombing of students in a university cafeteria, or of families gathered in an ice cream parlor, cries out to be called what it is. . . . I wanted to avoid the political meaning that comes with ‘terrorism,’ but I couldn’t pretend that the word had no usage at all in plain English.” Bennett acknowledged that not using the term was “a political act in itself.”19 Rather than apologize for terrorists, the media sometimes portrays the victims of terror as equivalent to the terrorists themselves. For example, photos are sometimes shown of Israeli victims on the same page with photos of Israelis capturing terrorists, giving the sense, for example, that the Palestinian held in handcuffs and blindfolded by a soldier is as much a victim as the shocked woman in being helped from the scene of a suicide bombing. In one of the most egregious examples, after a suicide bombing in Petah Tikva on May 27, 2002, CNN interviewed the mother of the bomber, Jihad Titi. The parents of a 15- month-old girl killed in the attack, Chen and Lior Keinan, were also interviewed. The interviews with the Keinans were not shown on CNN international in Israel or elsewhere around the world until hours after the interview with Titi’s mother had been broadcast several times. 22. The Media 317 318 This was even too much for CNN, which subsequently announced a policy change whereby it would no longer “report on statements made by suicide bombers or their families unless there seemingly is an extraordinarily compelling reason to do so.”20 MYTH “The Palestinian Authority places no restrictions on foreign reporters.” FACT A case study of the Palestinian Authority’s idea of freedom of the press occurred following the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. An Associated Press cameraman filmed Palestinians at a rally in Nablus celebrating the terror attacks and was subsequently summoned to a Palestinian Authority security office and told that the material must not be aired. Yasser Arafat’s Tanzim also called to threaten his life if he aired the film. An AP still photographer was also at the site of the rally. He was warned not to take pictures and complied. Several Palestinian Authority officials told AP in Jerusalem not to broadcast the videotape. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat’s Cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority “cannot guarantee the life” of the cameraman if the footage was broadcast.21 The cameraman requested that the material not be aired and AP caved in to the blackmail and refused to release the footage. More than a week later, the Palestinian Authority returned a videotape it confiscated from AP showing a Palestinian rally in the Gaza Strip in which some demonstrators carried posters supporting Osama bin Laden. Two separate parts of the six- minute tape involving “key elements” were erased by the Palestinians, according to an AP official.22 Israel Radio reported September 14, 2001, that the Palestinian Authority seized the footage filmed that day by photographers from various international (including Arab) news agencies covering Hamas celebrations of the attacks against America held in cities across the West Bank and Gaza. The celebrants waived photographs of wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden.23 The very same news programs and networks that broadcast the photo opportunities produced by the Palestinian Authority (Arafat donating blood, Palestinian students in a moment of silence, posters supporting America) failed to broadcast the news that the PA is using terror and intimidation to discourage the airing of unfavorable reports. In October 2001, after the United States launched attacks against Afghanistan, Palestinians supporting bin Laden staged rallies in the Gaza Strip that were ruthlessly suppressed by Palestinian police. The PA took measures to prevent any media coverage of the rallies or the subsequent riots. The Paris- based Reporters Without Frontiers issued a scathing protest to the PA. “We fear the Palestinian Authority takes advantage of the focus of international media on the American riposte to restrain more and more the right to free information,” said Robert Menard, general secretary of the journalists’ organization. The group also protested Palestinian orders not to broadcast calls for general strikes, nationalistic activities, demonstrations or other news without permission from the PA. The aim of the press blackout was expressed by an anonymous Palestinian official, “We don’t want anything which could undermine our image.”24 In August 2002, the Palestinian journalists’ union banned journalists from photographing Palestinian children carrying weapons or taking part in activities by terrorist organizations because the pictures were hurting the Palestinians’ image. The ban came after numerous photographs were published showing children carrying weapons and dressing up like suicide bombers. Shortly before the union acted, six children were photographed carrying M16 rifles and Kalashnikovs during a pro- Iraq rally in the Gaza Strip. Another group, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, issued a similar ban that included photographing masked men. The Foreign Press Association expressed “deep concern” over the effort to censor coverage, and the threats of sanctions against journalists who disregarded the ban.25 In July 2004, as Gaza became increasingly unstable, and protests were being mounted against corruption in the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian journalists covering the crisis received death threats. They were told, for example, to stay away from a rally in Gaza to protest Arafat’s decision to appoint his cousin as the commander of the PA security forces. One reporter who works for an international news organization said journalists were told that anyone who went to the rally would suffer the same fate as a Palestinian legislator who was shot after he called for reforms in the PA in a television interview. The Gaza rally was subsequently either downplayed or ignored by the Palestinian media.26 In July 2005, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate in the Gaza Strip called on Palestinian journalists to celebrate Israel’s “retreat” from Gaza and to refrain from covering clashes between rival Palestinian groups.27 Journalists from Arab nations are also subject to censorship. In January 2003, for example, the PA’s General Intelligence Service arrested a correspondent for al- Jazeera television. The journalist was accused of harming the national interests of the Palestinian people by reporting that Fattah had claimed responsibility for a double suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. In January 2004, journalists working for Arab satellite TV stations were told to refer to all Palestinians killed by the IDF as shahids (martyrs). Numerous incidents have also been reported of physical attacks on journalists who offended PA officials. A reporter for a Saudi- owned news channel was wounded by gunfire when he was driving through the Gaza Strip. He was then dragged from his car and beaten because his station had allowed criticism of Yasser Arafat and other officials. A week later, 100 Palestinian journalists went to Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah to pledge allegiance to him.28 

MYTH “The media carefully investigates Palestinian claims before publicizing them.” FACT Palestinians have learned that they can disseminate almost any information to the media and it will be published or broadcast somewhere. Once it is picked up by one media outlet, it is inevitably repeated by others. Quickly, misinformation can take on the appearance of fact, and while Israel can present evidence to correct the inaccuracies being reported, the damage is usually already done. Once an image or impression is in someone’s mind, it is often difficult, if not impossible to erase it. For example, a Palestinian boy was stabbed to death in a village near a Jewish settlement. The media repeated Palestinian claims that the boy was attacked by settlers when in fact it was later revealed that he had been killed in a brawl between rival Palestinian clans.29 On another occasion, a 10- year- old Palestinian girl was allegedly killed by IDF tank fire. This time it turned out she died as a result of Palestinians shooting in the air to celebrate the return of Muslim worshipers from Mecca.30 It is said that there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. One staple of Palestinian propaganda has been to distribute false statistics in an effort to make Israeli actions look monstrous. For example, if an incident involves some death or destruction, they can grossly exaggerate the figures and a gullible media will repeat the fabricated data until they become widely accepted as accurate. This occurred, for example, during the Lebanon War when Yasser Arafat’s brother claimed that Israel’s operations had left 600,000 Lebanese homeless. He made the number up, but it was repeated by the International Committee of the Red Cross and publicized in the media. By the time the ICRC repudiated the figure, it was too late to change the impression that Israel’s military operation to defend itself from terrorist attacks on its northern border had created an unconscionable refugee problem.31 This happened again after Israel’s operation in Jenin in April 2002 when Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat told CNN that at least 500 people were massacred and 1,600 people, including women and children, were missing. It was a fabrication as the Palestinians’ own review committee later concluded.32 What is perhaps more outrageous than the repetition of Erekat’s lie is that media outlets continue to treat him as a legitimate spokesperson, giving him access that allows him to regularly disseminate misinformation. If an American official was ever found to have lied to the press, they would lose all credibility and would have little or no chance of being given a forum to express their views. Notes 1. Jerusalem Report, (May 7, 1991). 2. New York Jewish Week, (August 31, 2001). 3. “Where the reporting stops,” Jerusalem Post, (January 18, 2005). 4. Jerusalem Report, (May 7, 1991). 5. Al Hayat- Al- Jadidah, (October 16, 2001). 6. Al Hayat- Al- Jadidah (November 2, 2001). 7. Report filed by Jean Pierre Martin on October 5, 2000, a day after his Belgian television team from RTL- TV1 was filming in the area of Ramallah. 8. Near East Report, (August 5, 1991). 9. Jerusalem Report, (April 22, 2002). 10. Jerusalem Report, (April 22, 2002). 11. Washington Post, (May 10, 2001). 12. CNN, (October 10, 2000). 13. Washington Post, (September 7, 2001). 14. New York Times, (September 30, 2000). 15. Tom Fiedler, “Handle with care: words like ‘conflict,’ ‘terrorist,’ ” Miami Herald, (January 4, 2004). 16. Washington Post, (September 13, 2001). 17. Fiedler, (January 4, 2004). 18. WorldnetDaily, (November 24, 2003). 19. Quoted in Daniel Okrent, “The War of the Words: A Dispatch From the Front Lines,” New York Times, (March 6, 2005). 20. Forward, (June 28, 2002). 21. Associated Press, (September 12, 2001). 22. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (September 20, 2001). 23. Associated Press and Jerusalem Post, (September 13, 2001); International Media Review Analysis, http://www.imra.org.il, (September 13–14, 2001); Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (September 20, 2001). 24. Jerusalem Post, (October 10, 2001). 25. Jerusalem Post, (August 26, 2002). 26. Jerusalem Post, (July 24, 2004). 27. Khaled Abu Toameh, “PA to journalists: All slain Palestinians are martyrs,” Jerusalem Post, (January 12, 2004) and “PA journalists urged to celebrate Gaza ‘retreat,’ ” Jerusalem Post, (July 27, 2005). 22. The Media 321 322 28. Jerusalem Post, (January 12 & 14, 2004). 29. Arnon Regular, “Palestinian boy likely stabbed to death in West Bank clan feud,” Haaretz, (July 21, 2005). 30. Margot Dudkevitch, “PA arrests suspect in girl’s murder,” Jerusalem Post, (February 1, 2005). 31. Washington Post, (June 25, 1982). 32. New York Post, (May 3, 2002).

23. Arab/Muslim Attitudes Toward Israel The desire for peaceful relations between Jews and Arabs sometimes leads people to overlook public comments by Arab officials and media publications that are often incendiary and sometimes outright anti-Semitic. Frequently, more moderate tones are adopted when speaking to Western audiences, but more accurate and heartfelt views are expressed in Arabic to the speaker’s constituents. The following is just a tiny sample of some of the remarks that have been made regarding Israel and the Jews. They are included here because they demonstrate the level of hostility and true beliefs of many Arabs and Muslims. Of course, not all Arabs and Muslims subscribe to these views, but the examples are not random, they are beliefs held by important officials and disseminated by major media. They are also included because one of the lessons of the Holocaust was that people of good will are often unwilling to believe that people who threaten evil will in fact carry out their malevolent intentions. Anti-Semitism “The Jewish nation, it is known, from the dawn of history, from the time Allah created them, lives by scheme and deceit.” —PA Communications Minister, Imud Falouji Palestinian television, August 8, 2002 “We know that the Jews have manipulated the Sept. 11 incidents and turned American public opinion against Arabs and Muslims. . . . We still ask ourselves: Who has benefited from Sept. 11 attacks? I think they (the Jews) were the protagonists of such attacks.” —Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef in Assyasah (Kuwait) translation from Saudi magazine ‘Ain-Al- Yaqin, November 29, 2002 “They succeeded in gaining control in most of the [world’s] most powerful states, and they—a tiny community—became a world power. But 1.3 billion Muslims must not be defeated by a few million Jews. A way must be found. . . . The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews are in control of the world via their proxies. They lead others to fight and die for them. . . . If we are weak, no one will support us. The Israelis respect only the strong, and we must therefore all unite.” —Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohammad at the opening of the Organization of Islamic States summit October 16, 2003 “O God, strengthen Islam and Muslims, humiliate infidelity and infidels. O God, destroy your enemies, the Jewish and crusader enemies of Islam.” —Shaykh Jamal Shakir Sermon from King Abdallah mosque in Amman, Amman Jordan Television Channel 1 in Arabic March 5, 2004 “The Prophet said: the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him! Why is there this malice? Because there are none who love the Jews on the face of the earth: not man, not rock, and not tree; everything hates them. They destroy everything; they destroy the trees and destroy the houses. Everything wants vengeance on the Jews, on these pigs on the face of the earth, and the day of our victory, Allah willing, will come.” —Shaykh Ibrahim Mudayris Palestine Authority TV September 10, 2004 “The Zionist attempts to transmit dangerous diseases like AIDS through exports to Arab countries.” —Al-Manar (Hezbollah TV) November 23, 2004 “The Jews are the cancer spreading all over the world . . . the Jews are a virus like AIDS hitting humankind . . . Jews are responsible for all wars and conflicts. . . .” —Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris Palestine Authority TV May 13, 2005 Blood Libel “The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.” —Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al- Dawalibi before the UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance December 5, 1984 “During this holiday [Purim], the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare—it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets. . . . For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. . . . Before I go into the details, I would like to clarify that the Jews’ spilling human blood to prepare pastry for their holidays is a well-established fact, historically and legally, all throughout history. This was one of the main reasons for the persecution and exile that were their lot in Europe and Asia at various times. . . . during the holiday, the Jews wear carnival-style masks and costumes and overindulge in drinking alcohol, prostitution, and adultery. . . .” —Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al- Jalahma of King Faysal University Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, March 10, 2002 “Christian Europe showed enmity toward the Jews when it transpired that their rabbis craftily hunt anyone walking alone, [tempting] him to enter their house of worship. Then they take his blood to use for baked goods for their holidays, as part of their ritual.” —Columnist Dr. Muhammad bin S’ad Al- Shwey’ir, Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), September 6, 2002 Peace “Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world.” —Syrian delegate, Faris el- Khouri, New York Times, February 19, 1947 “The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It’s likely, Mr. Horowitz, which your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won’t get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we’ll succeed, but we’ll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it’s too late to talk of peaceful solutions.” —Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha, September 16, 1947 “[A]ll our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine.” —Transjordan’s King Abdullah, April 26, 1948 “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.” —Jamal Husseini before the Security Council, April 16, 1948 “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” —Azzam Pasha, Secretary- General of the Arab League, May 15, 1948 “I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel’s intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.” —Egyptian President Nasser, October 14, 1956 “Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. . . . I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” —Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967 “Arab policy at this stage has but two objectives. The first, the elimination of the traces of the 1967 aggression through an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories it occupied that year. The second objective is the elimination of the traces of the 1948 aggression, by the means of the elimination of the State of Israel itself. This is, however, as yet an abstract, undefined objective, and some of us have erred in commencing the latter step before the former.” —Mohammed Heikal, a Sadat confidant and editor of the semi- official Al-Ahram, February 25, 1971 “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.” —PLO spokesman Mahmoud Abbas (“Abu Mazen”), Falastin a- Thaura, March 1976 “Saddam, you hero, attack Israel with chemical weapons.” —Palestinians marching in support of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, Associated Press, August 12, 1990 “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 Rajoub, Islamic Association for Palestine, June 9, 2001 “. . . Allah willing, this unjust state . . . Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States will be erased; this unjust state, Britain will be erased . . . Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah . . . Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons’ and plunged into the midst of the Jews . . .” —Sermon by Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi a few days after Yasser Arafat’s cease-  fire declaration PA Television, June 8, 2001 23. Arab/Muslim Attitudes Toward Israel 327 328 “Didn’t we throw mud in the face of Bill Clinton, who dared to propose a state with some adjustments? Were we honest about what we did? Were we right in what we did? No, we were not. After two years of violence, we are now calling for what we rejected.” —Nabil Amr, ex- minister in the PA cabinet, Quoted in the Jerusalem Report, October 21, 2002 “Just as Ramallah, Gaza, Nablus, and Jenin are Palestinian cities, so are Haifa, Nazareth, Jaffa, Ramle, Lod, Beersheba, Safed, and others Palestinian cities. . . . The Zionist Jews are foreigners in this land. They have no right to live or settle in it. They should go somewhere else in the world to establish their state and their false entity . . . They must leave their homes . . . We do not believe in so- called ‘peace with Israel’ because peace cannot be made with Satan. Israel is the greatest Satan.” —Palestinian Christian cleric Father ’Atallah Hanna, sermon in the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Jerusalem, January 19, 2003 “Hamas will keep its weapons in its hands and will defend any part of the homeland. . . . Our national problem is not related only to the West Bank, Gaza, and al- Quds . . . but to Palestine, all [the territory of] Palestine.” —Hamas leader Mahmoud al- Zahar Al Hayat Al- Jadidah, July, 5, 2005. “Oh Allah, liberate our Al- Aksa Mosque from the defilement of the occupying and brutal Zionists . . . Oh Allah, punish the occupying Zionists and their supporters from among the corrupt infidels. Oh Allah, scatter and disperse them, and make an example of them for those who take heed.” —Sheikh Abd Al- Rahman Al- Sudayyis, imam of Islam’s most holy mosque, Al- Haram in Mecca Sermon on Saudi Channel 1, July 15, 2005 “Al- Qassam warriors, rain rockets on the settlers! Don’t let any Jew sleep! The Al- Aqsa Brigades will make you tremble in Haifa and Tel Aviv; they will strike you in Safed and Acre. Because we do not distinguish between [Jewish] Palestine and [Arab] Palestine. For [as] Jaffa is the same as Gaza, Tel- al-Zuhour [Tel Aviv] is the same as Rafah, and the Galilee is the same as Hebron. We make no distinction between the parts of the earth of the homeland.” —Song broadcast on Hamas radio station Sawt Al- Aksa August 16, 2005 “We will continue our martyrdom operations inside Israel until all our lands are liberated, by God’s will. . . . We won’t lay down our weapons as long as Jerusalem and the West Bank are under occupation.” —Mohammed Hijazi, commander of a Fattah affiliated militias in the Gaza Strip Jerusalem Post, September 12, 2005 “We will not rest and will not abandon the path of Jihad and martyrdom as long as one inch of our land remained in the hands of the Jews.” —Raed Saed, a senior Hamas leader Ynet News, September 19, 2005 “First of all this Palestinian land, and all the Arabic nation, is all part of the same area. In the past, there was no independent Palestinian state; there was no independent Jordanian state; and so on. There were regions called Iraq or Egypt, but they were all part of one country. . . . Our main goal is to establish a great Islamic state, be it pan- Arabic or pan-Islamic.” —Hamas leader Mahmoud al- Zahar, The Media Line, September 22, 2005 Phased Plan & the Destruction of Israel “If we agree to declare our state over what is now 22 percent of Palestine, meaning the West Bank and Gaza, our ultimate goal is the liberation of all historic Palestine from the River to the Sea . . . We distinguish the strategic, long- term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure.” —Faisal al- Husseini, Al-Arabi, June 24, 2001 23. Arab/Muslim Attitudes Toward Israel 329 330 “Israel is much smaller than Iran in land mass, and therefore far more vulnerable to nuclear attack.” —Former Iranian President Ali Rafsanjani quoted in Jerusalem Report, March 11, 2002 “We defeated the Crusaders 800 years ago and we will defeat the enemies of Islam today.” —Nazareth Deputy Mayor Salman Abu Ahmed, quoted in Jerusalem Report, March 4, 2002 “. . . we shall return to the 1967 borders, but it does not mean that we have given up on Jerusalem and Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramla, Nayanyah [AlZuhour] and Tel Aviv [Tel Al- Rabia]. Never. We shall return to every village we had been expelled from, by Allah’s will. . . . Our approval to return to the 1967 borders is not a concession for our other rights. No! . . . this generation might not achieve this stage, but generations will come, and the land of Palestine . . . will demand that the Palestinians return the way Muhammad returned there, as a conqueror.” —Sheikh Ibrahim Mudyris, Friday sermon, February 4, 2005 Hamas would “definitely not” be prepared for coexistence with Israel should the IDF retreat to its 1967 borders. “It can be a temporary solution, for a maximum of 5 to 10 years. But in the end Palestine must return to become Muslim, and in the long term Israel will disappear from the face of the earth.” —Hamas leader Mahmoud al- Zahar Yediot Aharonot, June 24, 2005 Sanctioning Violence “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al- Aksa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.” —The fatwa (religious edict) issued by Osama bin Laden in 1998 “The Palestinian people are in a state of emergency against the failure of the Camp David summit. If the situation explodes, the Palestinian people living in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority are ready for the next fierce battle against the Israeli occupation. . . . The next Intifada will be more violent than the first one especially since the Palestinian people now possess weapons allowing them to defend themselves in a confrontation with the Israeli army. . . . the Lebanese experience of wiping out the Israeli occupation from southern Lebanon gave the Palestinian people the needed moral strength and added to their spirit of armed struggle.” —A “senior security figure” in the Palestinian Authority, Kul Al- Arab, and July 14, 2000 “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 interviewer, quoted in Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2001 “If they go from Sheba’a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine . . . [Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.” —Hezbollah spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin New Yorker, October 14, 2002 “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” —Hezbollah leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah Lebanon Daily Star, October 23, 2002 “The jihad and suicide bombings will continue—the Zionist entity will reach its end in the first quarter of the current century. It is therefore up to you [Muslim holy fighters] to be patient—the Hamas takes upon itself the liberation of all Palestinian land from the sea to the river in the Rafah [in the south] and until Rosh Hanikra [in the north].” —Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin Al-Ayyam, December 28, 2002 23. Arab/Muslim Attitudes Toward Israel 331 332 “There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. . . . Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world. . . . As the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” —Speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Associated Press, October 26, 2005 Sources: Foreign Broadcast Information Service Haaretz Israeli Foreign Ministry Jerusalem Post MEMRI Near East Report Palestinian Media Watch Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies Various news sources APPENDICES The Military Balance in the Middle East Regular Reserve Country Troops, Troops Total Tanks Aircraft* Israel 186,500 445,000 631,500 3,930 798 Egypt 450,000 254,000 704,000 ∼3,000 518 Jordan 100,700 60,000 160,700 970 106 Lebanon 61,400 61,400 350 Palestinian Authority ∼45,000 ∼45,000 Iran 518,000 350,000 868,000 ∼1,700 335 Syria 289,000 132,500 421,500 3,700 510 Saudi Arabia 171,500 20,000 191,500 750 ∼345 Note: Iraq has been removed. It has approximately 130,000 security forces (most of which are various internal security components). This increases to “anticipated” forces of some 186,335, of which 35,000 will be Iraq’s national army. It currently has zero tanks and aircraft in service (although there is talk of giving the new security forces a small number of leftover operational tanks from Saddam’s arsenal that is now under U.S. control). *Refers to total number of combat aircraft. Sources: Shai Feldman and Yiftah Shapir, Eds., The Middle East Military Balance, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004); Anthony Cordesman, “Syrian Military Forces and Capabilities,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, (April 15, 2003); AIPAC 334 Appendices The Middle East Road Map (April 30, 2003) A Performance- Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two- State Solution to the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict The following is a performance- based and goal- driven roadmap, with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks aiming at progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties in the political, security, economic, humanitarian, and institution- building fields, under the auspices of the Quartet [the United States, European Union, United Nations, and Russia]. The destination is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel- Palestinian conflict by 2005, as presented in President Bush’s speech of 24 June, and welcomed by the EU, Russia and the UN in the 16 July and 17 September Quartet Ministerial statements. A two- state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement as described below. The Quartet will assist and facilitate implementation of the plan, starting in Phase I, including direct discussions between the parties as required. The plan establishes a realistic timeline for implementation. However, as a performance- based plan, progress will require and depend upon the good faith efforts of the parties, and their compliance with each of the obligations outlined below. Should the parties perform their obligations rapidly, progress within and through the phases may come sooner than indicated in the plan. Non- compliance with obligations will impede progress. A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel- Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah—endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit—calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement. This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive Appendices 335 peace on all tracks, including the Syrian- Israeli and Lebanese- Israeli tracks. The Quartet will meet regularly at senior levels to evaluate the parties’ performance on implementation of the plan. In each phase, the parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel, unless otherwise indicated. Phase I: Ending Terror and Violence, Normalizing Palestinian Life, and Building Palestinian Institutions—Present to May 2003 In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures. Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life. Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report. At the outset of Phase I: ■ Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel. ■ Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two- state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians. Security ■ Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere. ■ Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and 336 Appendices infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption. ■ GOI takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians; confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction; destruction of Palestinian institutions and infrastructure; and other measures specified in the Tenet work plan. ■ Relying on existing mechanisms and on- the-ground resources, Quartet representatives begin informal monitoring and consult with the parties on establishment of a formal monitoring mechanism and its implementation. ■ Implementation, as previously agreed, of U.S. rebuilding, training and resumed security cooperation plan in collaboration with outside oversight board (U.S.–Egypt–Jordan). Quartet support for efforts to achieve a lasting, comprehensive cease- fire. ● All Palestinian security organizations are consolidated into three services reporting to an empowered Interior Minister. ● Restructured/retrained Palestinian security forces and IDF counterparts progressively resume security cooperation and other undertakings in implementation of the Tenet work plan, including regular senior- level meetings, with the participation of U.S. security officials. ■ Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror. ■ All donors providing budgetary support for the Palestinians channel these funds through the Palestinian Ministry of Finance’s Single Treasury Account. ■ As comprehensive security performance moves forward, IDF withdraws progressively from areas occupied since September 28, 2000, and the two sides restore the status quo that existed prior to September 28, 2000. Palestinian security forces redeploy to areas vacated by IDF. Palestinian Institution- Building ■ Immediate action on credible process to produce draft constitution for Palestinian statehood. As rapidly as possible, constitutional committee circulates draft Palestinian constitution, based on strong parliamentary democracy and cabinet with empowered prime minister, for public comment/debate. Constitutional committee proposes draft document for submission after elections for approval by appropriate Palestinian institutions. ■ Appointment of interim prime minister or cabinet with empowered executive authority/decision- making body. Appendices 337 ■ GOI fully facilitates travel of Palestinian officials for PLC and Cabinet sessions, internationally supervised security retraining, electoral and other reform activity, and other supportive measures related to the reform efforts. ■ Continued appointment of Palestinian ministers empowered to undertake fundamental reform. Completion of further steps to achieve genuine separation of powers, including any necessary Palestinian legal reforms for this purpose. ■ Establishment of independent Palestinian election commission. PLC reviews and revises election law. ■ Palestinian performance on judicial, administrative, and economic benchmarks, as established by the International Task Force on Palestinian Reform. ■ As early as possible, and based upon the above measures and in the context of open debate and transparent candidate selection/electoral campaign based on a free, multi- party process, Palestinians hold free, open, and fair elections. ■ GOI facilitates Task Force election assistance, registration of voters, movement of candidates and voting officials. Support for NGOs involved in the election process. ■ GOI reopens Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and other closed Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem based on a commitment that these institutions operate strictly in accordance with prior agreements between the parties. Humanitarian Response ■ Israel takes measures to improve the humanitarian situation. Israel and Palestinians implement in full all recommendations of the Bertini report to improve humanitarian conditions, lifting curfews and easing restrictions on movement of persons and goods, and allowing full, safe, and unfettered access of international and humanitarian personnel. ■ AHLC reviews the humanitarian situation and prospects for economic development in the West Bank and Gaza and launches a major donor assistance effort, including to the reform effort. ■ GOI and PA continue revenue clearance process and transfer of funds, including arrears, in accordance with agreed, transparent monitoring mechanism. Civil Society ■ Continued donor support, including increased funding through PVOs/ NGOs, for people to people programs, private sector development and civil society initiatives. 338 Appendices Settlements ■ GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001. ■ Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements). Phase II: Transition—June 2003–December 2003 In the second phase, efforts are focused on the option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty, based on the new constitution, as a way station to a permanent status settlement. As has been noted, this goal can be achieved when the Palestinian people have leadership acting decisively against terror, willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty. With such a leadership, reformed civil institutions and security structures, the Palestinians will have the active support of the Quartet and the broader international community in establishing an independent, viable, state. Progress into Phase II will be based upon the consensus judgment of the Quartet of whether conditions are appropriate to proceed, taking into account performance of both parties. Furthering and sustaining efforts to normalize Palestinian lives and build Palestinian institutions, Phase II starts after Palestinian elections and ends with possible creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders in 2003. Its primary goals are continued comprehensive security performance and effective security cooperation, continued normalization of Palestinian life and institution- building, further building on and sustaining of the goals outlined in Phase I, ratification of a democratic Palestinian constitution, formal establishment of office of prime minister, consolidation of political reform, and the creation of a Palestinian state with provisional borders. ■ International Conference: Convened by the Quartet, in consultation with the parties, immediately after the successful conclusion of Palestinian elections, to support Palestinian economic recovery and launch a process, leading to establishment of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders. ● Such a meeting would be inclusive, based on the goal of a comprehensive Middle East peace (including between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon), and based on the principles described in the preamble to this document. ● Arab states restore pre- Intifada links to Israel (trade offices, etc.). ● Revival of multilateral engagement on issues including regional water resources, environment, economic development, refugees, and arms control issues. Appendices 339 ■ New constitution for democratic, independent Palestinian state is finalized and approved by appropriate Palestinian institutions. Further elections, if required, should follow approval of the new constitution. ■ Empowered reform cabinet with office of prime minister formally established, consistent with draft constitution. ■ Continued comprehensive security performance, including effective security cooperation on the bases laid out in Phase I. ■ Creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders through a process of Israeli- Palestinian engagement, launched by the international conference. As part of this process, implementation of prior agreements, to enhance maximum territorial contiguity, is including further action on settlements in conjunction with establishment of a Palestinian state with provisional borders. ■ Enhanced international role in monitoring transition, with the active, sustained, and operational support of the Quartet. ■ Quartet members promote international recognition of Palestinian state, including possible UN membership. Phase III: Permanent Status Agreement and End of the Israeli Palestinian Conflict—2004–2005 Progress into Phase III, based on consensus judgment of Quartet, and taking into account actions of both parties and Quartet monitoring. Phase III objectives are consolidation of reform and stabilization of Palestinian institutions, sustained, effective Palestinian security performance, and Israeli- Palestinian negotiations aimed at a permanent status agreement in 2005. ■ Second International Conference: Convened by Quartet, in consultation with the parties, at beginning of 2004 to endorse agreement reached on an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and formally to launch a process with the active, sustained, and operational support of the Quartet, leading to a final, permanent status resolution in 2005, including on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements; and, to support progress toward a comprehensive Middle East settlement between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria, to be achieved as soon as possible. ■ Continued comprehensive, effective progress on the reform agenda laid out by the Task Force in preparation for final status agreement. ■ Continued sustained and effective security performance, and sustained, effective security cooperation on the bases laid out in Phase I. ■ International efforts to facilitate reform and stabilize Palestinian institutions and the Palestinian economy, in preparation for final status agreement. 340 Appendices ■ Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel- Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfills the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by- side in peace and security. ■ Arab state acceptance of full normal relations with Israel and security for all the states of the region in the context of a comprehensive Arab- Israeli peace. Appendices 341 The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) The following is excerpted from the covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS). The full text is available in the Jewish Virtual Library 

(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/ Hamas_covenant_complete.html). Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. The Islamic Resistance Movement is but one squadron that should be supported . . . until the enemy is vanquished and Allah’s victory is realized. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine . . . It is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders . . . The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say ‘there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’ ”. . . . There is no solution for the Palestine question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. Palestine is an Islamic land. Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others . . . are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. Moslem society confronts a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism. He has deprived people of their homeland. In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Our enemies took control of the world media. They were behind the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution. . . . They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they that instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on any where, without [them] having their finger in it. The Palestinian Liberation Organization adopted the idea of the secular state, which completely contradicts the idea of religious ideology. The day the PLO adopts Islam as its way of life; we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies. Until that day, the Islamic Resistance Movement’s stand towards the PLO is that of the son towards his father, the brother towards his brother and the relative 342 Appendices to relative, who suffers his pain and supports him in confronting the enemies, wishing him to be wise and well- guided. . . . The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, the Rotary and Lions Club, other sabotage groups. All these organizations work in the interest of Zionism . . . They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion. Writers, intellectuals, media people, orators, educators and teachers, and all the various sectors in the Arab and Islamic world—all of them are called upon to perform their role, and to fulfill their duty, because of the ferocity of the Zionist offensive and the Zionist influence in many countries exercised through financial and media control. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying. Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who does that. Appendices 343 United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter. 1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for an acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 2. Affirms further the necessity: (a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation- through international waterways in the area; (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; (c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; 3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; 4. Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. 344 Appendices Recommended Internet Resources For the most comprehensive coverage of topics related to this book, as well as a regularly updated version of Myths & Facts, visit our Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org). The Library contains an extensive bibliography of more than 1,000 web sites. The following are selected from that list: About Israel http://alisrael.co.il American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) http://www.aipac.org American Jewish Committee http://www.ajc.org Anti-Defamation League (ADL) http://www.adl.org Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio http://www.a7.org Begin- Sadat Center for Strategic Studies http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/ CAMERA http://www.camera.org Central Zionist Archives http://www.wzo.org.il/cza/index.htm The David Project http://www.davidproject.org/ Dinur Center for the Study of Jewish History http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/dinur Embassy of Israel (US)http://www.israelemb.org Golan Heights Information Server http://english.golan.org.il Ha’aretz http://www.haaretz.co.il Hasbara Fellowships http://www.israelactivism.com/ Hillel http://www.hillel.org HonestReporting.com http://www.honestreporting.com The Interdisciplinary Center https://www.idc.ac.il/eng/default.asp International Christian Embassy Jerusalem http://www.icej.org/ International Policy Institute for Counter- Terrorism http://www.ict.org.il Internet Jewish History Sourcebook http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies http://www.iasps.org/index.php Israel Defense Forces (IDF) http://www.idf.il Israel on Campus Coalition http://israeloncampuscoalition.org/ Israel Radio http://www.israelradio.org Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics http://www.cbs.gov.il/engindex.htm Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.israel- mfa.gov.il/mfa/home.asp Israeli Prime Minister’s Office http://www.pmo.gov.il/english Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss Jerusalem Capital of Israel http://www.jerusalem- archives.org Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com Jerusalem Report http://www.jrep.com Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) http://www.jta.org Knesset—The Israeli Parliament http://www.knesset.gov.il Maps of the Middle East http:// http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east.html Middle East Media & Research Institute (MEMRI) http://www.memri.org Middle East Review of International Affairs http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/index.html Palestinian Media Watch http://www.pmw.org.il Peace Now http://www.peacenow.org.il/English.asp Pedagogic Center, The Department for Jewish Zionist Education, The Jewish Agency for Israel http://www.jajz- ed.org.il 346 Recommended Internet Resources Stand With Us http://www.standwithus.com/ Terrorism Research Center http://www.terrorism.com The Israel Project http://theisraelproject.org/ U.S. State Department http://www.state.gov United Jewish Communities UJC http://www.ujc.org Virtual Jerusalem http://www.virtualjerusalem.com Washington Institute for Near East Policy http://www.washingtoninstitute.org World Zionist Organization Student and Academics Department http://www.wzo.org.il Recommended Internet Resources 347 Suggested Reading Aumann Moshe. Land Ownership in Palestine 1880–1948. Jerusalem: Academic Committee on the Middle East, 1976. Avineri Shlomo. The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State. NY Basic Books, 1981. Avneri Arieh. The Claim of Dispossession. NJ: Transaction Books, 1984. Bard, Mitchell G. and Moshe Schwartz. 1001 Facts Everyone Should Know About Israel. MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. Bard, Mitchell G. From Tragedy to Triumph: The Politics behind the Rescue of Ethiopian Jewry. CT: Greenwood, 2002. Bard, Mitchell G. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Middle East Conflict, Third Edition. NY: Alpha Books, 2005. Bard, Mitchell. The Water’s Edge And Beyond. NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1991. Becker, Jillian. The PLO. NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. Begin, Menachem. The Revolt. NY: EP Dutton, 1978. Bell, J. Bowyer. Terror Out Of Zion. NJ: Transaction, 1996. Ben- Gurion, David. Rebirth and Destiny of Israel. NY: Philosophical Library, 1954. Collins, Larry and Dominique Lapierre. O Jerusalem! NY: Simon and Schuster, 1972. Dershowitz, Alan. The Case for Israel. NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003. Eban, Abba. Heritage: Civilization and the Jews. NY: Summit Books, 1984. Eban Abba. My Country: The Story of Modern Israel. NY: Random House, 1972. Gilbert, Martin. Israel: A History. NY: William Morrow & Co., 1998. Hazony, Yoram. The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel’s Soul. NY: Basic Books, 2001. Hertzberg Arthur. The Zionist Idea. PA: Jewish Publications Society, 1997. Herzl, Theodor. The Diaries of Theodore Herzl. NY: Peter Smith Publishers, 1987. Herzl, Theodor. The Jewish State. Dover Publications, 1989. Herzog, Chaim. The Arab- Israeli Wars. NY: Random House, 1984. Johnson, Paul. A History of the Jews. NY: HarperCollins, 1988. Katz, Samuel. Battleground-Fact and Fantasy in Palestine. SPI Books, 1986. Kollek, Teddy. Jerusalem. Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1990. Lacquer, Walter and Barry Rubin. The Israel- Arab Reader. NY: Penguin, 2001. Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. Lewis, Bernard. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years. NY: Touchstone Books, 1997. Livingstone, Neil C., and David Halevy. Inside the PLO. NY: William Morrow and Co., 1990. Lorch Netanel. One Long War. NY: Herzl Press, 1976. Meir, Golda. My Life. NY: Dell, 1975. Netanyahu, Benjamin. A Place Among Nations: Israel and the World. NY: Warner Books, 1998. Oren, Michael. Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. NY: Oxford University Press, 2002. Pipes, Daniel. The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy. Griffin Trade Paperback, 1998. Pipes, Daniel. The Long Shadow: Culture and Politics in the Middle East. NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990. Porath Yehoshua. The Emergence of the Palestinian- Arab National Movement, 1918–1929. London: Frank Cass, 1996. Porath Yehoshua. In Search of Arab Unity 1930–1945. London: Frank Cass and Co., Ltd., 1986. Porath Yehoshua. Palestinian Arab National Movement: From Riots to Rebellion: 1929–1939. vol. 2. London: Frank Cass and Co., Ltd., 1977. Rabin, Yitzhak. The Rabin Memoirs. CA: University of California Press, 1996. Ross, Dennis. The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace. NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2004. Sachar Howard. A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998. Safran Nadav. Israel The Embattled Ally. MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Sanjuan, Pedro. The UN Gang: A Memoir of Incompetence, Corruption, Espionage, Anti- Semitism, and Islamic Extremism at the UN Secretariat. NY: Doubleday, 2005. Schiff Ze’ev and Ehud Ya’ari. Intifada. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990. Schiff Zeev and Ehud Yaari. Israel’s Lebanon War. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1984. Schoenberg, Harris. Mandate For Terror: The United Nations and the PLO. NY: Shapolsky 1989. Stillman Norman. The Jews of Arab Lands. PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America 1989. Stillman Norman. The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times. NY: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Weitzman Chaim. Trial and Error. NY: Greenwood Press, 1972. Wigoder, Geoffrey, ed. New Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel. NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1994. Ye’or, Bat. The Dhimmi. NJ: Associated University Press, 1985. Suggested Reading 349 Index of Myths 1. Israel’s Roots ....................................................................................1 “The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel.” 1 “Palestine was always an Arab country.” 2 “The Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites and were in Palestine long before the Jews.” 3 “The Balfour Declaration did not give Jews a right to a homeland in Palestine.” 4 “The ‘traditional position’ of the Arabs in Palestine was jeopardized by Jewish settlement.” 4 “Zionism is racism.” 6 “The delegates of the UN World Conference Against Racism agreed that Zionism is racism.” 7 “The Zionists could have chosen another country besides Palestine.” 8 “Herzl himself proposed Uganda as the Jewish state as an alternative to Palestine.” 8 “All Arabs opposed the Balfour Declaration, seeing it as a betrayal of their rights.” 9 “The Zionists were colonialist tools of Western imperialism.” 9 “The British promised the Arabs independence in Palestine in the Hussein-MacMahon Correspondence.” 10 “Israeli policies cause anti- Semitism.” 11 “Supporters of Israel only criticize Arabs and never Israelis.” 12 2. The Mandatory Period ..................................................................14 “The British helped the Jews displace the native Arab population of Palestine.” 14 “The British allowed Jews to flood Palestine while Arab immigration was tightly controlled.” 14 “The British changed their policy after World War II to allow the survivors of the Holocaust to settle in Palestine.” 17 “As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, the plight of the Palestinian Arabs worsened.” 17 “Jews stole Arab land.” 18 “The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews.” 20 “The Mufti was not anti- Semitic.” 22 “The Irgun bombed the King David Hotel as part of a terror campaign against civilians.” 23 3. Partition ..........................................................................................26 “The United Nations unjustly partitioned Palestine.” 26 “The partition plan gave the Jews most of the land, and all of the cultivable area.” 28 “Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948.” 29 “The Palestinian Arabs were never offered a state and therefore have been denied the right to self- determination.” 29 “The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab; therefore, a unitary Arab state should have been created.” 31 “The Arabs were prepared to compromise to avoid bloodshed.” 31 4. The War of 1948 .............................................................................33 “The Jews started the first war with the Arabs.” 33 “The United States was the only nation that criticized the Arab attack on Israel.” 35 “The West’s support of Israel allowed the Jews to conquer Palestine.” 37 “The Arab economic boycott of Israel was imposed after the 1948 war.” 38 5. The 1956 War ..................................................................................40 “Arab governments were prepared to accept Israel after the 1948 war.” 40 “Israel’s military strike in 1956 was unprovoked.” 40 “The United States’ blind support for Israel was apparent during the Suez War.” 43 6. The 1967 Six- Day War ...................................................................45 “Arab governments recognized Israel after the Suez War.” 45 “Israel’s military strike in 1967 was unprovoked.” 45 “Nasser had the right to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.” 48 “The United States helped Israel defeat the Arabs in six days.” 51 “Israel attacked Jordan to capture Jerusalem.” 51 “Israel did not have to shoot first.” 51 “Israel had no intention of negotiating over the future of the territories it captured.” 53 “Israel expelled peaceful Arab villagers from the West Bank and prevented them from returning after the war.” 53 “Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty.” 55 7. The War of Attrition, 1967–1970 .................................................60 “The Palestinians were willing to negotiate a settlement after the Six- Day War.” 60 “After the 1967 war, Israel refused to negotiate a settlement with the Arabs.” 60 Index of Myths 351 “According to Security Council Resolution 242, Israel’s acquisition of territory through the 1967 war is ‘inadmissible.’ ” 61 “Resolution 242 requires Israel to return to its pre- 1967 boundaries.” 62 “Resolution 242 recognizes a Palestinian right to self- determination.” 63 “The Arab states and the PLO accepted Resolution 242 whereas Israel rejected it.” 63 “Israel was responsible for the War of Attrition.” 64 “Egypt terminated the War of Attrition and offered peace to Israel, only to have Jerusalem spurn these initiatives.” 64 “Israel’s rejection of Egyptian peace initiatives led to the Yom Kippur War.” 66 8. The 1973 War ..................................................................................67 “Israel was responsible for the 1973 war.” 67 “Anwar Sadat agreed to U.S. peace proposals and did not seek war.” 67 “Egypt and Syria were the only Arab states involved in the 1973 war.” 69 9. Boundaries ......................................................................................71 “The creation of Israel in 1948 changed political and border arrangements between independent states that had existed for centuries.” 71 “Israel has been an expansionist state since its creation.” 71 “The West Bank is part of Jordan.” 73 “Israel seized the Golan Heights in a war of aggression.” 74 “The Golan has no strategic significance for Israel.” 74 “Israel refuses to compromise on the Golan Heights while Syria has been willing to trade peace for land.” 76 “Israel illegally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, contravening international law and UN Resolution 242.” 77 “Israel can withdraw from the West Bank with little more difficulty than was the case in Sinai.” 79 “Israel’s demands for defensible borders are unrealistic in an era of ballistic missiles and long- range bombers.” 81 “Israel ‘occupies’ the West Bank.” 83 10. Israel and Lebanon .....................................................................85 “The PLO posed no threat to Israel and was observing a cease- fire when Israel attacked Lebanon.” 85 “The PLO treated the Lebanese with dignity and respect.” 86 “Israel was responsible for the massacre of thousands of Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shatila.” 86 352 Index of Myths “Israel still has not satisfied the UN’s demand to withdraw completely from Lebanon because of its illegal occupation of Shebaa Farms.” 89 “Syria has been a force for stability and good in Lebanon.” 89 “Syria intervened in Lebanon only because it was asked to do so by the Arab League.” 91 11. The Gulf Wars ...............................................................................93 “The 1991 Gulf War was fought for Israel.” 93 “Israel’s low profile in the Gulf War proved it has no strategic value to the United States.” 93 “Israel benefited from the 1991 Gulf War without paying any price.” 94 “Iraq was never a threat to Israel.” 95 “Saddam Hussein was never interested in acquiring nuclear weapons.” 96 “The PLO was neutral in the 1991 Gulf War.” 97 “American Jews goaded the United States to go to war against Iraq in 2003 to help Israel.” 98 12. The United Nations ....................................................................100 “The United Nations plays a constructive role in Middle East affairs. Its record of fairness and balance makes it an ideal forum for settling the Arab- Israeli dispute.” 100 “The Palestinians have been denied a voice at the UN.” 101 “Israel enjoys the same rights as any other member of the United Nations.” 102 “The United Nations and its affiliate institutions are critical of Israeli policies, but never attack Jews or engage in anti- Semitic rhetoric.” 103 “The Arab states approved the 1991 repeal of the resolution libeling Zionism.” 104 “Even if the General Assembly is biased, the Security Council has always been balanced in its treatment of the Middle East.” 105 “The United States always supports Israel and vetoes critical resolutions.” 105 “America’s Arab allies routinely support U.S. positions at the UN.” 106 “Israel’s failure to implement UN resolutions is a violation of international law.” 106 “The United Nations has demonstrated equal concern for the lives of Israelis and Palestinians.” 107 13. Refugees .....................................................................................109 “One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.” 109 “Palestinians were the only people who became refugees as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.” 109 “The Jews made clear from the outset they had no intention of living peacefully with their Arab neighbors.” 111 Index of Myths 353 “The Jews created the refugee problem by expelling the Palestinians.” 112 “The Arab invasion had little impact on the Palestinian Arabs.” 114 “Arab leaders never encouraged the Palestinians to flee.” 115 “The Palestinian Arabs had to flee to avoid being massacred as were the peaceful villagers in Deir Yassin.” 118 “Israel refused to allow Palestinians to return to their homes so Jews could steal their property.” 121 “UN resolutions call for Israel to repatriate all Palestinian refugees.” 122 “Palestinians who wanted to return to their homes posed no danger to Israeli security.” 124 “The Palestinian refugees were ignored by an uncaring world.” 125 “The Arab states have provided most of the funds for helping the Palestinian refugees.” 126 “The Arab states have always welcomed the Palestinians.” 127 “Millions of Palestinians are confined to squalid refugee camps.” 129 “Israel forced the Palestinian refugees to stay in camps in the Gaza Strip.” 129 “Refugees have always been repatriated, only the Palestinians have been barred from returning to their homes.” 130 “Had the Palestinian refugees been repatriated, the Arab- Israeli conflict could have ended.” 131 “Israel expelled more Palestinians in 1967.” 132 “UNRWA bears no responsibility for the terror and incitement that originates in the refugee camps.” 132 “All the Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes. 134 14. The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries ...............138 “Arabs cannot be anti- Semitic as they are themselves Semites.” 138 “Modern Arab nations are only anti- Israel and have never been anti- Jewish.” 138 “Jews who lived in Islamic countries were well- treated by the Arabs.” 141 “As ‘People of the Book,’ Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.” 143 15. Human Rights in Israel and the Territories ..........................160 “Israel discriminates against its Arab citizens.” 160 “Israeli Arabs are barred from buying land.” 161 “Israeli Arabs are discriminated against in employment.” 161 “Israel uses administrative detention to imprison peaceful Arabs without trial.” 162 “Arabs held in Israeli jails are tortured, beaten and killed.” 162 354 Index of Myths “Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is similar to the treatment of blacks in apartheid South Africa.” 163 “Israel is pursuing a policy of genocide toward the Palestinians comparable to the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews.” 164 “Palestinians have the lowest standard of living in the Middle East.” 165 “Israeli checkpoints unnecessarily prevent Palestinians from receiving medical attention.” 166 “Israel prevents Palestinian ambulances from taking sick and injured Palestinians to hospitals.” 168 “Israel uses checkpoints to deny Palestinians their rights and humiliate them.” 169 “Israeli textbooks are just as bad as those in the Palestinian Authority.” 171 “Israel is a theocracy and should not be a Jewish State.” 173 “Israel is persecuting Christians.” 174 16. The Palestinian War, 2000–2005 ............................................178 “The Palestinian War, dubbed by Arabs the ‘al- Aksa Intifada,’ was provoked by Ariel Sharon’s September 2000 visit to the Temple Mount.” 178 “A handful of Israelis have been murdered in the war while thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed by Israeli troops.” 179 “Violence is an understandable and legitimate reaction to Israel’s policies.” 180 “Israel created Hamas.” 181 “The Palestinian Authority arrests terrorists and confiscates illegal weapons.” 182 “Palestinians do not encourage children to engage in terror.” 182 “Palestinian women are becoming suicide bombers because of their commitment to ‘liberate’ Palestine.” 185 “Palestinians interested in peace and preventing terror are respected and allowed freedom of speech by the Palestinian Authority.” 186 “Israel uses excessive force to respond to children who are just throwing stones.” 187 “The shooting of a child being protected by his father shown on TV proves Israel does not hesitate to kill innocent Palestinian children.” 188 “Israel’s use of F- 16 fighter jets typifies the disproportionate use of force applied by Israel against innocent Palestinian civilians.” 190 “Israel’s policy of assassinating Palestinian terrorists is immoral and counterproductive.” 192 “Israel indiscriminately murders terrorists and Palestinian civilians.” 194 “Israel perpetrated a massacre in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002.” 195 “Rachel Corrie was murdered by Israel while she was peacefully protesting against the illegal demolition of a Palestinian home.” 197 “Israel poisoned Yasser Arafat.” 198 Index of Myths 355 17. Jerusalem ....................................................................................201 “Jerusalem is an Arab City.” 201 “The Temple Mount has always been a Muslim holy place and Judaism has no connection to the site.” 202 “Jerusalem need not be the capital of Israel.” 203 “Unlike the Jews, the Arabs were willing to accept the internationalization of Jerusalem.” 203 “Internationalization is the best solution to resolve the conflicting claims over Jerusalem.” 204 “From 1948 through 1967, Jordan ensured freedom of worship for all religions in Jerusalem.” 205 “Jordan safeguarded Jewish holy places.” 206 “Under Israeli rule, religious freedom has been curbed in Jerusalem.” 206 “Israel denies Muslims and Christians free access to their holy sites.” 207 “Israeli policy encourages attacks by Jewish fanatics against Muslim and Christian residents and their holy sites.” 208 “Israel has not acknowledged Palestinian claims to Jerusalem.” 209 “Israel has restricted the political rights of Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem.” 210 “Under UN Resolution 242, East Jerusalem is considered ‘occupied territory.’ Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem therefore violates the UN resolution.” 210 “East Jerusalem should be part of a Palestinian state because all its residents are Palestinian Arabs and no Jews have ever lived there.” 211 “The United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.” 211 “The Palestinians have been careful to preserve the archaeological relics of the Temple Mount.” 213 18. U.S. Middle East Policy .............................................................215 “The creation of Israel resulted solely from U.S. pressure.” 215 “The United States favored Israel over the Arabs in 1948 because of the pressures of the Jewish lobby.” 215 “The United States and Israel have nothing in common.” 216 “Most Americans oppose a close U.S. relationship with Israel.” 218 “U.S. policy has always been hostile toward the Arabs.” 219 “The United States has supported Israel automatically ever since 1948.” 220 “The U.S. has always given Israel arms to insure it would have a qualitative edge over the Arabs.” 221 “U.S. aid in the Middle East has always been one- sided, with the Arabs getting practically nothing.” 222 “Israel continues to demand large amounts of economic aid even though it is now a rich country that no longer needs help.” 223 356 Index of Myths “Israel boasts that it is the fourth strongest nation in the world, so it certainly doesn’t need U.S. military assistance.” 224 “U.S. military aid subsidizes Israeli defense contractors at the expense of American industry.” 225 “Israel was never believed to have any strategic value to the United States.” 226 “The employment of Jonathan Pollard to spy on the United States is proof that Israel works against American interests.” 227 “U.S. dependence on Arab oil has decreased over the years.” 229 “America’s support of Israel is the reason that terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11.” 230 “The hijacking of four airliners in one day, on September 11, was an unprecedented act of terror.” 231 “Israel’s Mossad carried out the bombing of the World Trade Center to provoke American hatred of Arabs.” 232 “Groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the PFLP are freedom fighters and not terrorists.” 232 “American universities should divest from companies that do business in Israel to force an end to Israeli ‘occupation’ and human rights abuses.” 233 “Advocates for Israel try to silence critics by labeling them anti- Semitic.” 234 “Arab- Americans are a powerful voting bloc that U.S. presidential candidates must pander to for votes.” 235 “The United States must be ‘engaged’ to advance the peace process.” 236 19. The Peace Process .....................................................................241 “Anwar Sadat deserves all of the credit for the Egyptian- Israeli peace treaty.” 241 “Egypt made all the concessions for peace.” 241 “The Palestinian question is the core of the Arab- Israeli conflict.” 242 “If the Palestinian problem was solved, the Middle East would be at peace.” 243 “Israel’s opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state is the cause of the present conflict.” 244 “A Palestinian state will pose no danger to Israel.” 244 “The Palestinians have never been offered a state of their own.” 245 “Yasser Arafat rejected Barak’s proposals in 2000 because they did not offer the Palestinians a viable state.” 246 “Israel and the Palestinians were on the verge of reaching a peace deal during negotiations at Taba in 2001, but Ariel Sharon’s election torpedoed the agreement.” 247 “The Palestinians are being asked to accept only 22% of Palestine for their state while Israel keeps 78%.” 248 “Ariel Sharon has made clear that he does not want peace and no deal is possible as long as he is Prime Minister.” 249 Index of Myths 357 “Israel must help Mahmoud Abbas improve his standing among Palestinians to facilitate the peace process.” 250 “The disengagement plan was a trick to allow Israel to hold onto the West Bank.” 251 “Israel evacuated Gaza, but turned it into a prison by preventing the movement of people or goods.” 252 “Israel should be replaced by a bi-national state where Jews and Palestinians live together.” 254 “The Palestinians have been educating their children about Israel and a future of coexistence with Israeli Jews.” 255 “Palestinians no longer object to the creation of Israel.” 256 “The Palestinians have given up their maximalist dream of destroying Israel.” 259 “Palestinians are driven to terror by desperation.” 259 “Palestinians are helpless to stop the terrorists.” 260 “Palestinians are justified in using violence because the peace process has not allowed them to achieve their national aspirations.” 261 “The Palestinian Authority has seized illegal weapons and fulfilled its obligation to restrict the possession of arms to the authorized police force.” 263 “The Palestinians have fulfilled their commitment to arrest and prosecute terrorists.” 264 “Palestinian terrorists only attack Israelis; they never assault Americans.” 264 “Hamas is a force for moderation in the territories. It advocates Muslim-Jewish harmony and reconciliation.” 266 “There is a distinction between the political and terror wings of Hamas.” 267 “Palestinians have no need for propaganda because the truth about Israeli behavior makes clear their barbarity.” 268 “Releasing Palestinian prisoners would build confidence for the peace process without endangering Israeli security.” 269 “Israel’s security fence won’t stop terrorism.” 270 “Israel is the only country that believes a fence can secure its borders.” 271 “The security fence should be built along the pre- 1967 border.” 272 “Israel is creating a Palestinian ghetto.” 273 “Israel’s security fence is just like the Berlin Wall.” 274 “Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the security fence is illegal.” 275 “Hundreds of Israeli soldiers are refusing to serve in the territories. This proves that Israel’s policies are unjust.” 276 “The Palestinian Authority protects Jewish holy sites.” 278 “Peace with Syria has been prevented only by Israel’s obstinate refusal to withdraw from the Golan Heights.” 279 “Israel’s continued occupation of Lebanese territory is the only impediment to the conclusion of a peace treaty.” 279 358 Index of Myths “Israel has a surplus of water and its refusal to share with its neighbors could provoke the next war.” 281 “Saudi Arabia is a force for peace and moderation that does not sponsor terror.” 283 “The Arab world’s commitment to peace is reflected by its abandonment of the boycott against Israel.” 284 20. Settlements .................................................................................289 “Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are illegal.” 289 “Settlements are an obstacle to peace.” 289 “The Geneva Convention prohibits the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied territories.” 291 “Israel is provocatively settling Jews in predominantly Arab towns, and has established so many facts on the ground territorial compromise is no longer possible.” 292 “At Camp David, during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Israel agreed to halt the construction of settlements for five years.” 292 “The Mitchell Report said Israeli settlement policy was as much to blame for the breakdown of the peace process as Palestinian violence and that a settlement freeze was a prerequisite to ending the violence.” 292 “Israel’s plan to link Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim is meant to sabotage the peace process.” 293 “Israel must dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank or peace is impossible.” 296 21. The Arms Balance ......................................................................300 “The threat from Israel, and the withdrawal of the United States’ offer to build the Aswan Dam, drove Egypt to seek arms from the Soviet Union in 1955. This started the Middle East arms race.” 300 “The Arab states have had to keep pace with an Israeli- led arms race.” 300 “Israel is militarily superior to its neighbors in every area and has maintained a qualitative edge over its enemies.” 301 “The sale of U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia has reduced the need for American troops to defend the Persian Gulf. These weapons pose no threat to Israel.” 302 “Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty to conceal its nuclear arsenal, and therefore threatens its neighbors.” 303 “Arms control in the Middle East is impossible so long as Israel refuses to give up its nuclear weapons.” 304 “Egypt is no longer a military threat since signing a peace treaty with Israel.” 304 “Iran has no ambition to become a nuclear power and poses no threat to Israel or the United States.” 305 Index of Myths 359 22. The Media ...................................................................................309 “Press coverage of Israel is proportional to its importance in world affairs.” 309 “Israel receives so much attention because it is the only country in the Middle East that affects U.S. interests.” 309 “Media coverage of the Arab world is objective.” 310 “Journalists covering the Middle East are driven by the search for the truth.” 312 “Israel gets favorable coverage because American Jews control the media and have disproportionate political influence.” 313 “Arab officials tell Western journalists the same thing they tell their own people.” 313 “Journalists are well- versed in Middle East history and therefore can place current events in proper context.” 314 “Israelis cannot deny the truth of pictures showing their abuses.” 315 “The press makes no apologies for terrorists.” 316 “The Palestinian Authority places no restrictions on foreign reporters.” 318 “The media carefully investigates Palestinian claims before publicizing them.” 320