Myths & Facts Online

The Peace Process

By Mitchell G. Bard

---

“Anwar Sadat deserves all of the credit for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.”
“Egypt made all the concessions for peace.”
“At Camp David, during the Carter Administration, Israel agreed to halt the construction of settlements for five years. Within months, Israel had violated the accords by establishing new settlements on the West Bank.”
“The Palestinian question is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
“If the Palestinian problem was solved, the Middle East would be at peace.”
“A secular, democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the solution to the conflict.”
“A Palestinian state will pose no danger to Israel.”
“Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are illegal, and an obstacle to peace.”
“Israel is provocatively settling Jews in predominantly Arab towns, and has established so many facts on the ground that territorial compromise is no longer possible.”
“Israel must evacuate all Jewish settlements before a final peace agreement can be achieved with the Palestinians.”
“Jerusalem should be capital of a Palestinian state.”
“Any agreement on Jerusalem would require Israel to give up sovereignty over the Temple Mount.”
“Peace with Syria has been prevented only by Israel's obstinate refusal to withdraw from the Golan Heights.”
“Israel's continued occupation of Lebanese territory is the only impediment to the conclusion of a peace treaty.”
“All the Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes and this is a prerequisite for a final settlement.”
“Following the Oslo accords, the Palestinians have been educating their children about Israel and a future of coexistence with Israeli Jews.”
“The Interim Agreement called for the creation of a Palestinian police force and that is precisely what the Palestinian Authority created.”
“The Palestinians have fulfilled their commitment to arrest and prosecute terrorists.”
“Palestinians are justified in using violence because the peace process has not allowed them to achieve their national aspirations.”
“Israel has a surplus of water and its refusal to share with its neighbors could provoke the next war.”
“The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) is a force for moderation in the territories. It advocates Arab-Jewish harmony and reconciliation. “Israel withdrew from all of the Sinai to achieve peace with Egypt, withdrew to the international border with Lebanon and has offered to withdraw from the entire Golan Heights in a peace agreement with Syria; therefore, Israel should withdraw from 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to make peace with the Palestinians.”
“For lasting peace, there must be two viable states living as equal neighbors, but Israel wants to divide the West Bank and Gaza Strip into cantons that would be surrounded and controlled by Israelis. This is one reason the Palestinians rejected Israel's Camp David proposal in July 2000.”
“The members of the Arab League signed an antiterrorism pact and oppose any form of terrorism.
“Israel illegally took over the District Governor's Compound and the Palestinians' offices in Orient House, and has reoccupied territory in Jerusalem that was given to the Palestinians.”
“The Palestinians joined the rest of the world in condemning the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.”
“The Palestinian Authority has seized illegal weapons and otherwise fulfilled its obligations under the Oslo agreements to restrict the possession of arms to the authorized police force.”
“Palestinian terrorists have only targeted Israelis and never attacked Americans.”

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

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

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

MYTH

"Egypt made all the concessions for peace."

FACT

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

Israel — which had repeatedly been the target of shipping blockades, military assaults and terrorist attacks staged from the area — made far greater economic and strategic sacrifices in giving up 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 by soldiers from their homes.

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

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

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

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

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

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

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

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. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Syria's brutal subjugation of Lebanon are only two examples of inter-Arab warfare that has long characterized the Middle East. Here is but a partial list of other conflicts from the end of the 20^th century: the 1991 Gulf War; the Iran-Iraq War; the Lebanese Civil War; Libya's interference in Chad; the Sudanese Civil War; the Syria-Iraq conflict and the war between the Polisario Front and Morocco.

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

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

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

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

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

If the Palestinians were content to have a state in the West Bank and Gaza, the prospects for a final settlement would be very good; however, they have consistently held out for much more. Prior to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians laid claim to all of Israel, but they have subsequently recognized Israel's right to exist (though their rhetoric often suggests the dream of returning to their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and elsewhere has not died). Still, today they want not only the entire West Bank and Gaza but Jerusalem, which they demand as their capital.

MYTH

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

FACT

Though reconciled to the creation of a Palestinian state, and hopeful that it will coexist peacefully, Israelis still see such an entity as a threat to their security. Even after returning much of the West Bank and Gaza and allowing the Palestinians to govern themselves, terrorism against Israeli Jews has continued. So far, no amount of concessions by Israel has been sufficient to prompt Arafat and his security forces 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."⁴

 MYTH

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

FACT

Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are "illegal." International legal scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.⁵

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote. During the debate on the resolution, he added, "speaker after speaker made it clear that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile' and 'vulnerable' [1949] Armistice Demarcation Lines."⁶

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

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

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

Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar length of time to do the same to the Zionists. The growth in the Jewish population in the territories forced the Arabs to question this tenet. "The Palestinians now realize," said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, "that time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face negotiations."⁷ Consequently, the Arabs went to Madrid and Washington for peace talks despite continued settlement activity. And all of the agreements signed with the Palestinians as part of the "Oslo process" have been negotiated without any change in Israel's settlement policy.

MYTH

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

FACT

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

Strategic concerns have led both Labor and Likud governments to establish settlements. The objective is to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank, such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, the scene of heavy fighting in several Arab-Israeli wars. Still, when Arab-Israeli peace talks began in late 1991, more than 80 percent of the West Bank contained no settlements or only sparsely populated ones.⁸

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

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

MYTH

"Jerusalem should be capital of a Palestinian state.

FACT

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. Both Christians and Jews have as good a claim, if not better, than Muslims do to the city. Palestinians have no special claim to the city, they simply demand it as their capital.

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

Following intense behind-the-scenes contacts between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Oslo, an agreement was achieved between Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. Arafat renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist while Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians in peace negotiations. On September 13, 1993, a joint Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles (DoP), based on the agreement worked out in Oslo, was signed by the two parties in Washington, outlining the proposed interim self-government arrangements, as envisioned and agreed by both sides. The arrangements contained in the DoP include immediate Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and Jericho, early empowerment for the Palestinians in West Bank and an agreement on self-government and the election of a Palestinian council.

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

The agreement also says that the final status will be based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, neither of which mentions Jerusalem. In fact, the U.S. Ambassador who helped draft Resolution 242, Arthur Goldberg, said it "in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate....Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank."

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

The two sides agreed on interim autonomy for the Palestinians, the creation of a Palestinian Authority, the election of a Palestinian Council, and the redeployment of Israeli military forces in the West Bank and Gaza. Jerusalem, however, was specifically excluded from all these arrangements. It was also decided that during the interim period, the Palestinian Council would have no jurisdiction over issues to be determined in the final status negotiations, including Jerusalem. It was explicitly agreed that the authority of the Palestinian Authority would extend only over those parts of the West Bank and Gaza that were transferred to its jurisdiction, to the exclusion of those areas to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations, including Jerusalem and Israeli settlements.

In response to talk of altering Jerusalem’s status, former Mayor Teddy Kollek, whose reputation for tolerance and efforts to promote coexistence in the city was respected by all sides, wrote: "The Palestinians' demand for the establishment of two capitals or two municipalities cannot be accepted within the framework of united Jerusalem."

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

Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered dramatic concessions that would have given Palestinians greater control over larger areas of East Jerusalem and more authority over the Temple Mount. These ideas were discussed at the Camp David Summit in July 2000, but rejected by Yasir Arafat. Violence by Palestinians against Israelis subsequently escalated and, after the destruction of Joseph's Tomb and a number of other Jewish religious shrines by Palestinian rioters, the prospects for compromise on Jerusalem dimmed. The violence also reinforced the Israeli view that the Palestinians would not protect Jewish holy places or maintain freedom of Jewish access.

Ariel Sharon subsequently ran for Prime Minister in February 2001 against Barak on a platform specifically repudiating the concessions Barak offered on Jerusalem. Sharon's victory has made it unclear whether a compromise on Jerusalem will be possible.

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

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

MYTH

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

FACT

After the 1948 war, no more than 800,000 Palestinians (and probably considerably fewer) were refugees. Today, the number has swelled to 3.7 million. Does Israel have any obligation to accept all of those? Where would they live? The current Israeli population is 6 million. If every Palestinian was allowed to move to Israel, the population would be nearly 10 million and more than 40 percent Arab. Given the Arabs' significantly higher birth rate, the Jews would soon be a minority in their own country, the very situation they fought to avoid in 1948 and which the UN expressly ruled out in deciding on a partition of Palestine.

Israel has consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. David Ben-Gurion said as early as August 1, 1948, that the refugee issue would be part of the general settlement "when the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty."⁹

The implied danger of repatriating Arabs opposed to its existence did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return and agreed to repatriate 100,000 refugees.¹⁰

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

In an interview with the Israeli Defense Ministry’s monthly Bitachon, Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said the topographical concerns associated with withdrawing from the Golan Heights could be offset by demilitarization. "Our red line needs to be a defensible border, a border where the chief of General Staff can come to the government or the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and say: ‘From this line I can defend the State of Israel with minimum losses.’" Sneh added, "the deeper the demilitarization and the better the early warning, the more we will allow ourselves to be flexible topographically." Sneh also emphasized that Israel could not compromise on water sources.

Besides military security, a key to peace with Syria, Sneh said, would be the normalization of relations between the two countries. "When an Israeli thinks of normalization he wants to get up in the morning and take his wife and kids on a shopping trip to Damascus and come home," Sneh said. "The Syrians see normalization as an exchange of ambassadors and flight links – maximum. We need to demand that it be a peace warmer than with Egypt, closer to the type of peace we have with Jordan."

In the meantime, substantial opposition exists within Israel to withdrawing from the Golan Heights. The expectation of many is that public opinion will shift if and when the Syrians sign an agreement and take measures, such as reigning in Hizballah attacks on Israel from southern Lebanon, that demonstrate a genuine interest in peace. And public opinion will determine whether a treaty is concluded because a law  was adopted during Prime Minister Netanyahu's term that requires any agreement to be approved in a national referendum.

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. President Assad died in June 2000 and no further talks have been held as Assad's son and successor, Bashar has moved to consolidate his power. Rhetorically, Bashar has not indicated any shift in Syria's position on the Golan.

MYTH

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

FACT

Israel has never had any hostile intentions toward Lebanon, but has been forced to fight as a result of the chaotic conditions in southern Lebanon that have allowed terrorists, first the PLO, and now Hizbullah, 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 constituted an Israeli fulfillment of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 425. Still, Hizbullah and the Lebanese government insist that Israel holds Lebanese territory in a largely uninhabited patch called Shebaa Farms. This claim provides Hizbullah with a pretext to continue its attacks against Israel. The Israelis maintain, however, that the land was captured from Syria.

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

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

Palestinians are also calling on their youth to join the battle against Israel in commercials on Palestinian TV that tell children to drop their toys, pick up rocks, and do battle with Israel. In one commercial, actors recreate the incident where a child was killed in the crossfire of a confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians. The commercial shows the child in paradise urging other children to “follow him.”¹¹

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 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 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. The Israeli government has videotape showing campers staging mock kidnappings and learning how to slit the throats of Israelis. Four "Paradise Camps" run by Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip offer 8-12 year-olds military training and encourage them to become suicide bombers. The BBC filmed children marching in formation and practicing martial arts.¹²

The Palestinian authorities also try to convince children that Israel is out to kill them by all sort of devious methods. For example, the Palestinian daily newspaper, Al Hayat Jadida, reported that Israeli aircraft were dropping poisonous candy over elementary and junior high schools in the Gaza Strip.¹³

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

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

Israel would probably overlook the violation of the agreed limit on the number of police officers if they were carrying out their responsibility to maintain order. It is clear from the violence that has persisted in 2000-2001, however, that the police are not doing their jobs. Worse, in many instances the police have participated in attacks against Israelis. Perhaps the worst example was the lynching of two Israeli soldiers who had been taken to a Palestinian police station before being set upon by a mob on October 12, 2000.

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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 P.A. Preventive Security in the West Bank, Jebril Rajoub Islamic Association for Palestine, June 9, 2001

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Egypt still wasn't completely satisfied. Sadat demanded a small sliver of land that Israel retained in the Sinai. It took another nine years before international arbitration led Israel to give up Taba. Rather than using this dispute as a pretext for violating the peace treaty, Egypt negotiated.

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."¹⁶

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.¹⁷

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.

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

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

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

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

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

The amount of water to be supplied to the territories by Israel was determined in negotiations between the two sides. The Interim Agreement defines the number of wells that Israel is obligated to dig, and the number the P.A. and international bodies are obligated to dig. Cooperation on issues of sewage and environment was also defined. It was decided that jurisdiction over water would be transferred to the Palestinians in the framework of the transfer of civil powers. It was further decided to establish joint monitoring teams.

Israel has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Interim Agreement. The water quota agreed upon, and more, is being supplied. Jurisdiction over water was transferred completely and on time. Israel approved the additional digging of wells. Israel and the P.A. carry out joint patrols to locate cases of water theft and other water-related problems.

In response to the threat to water supplies posed by the "al-Aksa Intifada," Palestinian and Israeli water officials issued a joint statement in January 2001 opposing any damage to water and wastewater infrastructure and expressing the intent to ensure the water supply to the Palestinian and Israeli cities, towns and villages in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.¹⁸

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.

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."²⁰

MYTH

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

FACT

Hamas is opposed to Israel's existence in any form. Its platform states that "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad (holy war)." The group warns that any Muslim who leaves "the circle of struggle with Zionism" is guilty of "high treason." Hamas' platform calls for the creation of an Islamic republic in Palestine that would replace Israel. Muslims should "raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine," it says.²¹

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

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

MYTH

“For lasting peace, there must be two viable states living as equal neighbors, but Israel wants to divide the West Bank and Gaza Strip into cantons that would be surrounded and controlled by Israelis. This is one reason the Palestinians rejected Israel's Camp David proposal in July 2000.”

FACT

The formula for determining the final borders of a Palestinian state and Israel is complex. It requires consideration of a number of factors, including demographics, geography and security. It is understandable that the Palestinians would want their state to have contiguous territories, but it is impossible. The Gaza Strip cannot be connected to the West Bank unless Israel were to cede a swath of territory connecting the two areas that would effectively cut the Jewish state in half so that it would not be contiguous. The Palestinians have no claim to any of this territory, but safe passage routes have been created to facilitate the traffic back and forth. Within the West Bank itself, the situation is particularly complicated in part because of Israel's need to have forces in the Jordan Valley for security purposes and the need to incorporate large Jewish towns that are currently across the "Green Line."

The United Nations faced the same problem when it considered partition. The map it drew for the Arab and Jewish states was based more on the Jewish/Arab population of different areas than anything else. It also called for non-contiguous areas, essentially three cantons for each state. The Arab state, though considerably bigger than the one discussed today, still involved the West Bank and Gaza Strip being surrounded by the Jew state. The UN proposal also added a part of northern Palestine to the Arab state. Jerusalem was to be internationalized, but it was in the middle of the Arab state and completely cut off from the Jewish areas. Though this was far from ideal, the Jews accepted the partition plan.

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

Even this was too much for Al-Jihad al-Islami - Fatah, one of the targets of the agreement. The group, which assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, immediately denounced the pact for serving the "interests of the Zionist enemy."

For the members of the Arab League, the objective of "national liberation" justifies attacks against civilians, including women and children. This rationalization leads to the notion that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. But terrorism is possible to define. Here's how the FBI defines the word:

"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."

Removing the subjectivity from the question makes clear the Arabs seeking "liberation" from the Jews are terrorists.

Ironically, as Ed Blanche, the editor of Lebanon's Daily Star noted (April 23, 1998), some of the governments voting for the pact "had at one time or another engaged in terrorist attacks on each other in the myriad feuds that wracked the Arab world in the not-too-distant past."

Blanche also observed that the agreement, first discussed eight years ago, was aimed primarily at Islamic fundamentalists seeking to topple the governments in Egypt, Algeria and the Persian Gulf. Though the accord calls for the extradition of terrorists, it also provided the loophole of exempting fugitives who are being sought for what a sheltering nation considers political reasons.

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

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

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

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

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

MYTH

“The Palestinians joined the rest of the world in condemning the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.”

FACT

Having learned his lesson from allying himself and the Palestinian people with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, Yasser Arafat did condemn the attack against the United States. Palestinians throughout the West Bank, Gaza Strip and refugee camps in Lebanon, however, celebratred the attacks. Among those celebrating were members of the Palestinian Authority police force, who fired their guns in the air. Others chanted, "God is Great," and handed out sweets.

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.

The cameraman requested that the material not be aired and, AP caved in to the blackmail and refused to release the footage.

AP Bureau Chief Dan Perry protested and sought assurances from the PA that "you will protect our journalists from threats and attempts at intimidation and that no harm would come to our freelance cameraman from distribution of the film."

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 Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden. Two separate parts of the six-minute tape involving "key elements" were erased by the Palestinians, according to an AP official.

The Foreign Press Association in Israel expressed "deep concern over the harassment of journalists by the Palestinian Authority as police forces and armed gunmen tried to prevent photo and video coverage of Tuesday's rally in Nablus where hundreds of Palestinians celebrated the terror attacks in New York and Washington." The FPA also condemned the threats against videographers and "the attitude of Palestinian officials who made no effort to counter the threats, control the situation, or to guarantee the safety of the journalists and the freedom of the press."

Israel Radio reported Septermber 14, 2001, that the Palestinian Authority seized the footage filmed that day by cameraman from various international and even Arab news agencies covering celebrations held in cities across the West Bank and Gaza by Hamas of the attacks against America. The celebrants waived photographs of wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden.²³

After the U.S. coalition attacked Afghanistan, Hamas organized a rally in the Gaza Strip in which thousands of Palestinians marched in support of suspected terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. To its credit, the Palestinian Authority had banned the demonstration and tried to break it up. Illustrating how difficult this can be (and why similar outcomes occur in riots against Israeli forces), at least 10 policemen were wounded and three protestors were killed.²⁴

MYTH

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

FACT

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

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

In June, when they agreed to the Tenet Cease-Fire Plan, the Palestinians committed themselves, again, to "make a concerted effort to locate and confiscate illegal weapons, including mortars, rockets, and explosives" and "to prevent smuggling and illegal production of weapons." They have failed to do either.

MYTH

“Palestinian terrorists have only targeted Israelis and never attacked 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 murders were captured by Sudan and admitted they had gotten orders directly from the PLO. U.S. intelligence officials were believed to also have evidence directly tying Yasser Arafat to the killings, but for unknown reasons suppressed. All the terrorists were released.²⁶

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

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

• In March 1988, Arafat's Fatah declared it had attempted to murder Secretary of State George Shultz by planting a car bomb near his Jerusalem hotel.27

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

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

Notes

¹Speech to AIPAC Policy Conference, (May 8, 1978).
²Middle East News Agency, (September 20, 1978).
³Daniel Pipes, The Long Shadow: Culture and Politics in the Middle East, (NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989), pp. 273-74.
⁴Michael Widlanski, Can Israel Survive A Palestinian State?, (Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1990), pp. 10, 35.
⁵American Journal of International Law, (April, 1970), pp. 345-46.
⁶New Republic, (October 21, 1991), p. 14.
⁷Washington Post, (November 1, 1991).
⁸Jerusalem Post, (October 22, 1991).
⁹Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 335.
¹⁰Terence Prittie, "Middle East Refugees," in Michael Curtis, et al., The Palestinians, (NJ: Transaction Books, 1975), pp. 66-67.
¹¹NBC News, (May 8, 2001) and MSNBC.
¹²Near East Report, (June 25, 2001); Jerusalem Post, (July 20, 2001).
¹³Jerusalem Post, (May 23, 2001).
¹⁴See, for example, CNN, (January 13, 2001); AP, (July 31, 2001).
¹⁵Washington Post, (July 18, 2001) quoting from 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.
¹⁶Jerusalem Post, (July 16, 1994).
¹⁷Washington Times, (July 30, 1990).
¹⁸Israeli-Palestinian Joint Water Committee, "Joint Declaration for Keeping the Water Infrastructure out of the Cycle of Violence," (January 31, 2001).
¹⁹Mideast Mirror, (October 7, 1991).
²⁰Washington Post, (September 10, 1995).
²¹Hamas Covenant.
²²Jerusalem Post, (August 9, 2001).
²³Associated Press and Jerusalem Post, (September 13, 2001), IMRA, (September 13-14, 2001), JTA, (September 20, 2001).
²⁴JTA, (October 8, 2001) and Jerusalem Post, (October 10, 2001).
²⁵Washington Post, (October 10, 2001).
²⁶Neil Livingstone and David Halevy. Inside the PLO, (Readers Digest Press, 1990), pp. 276-288.
²⁷Chicago Tribune, (May 5, 1988).
²⁸Washington Post, (August 10, 2001).

Water map courtesy of AIPAC

See also: History of Israel
Peace Process
United Nations

Previous
Next
Table of Contents
Index

To order the paperback edition, click HERE.