Myths of the Palestine/Israel Conflict (As stated in 'Witness in Palestine')

Myth #1: This is an ancient war between Jews and Muslims.

The Israel-Palestine conflict actually began quite recently. Jews and Palestinians had traditionally coexisted with little if any conflict between then before Zionist immigration began. European settlers started purchasing land from absentee Arab owners for exclusive Jewish labor and settlement, leading to the dispossession of non-Jewish peasants living on that land. (Don Pertz, The Arab-Israel Dispute; as cited in The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, third edition)

This is not a conflict of the Jewish people versus the Muslim people. First of all, 20% of Palestinians worldwide are Christians, and they are subject to the same restrictions as their Muslim counterparts. Israel has a strong peace movement calling for an end to the mutually-destructive Occupation, and many Jews find Zionist itself antithetical to Jewish principles.

Myth #2: Jewish Israelis are the descendants of the original inhabitants of Israel/Palestine.

Before the Hebrews first migrated there around 1800 B.C., present day Israel/Palestine was inhabited by Canaanites. The Jewish kingdoms ruled for 414 years, just one of the many periods in the land of Canaan. Palestinians are the descendents of intermarried Canaanites and Arabs who arrived in the 600s. (The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, third edition)

Genetic studies have shown that Sephardic Jews (descendents of Canaanites who migrated to the Iberian peninsula and then to North Africa and the Middle East) are actually closer to Palestinians than they are to Ashkenazi Jews (concentrated in Eastern Europe). This is because Ashkenazi Israelis are largely the descendents of Turkic kahazars (of Slavic ancestry) who converted to Judaism in the 700s or 800s, not the descendents of Canaanites. According to geneticist Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, “the Zionist concept of ‘return’ is flawed, at least with respect to Ashkenazi Jews … Return implies that one’s ancestors originated from the area in question”. (Qumsiyeh)

The idea that anyone has claim to land based on blood or religion rather than geography is inherently problematic and dangerous, but for those inclined to argue in the basis of ancient inheritance, it is instructive to know that Palestinians have as much-if not more- ancestral claim to the land as Jews do.

Myth #3: Israel is a democracy.

Israel is the state of the Jewish people, not the state of its citizens. Non-Jewish citizens are excluded from many things granted automatically to Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel are largely prevented from buying or leasing 93% of the land in Israel, much of it owned by the Jewish National Fund and thus exclusively reserved for Jews. Although they pay taxes, Palestinian citizen of Israel living in non-Jewish neighborhoods receive only a fraction of the resources and services granted to Jewish neighborhoods. Palestinian citizens of Israel are allowed to vote, and they can even run for office, unless they run on a platform advocating that Israel become the state of all its citizens rather than the state only of the Jews, in which case they can be disqualified. (www.Adalah.org) A 1989 High Court case challenging the law found that “it is necessary to prevent a Jew or Arab who calls for equality of rights for Arabs from sitting in the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] or being elected to it.” One Justice stated that a political party should be disqualified if it advocates “a state, as all democratic states, of the totality of its citizens, without any advantage to the Jewish people as such.” (Chomsky, Fateful)

Moreover, more than one third of the people living under Israeli rule are denied Israeli citizenship and the rights and protections that come along with it, including the right to participate in the government that controls their lives. These are the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The government in which non-Jews in the Occupied Territories can participate is not allowed to do basic things like control its peoples own borders, security, or finances.

It is worth noting that Israel is a democracy for Jews. In other words, Israel is an ethnocracy.

Myth #4: The return of the Palestinian refugees would mean the displacement of Jewish Israelis, and is therefore impossible.

Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, a former member of the Palestinian National Council and the founder of the Palestine Land Society, has conducted extensive research on the possibility of refugees returning to their villages, many of which no longer exist. At an international convention on the right of return in July of 2006, he clarified his findings in four illustrative points:

• The land of the refugees, roughly 93% of present day Israel, is currently inhabited by 1.5% of Israeli Jews.

• Of the more than 500 Palestinian villages from which the refugees were expelled, 90% are still vacant (many planted over with trees), 7% are partially built-over, and just 3% are completely built over-those in Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem.

• A full 97% of the refugees live within 62 miles of their homes, and 50% of them live within 25 miles. Many can see their land from their camp but cannot go there.

• The population density of Gaza is roughly 15,500 people/square mile, while Gaza’s refugees’ land nearby is practically empty-fewer than 16 Israelis/square mile. There are fewer Jews in the half of Israel closest to Gaza (from Ramleh to Eilat) than the population of a single Gaza refugee camp. Israel has welcomed as many Russian immigrants as there are Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Gaza combined, and has been clear that it would make room for millions more Jewish immigrants of such a possibility arose. (Al-Awad’s 4th International Convention)

The issue is not about space; it’s about demographics. The issue is that allowing Palestinian refugees to return would alter the ethnic character of Israel.

Myth #5: Israel has no genuine partner for negotiations or peace.

The most common example cited as “proof” that Palestinians don’t want peace is Yasser Arafat’s rejection of the offer presented by Israeli Prime Minister Barak at Camp David in 2000. Widely perceived as generous, in fact the proposal fell far short of Israel’s responsibilities to the Palestinians under international law in numerous ways:

• The proposal suggested that Israel annex 10% of the West Bank, including some of its most fertile and water rich areas, also home to more than 80,000 Palestinians.

• The proposal kept Israel in control of the West Bank’s border with Jordan, thereby creating a defacto Palestinian island within Israel.

• The proposal offered the Palestinians control over the Arab sections of Jerusalem, but kept all of the city-as well as 85.3% of settlers-under Israeli sovereignty.

• The proposal specified that the Palestinian state would not control airspace or water, and could not have an army.

• The proposal cut the Palestinian state into three separate cantons: the Gaza Strip, the north West Bank, and the south West Bank. Gaza had no clear territorial link to the West Bank.

• The proposal denied Palestinians refugees their right to return to their homes and land to live in peace with their neighbors. (Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights, 2002)

Arafat’s rejection of Barak’s offer does not seem so shocking when you see a map of what the finial effect would have looked like. President Jimmy Carter writes about Camp David: “There was no possibility that any Palestinian leader could accept such terms and survive, but official statements from Washington and Jerusalem were successful in placing the entire onus for the failure on Yasir Arafat.” (Carter) Even Barak’s foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami-a key player at Camp David-later admitted publicly: “If I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David as well.” (As cited by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East)

One could argue that Arafat should have agreed to the proposal because now the Palestinians are even worse off, but that’s not a logic employed by many Palestinians. Most of them would prefer being forced into oppression than signing away their rights to freedom. Maybe this way they can still hope for change.

In fact, Israel has been offered peace in exchange for compliance with international law several times, and rejected each offer. Here are some examples:

• In the mid-1970’s, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) endorsed a comprehensive peace with Israel in exchange for its full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel rejected the offer. (Finkelstein, Image)

• In March 2002, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, along with 21 other members of the Arab League, proposed not only peace but normal relations and regional integration with Israel in exchange for an end to the Occupation and a “just solution” to the refugee problem. Israel rejected the offer. (Ibid)

• Israel effectively rejected the Saudi Initiative a second time when the proposal was included as part of the “Roadmap” announced by the UN. Wrote Carter: “The Palestinians accepted the road map in its entirety, but the Israeli government announced fourteen caveats and prerequisites, some of which preclude any final peace talks.”

The Palestinians long ago joined the international consensus advocating two states based on the 1967 borders, shared Jerusalem, and a joint solution for the refugees. Fatah recognized Israel’s right to exist and renounced violence in 1988.(PASSIA) Hamas has also announced its willingness to establish peace with Israel along its internationally recognized borders. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh told Newsweek and the Washington Post: “If Israel withdrawals to the 1967 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages. We will establish a situation of stability and calm which will bring safety for our people…a long term hudna [ceasefire].” (Yitzhak Ben-Horin, Israel News)

Israel has refused to negotiate with the democratically elected Palestinian government of Hamas for three official reasons: (1) failure to renounce violence, (2) failure to recognize and abide by previous agreements, and (3) failure to recognize the right of a state besides one of its own to exist in historic Palestine. Interestingly, Israel is guilty of all three of the very things for which it faults Hamas.

Myth #6: Israel only uses violence as a last resort, to defend itself and to prevent terror attacks.

Human rights organizations have documented extensive disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Israeli army for over 40 years. For example, according to Amnesty International, most of the children killed by soldiers in 2002 were attacked “when there was no exchange of fire and in circumstance in which the lives of the soldiers were not at risk.” B’tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, described the situation as follows: “In every city and refugee camp that they entered, IDF soldiers have repeated the same pattern: indiscriminate firing and then killing of innocent civilians, intentional harm to water, electricity and telephone infrastructure, taking over civilian houses, extensive damage to civilian property, shooting at ambulances and prevention of medical care to the injured.” (A Deadly Pattern, B’tselem March 2002)